Wiktionary:Requests for verification

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup add new request | history | archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.	Requests for verification English add new request | history CJK add new request | history Italic add new request | history Non-English (all other languages) add new request | history Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.	Requests for deletion English add new request | history CJK add new request | history Italic add new request | history Reconstruction add new request | history Non-English (all other languages) add new request | history Requests for deletion of pages in the main and Reconstruction namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.	Requests for deletion/Others add new request | history Requests for deletion and undeletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.
Requests for moves, mergers and splits add new request | history | archives Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.			Language treatment requests add new request | history Requests for changes to Wiktionary's language treatment practices, including renames, merges and splits.
{{attention}} • {{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfeq}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

All Wiktionary: namespace discussions 1 2 3 4 5 - All discussion pages 1 2 3 4 5

Requests for Verification is Wiktionary’s forum for verifying whether a definition meets our criteria for inclusion.

• See Wiktionary:Cleanup and deletion elements WT:CDE for a full list of the codes, templates, lists, categories etc involved in the cleanup and deletion process.

Make a new nomination

A request will remain for one month after nomination. It may be removed sooner if verification has been made—generally about a week afterwards will be given to allow any disputes about the verification itself to arise.

After that time:

1. The {{rfv}} or {{rfv-sense}} template will be removed.
2. If insufficient evidence is found, it will be archived to the talk page of the entry in question with a note saying it failed RFV, for future reference in case new evidence emerges. Then the disputed sense will be removed or the disputed entry will be deleted with a note saying it failed RFV, whichever is applicable. (If it seems to be a protologism, it will be added to the list of protologisms.)
3. The RFV discussion will then be archived.
4. Terminology note: "rfvpassed" means sufficient verification was found to retain the entry; "rfvfailed" means insufficient evidence of the word in use was found, therefore it was removed.

How does one verify a sense?

• Cite, on the article page, the word’s usage in a well-known work. Currently, well-known work has not been clearly defined, but good places to start from are: works that stand out in their field, works from famous authors, major motion pictures, and national television shows that have run for multiple seasons. Be aware that if a word is a nonce word that never entered widespread use, it should be marked as such.
• Cite, on the article page, the word’s usage in a refereed academic journal.
• Cite, on the article page, usage of the word in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year.

  See: criteria for inclusion, format for citations, and standard entry layout.

• Advise on this page that the citations have been placed on the article page.

Note:

• RFV is generally for testing whether information can be safely deleted. Occasionally simple fact-checking questions are posted, particularly for non-English words: these queries are better suited for article talk pages or the Tea room.
• Verification is accomplished by the gathering of information, not of votes. If the information is not gathered, a sysop will make a decision whether to transfer the disputed word to the requests for deletion page. WARNING. If no verification is provided, the word may be deleted from this page.

See also: Wiktionary:Lists of words needing attention

Oldest tagged RFVs
No pages meet these criteria.

June 2008

griper

• Sense 2: "an oppressor",
• Sense 3: "an extortioner" Thryduulf 21:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The three senses were copied straight out of Webster 1913, FWIW.—msh210℠ 21:41, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't find any uses of the term in those senses; in a year, neither has anyone else. Rfv-fail, despite Webster? — Beobach972 18:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

15 months seems enough to me, senses removed. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I know this is annoying, but ... cited. :-) I have followed the OED in merging the two senses, which don't seem to have been particularly distinct. -- Visviva 10:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Þrymskviða

Isn't this Anglicized, as described on wikipedia? If so it shouldn't have the ==English== heading Conrad.Irwin 23:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

See also Category:Books of the Poetic Edda. Conrad.Irwin 00:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This could possibly be attested in English, but it looks like it would be rare. I have changed it to an Old Norse entry, which can be linked to an English (anglicised) entry — Beobach972 15:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Verified. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Striking as verified. bd2412 T 01:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

on the level

rfv-sense: "A discreet reference to freemasonry." Usage example given: Are you on the level? (meaning: "Are you a freemason like myself?").

And I don't believe the freemasonry etymology either. DCDuring TALK 16:36, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• I had always thought that there was a reference to Freemasonry in this expression. However, the reference given has this quote "The use of the terms "square" or "level" as metaphors for honesty and trustworthiness also can be found in the annals of Rome, Greece, Egypt and China. They were not invented by the freemasons." So there you go. Probably needs a usage note though (to stop a readdition). SemperBlotto 21:23, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't really take the Masons' word for it either, one way or the other. But my dictionaries suggest that "level" and "square" in the figurative meanings we have today certainly go back to Classical Latin. I am willing to be proven wrong about this term. DCDuring TALK 23:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I would rfv-fail this unless someone feels like the reference given is sufficient. However, I think this does have another sense beyond just 'honest', a general sense of 'a member of the same group' (not limited to freemasons). — Beobach972 18:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• I would support the definition. It's been said to me a couple of times. I don't know if it originated with Freemasonry or not, but it's definitely a phrase associated with the movement. Ƿidsiþ 18:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Venizelos

Hard to find clearly English citations, as opposed to transliterations.

Actually, I'm not sure how to distinguish the two.—msh210℠ 20:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Definition is "a surname" - doesn't actually tell us anything. SemperBlotto 21:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Not sure what else you want. Surnames don't have definitions. They have etymologies, of course, and their lowercase versions sometimes have meanings, but the names themselves are, well, just names. No?—msh210℠ 21:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • So, what is the verdict? I added it here, since it is linked with the words Venizelism and Venizelist and these words exist at the Oxford dictionary online. For a similar example see the entry for Lenin and Leninism and Leninist. Thank you in advance. A.Cython 01:36, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

We have names like Brown, Goethe, and eg Augustus → Augustan. The name is found in enough books that I would think it would pass just like the above-mentioned Lenin. — Beobach972 18:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• I don't entirely understand what the requirements are for surnames to be considered English at the moment, but I've taken a stab at Citations:Venizelos. The full citation format would be kind of dopey in this case, IMO (if anyone disagrees, please feel free to convert them). The Eleftherios sense also cited as a shorthand for the man in question. It could also be cited as a byword in period literature for a particularly aggressive politician, but I'm done. -- Visviva 15:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

boss

The verb sense - is it ever used without "about"/"around"? The example uses "boss". If it is always "boss about"/"boss around", then this should be stated in the sense, something like this: Template:italbrac. What then happens to the derived terms is questionable. — Paul G 09:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It does not look to me that it is always with "around" or "about". Verifying this does not address your issue, which seems more of an TR thing.

One sense of "boss" is like "head" or "chair" used as leadership verbs. In that sense it doesn't take "around". A qualifying phrase like "usually with around or about" would probably cover it, but additional senses also seem necessary. There is almost always a case to be made for additional senses for entries, in my limited experience. DCDuring TALK 10:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Cited, although I'm not sure the first example isn't part of a set phrase 'boss and spoil' (with perhaps a different meaning than 'lord over'). Rfv-passed? — Beobach972 18:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I just checked COCA for "[boss] * and [spoil]" (any form of "boss" wildcard word "and" any form of "spoil"). No hits in 385MM word corpus. DCDuring TALK 19:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

echoplex

I see a lot of noun uses, not matching this definition, but no verb uses. But I've only looked fairly cursorily.—msh210℠ 20:36, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

• I only know this as a noun from ancient computing. It is what we now take for granted when using a PC - when we hit a key, the character is displayed on a screen so we can check that we hit the right one. SemperBlotto 10:25, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

1. The computer sense, as a verb:
   • 1993: Uyless D. Black, Computer networks: protocols, standards, and interfaces, caption of an image on page 99

     Data placed in async. format, transmitted, and echoplexed.

2. The computer sense, possibly as a noun instead:
   • 1985: Martin D. Seyer, The IBM PC/XT: making the right connections, page 132

     The PC operator can then backspace and retype the character. The device that is to echo the characters should be optioned for echoplexing.

   • 1988: Martin D. Seyer, Complete guide to RS232 and parallel connections, page 212

     When a terminal is connected to a computer port supporting echoplexing, the terminal will not locally display the character until it is received from the line.

3. The musical/echo sense, possibly as an adjective instead:
   • 2003: Peter Buckley, The rough guide to rock, page 1

     [...] like whales pirouetting to the tones of a string quartet in E, before Butcher's lush vocals swept in over Philip Glass motifs and an echoplexed bagpipe.

   • 2003: Rob Bowman, Soulsville, U.S.A.: The Story of Stax Records, page 257

     William "Wee Gee" Howard takes the lead vocal and Dennis Coffey plays the heavily echoplexed guitar, while Johnny Allen [...]

These aren't coherent enough (ie, they don't all apply to the same sense and they possibly don't all apply to the same POS) to rfv-pass yet. — Beobach972 18:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

surrogatum

Law? Canada? Taxes? Ety? DCDuring TALK 02:09, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Now rfv-sense. DCDuring TALK 11:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There is now an entry at surrogatum principle. Does "surrogatum" mean "surrogatum principle"? Are there quotes of someone writing, say, "under surrogatum, this would be treated as a dividend" ?

[Note: the below comments have been merged from a separate section.]

• Verification: See the Wikipedia article Surrogatum, complete with citations and court cases. WritersCramp 18:08, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

There is already a section for discussing this entry above. Please place all comments there. --EncycloPetey 18:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC) no longer relevant. --EncycloPetey 23:53, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Clocked out. DCDuring TALK 10:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

But see Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#surrogatum_principle below. DCDuring TALK 11:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

July 2008

pirate

Rfv-sense: noun, one who illegally copies or receives such copies of copyrighted material. Now, I've heard the verb sense, to be sure. But a noun sense? "Heidi hasn't bought a CD in years, she get's everything off the net. She's such a pirate." just sounds really odd to me. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that we will find attributive use of the noun in phrases like "a pirate CD-duplicating factory". DCDuring TALK 19:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I have split the sense into "making copies" sense (easy to cite) and "receiving pirated goods" sense (not as easy to cite), both with rfv tags. I have broadened the "making copies" sense to include all intellectual property (trademark, design, patent}. DCDuring TALK 19:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Cited "make illegal copies" sense. DCDuring TALK 20:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, the adjective sense. I've only ever heard a participle of the verb used in an adjectival sense. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 18:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've inserted an rfv tag at the adjective, but perhaps it should be an rfd. It seems like attributive use of the noun. The only uses of "more pirate than" is in expressions like "more pirate than shipping agent". DCDuring TALK 19:14, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

It sounds very odd to me as well, but google books:"software|music|movie pirate" gets a few hundred hits. There are a lot of nouns like this, that can't easily be used alone, but that follow specific patterns of meaning when they take attributive modifiers. A similar (but slightly different) case may be seen at [[waterfall]], where you can say "a waterfall of ____" but can't easily let "waterfall" stand alone unless you mean a literal cataract. I think such senses are worth including — certainly (deprecated template usage) software pirate, (deprecated template usage) music pirate, etc. don't all warrant separate inclusion — but it's probably a good idea to use usage notes and {{non-gloss definition}}s to clarify everything. —Ruakh_TALK 23:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a PoV push that has to do with saying that receiving a pirated copy makes you a pirate. I don't think that usage has caught on. It may be a crime but it isn't called piracy. DCDuring TALK 00:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I remember hearing the use of pirate in the 1960s to refer to a "pirate radio station," (Wikipedia entry) which might have been a radio station set-up offshore (of, e.g., the UK) that broadcast to the mainland. The use of "piracy" (and therefore "pirate") to refer to illegal copying of music, etc. may have followed from that. Though I think these uses of the words have been planted for the benefit of publishers — "piracy" sounds a lot sexier than "illegal copying" — I believe they have become common usage. — HowardBGolden 02:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Yank

Rfv-sense: (US) Someone living, or who was born, above the Mason-Dixon line. Seems overly specific, but I'm not sure.

That would be a southern US usage. The southern border of Pennsylvania was the Mason-Dixon line. Maryland and Delaware were slave states, though part of the the Union in the Civil War. The Mason-Dixon line is extended figuratively along the Ohio River. West Virginia, Missouri, and Kansas are "gray areas". Yankee is more common in the South than Yank, I think, for this meaning, which is declining, I think. DCDuring TALK 23:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

And rfv-sense: (pejorative) Someone from the USA with bad manners while visiting another country. Doubtful. (Note that we already have the sense (elsewhere) Anyone from the United States.)—msh210℠ 22:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I suggest we say "sometimes perjorative", and omit the behaviour abroad. This sounds like someone's personal prejudice, and certainly reads more into the word than exists in its general usage outside the USA. (Same for uncapitalised yank unless we find citations for specialised London usage.) Dbfirs 19:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

This is RfV. There is not much to discuss until the senses are cited. Can we find 3 uses in the sense mentioned? But it can't just be someone who is called a "Yank" and has bad manners. I'm still unclear as to how this is supposed to work. Would it be necessary to find usage where someone who is not actually from the US is called a "Yank" pejoratively ? DCDuring TALK 20:51, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That "bad manners" part is a stereotype of Americans in general, and can apply to any slang referring to Americans. I think we should remove the sense; it's like adding "likely to go to war" or "likely to be fat" as definitions.--♠TBC♠ 19:50, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Sense #1 cited, please take a look. On reflection, I'm not completely happy with the cites — all are Civil War–era, with the first one being a vet's recollection 35 years later, and the other two being much more recent historical fiction — but they do at least demonstrate that it's a sense that a reader might come across.

Sense #3 RFV failed, removed.

—Ruakh_TALK 00:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

After further review: why didn't we just say this was short for "Yankee", at least in sense 1. In any event, it looks good to me. When I hear the word "Yank" in my head it always has a non-US accent, sometimes just a barely distinguishable Canadian one. DCDuring TALK 00:43, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

be

Rfv-sense. The defintion "Used to indicate temperature" seems to me not to be justified. It tags along with "Used to indicate age", "Used to indicate height", and "Used to indicate weather conditions", however, I don't think we can say, for instance, "It's 65 today" with the ease that we can say "it's warm today" or "he's 5'10" ". The example given, "It’s in the eighties outside, and next week it’s expected to be in the nineties!", also suggests that this definition isn't able to stand on its own. __meco 12:15, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

This seems like it might be converted to an "rfd-redundant sense". The last five senses all seem to be instances of using "be" with a bare number (not exactly a noun or adjective) to indicate a count or measurement. The senses above (5 and 6, I think) that give non-gloss definitions of "be" as link a subject to an adjective or to a noun phrase. Is what is needed here {{non-gloss definition|Used to link a subject to a count or measurement}}? DCDuring TALK 17:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think the three count/measurement definitions (age/height/weather) can be done away with that simply. They are idiomatic in a way that would be lost in the generalization which you suggest. You can say of a person that "she is 43" and everybody would know that the unit implied is years. If you did the same about an arbitrary tree or a car ("it is 15") you would most likely engender a confused stare. I don't think I fully grasp the implications and use of the non-gloss definition template, but I sense that it is perhaps part of the solution here. __meco 17:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that the specific meanings depend on context and not on inherent meanings carried by "be". "She is 98" could refer to weight, body temperature, or age. The value of the number and the context of the discussion usually limit the number of senses possible. Nor is it limited to people. A tree or a car could "be 10". Certainly my pet could be. I doubt that you would have much trouble with many native speakers with "The surface of the Sun is only 10,000, whereas the interior is 15 million." The common element is the linkage. Arguably the linkage to measurement differs from the other linkages defined at "be". DCDuring TALK 18:13, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: "I think that the specific meanings depend on context and not on inherent meanings carried by 'be'": Yes, I agree; however, I added those senses as a result of Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#he is n, where two editors (Rod and EP, though Rod sounded iffy) expressed a desire for them. The argument was basically that many other languages normally use other kinds of constructions for these meanings; not a great argument, since most of these senses apply to all or most English linking verbs (not just (deprecated template usage) be), but there you have it. (Note: since three editors eventually expressed opposition to these senses — you, me, and msh210 — it might be worth RFD-ing them.) —Ruakh_TALK 18:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

We've had this conversation before, and IIRC we agreed that an appendix on English copulae, linked from the several words that function this way would go a long way towards solving the issue. --EncycloPetey 18:07, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. It's a little hard on users to have five virtually redundant senses on top of ten others. The translation tables and such an appendix could carry the burden of precision while the entry itself could be a bit shorter. Maybe we can put off any RfDs until we have the appendix, which many of the more learned among us will team up to do in their copious free time. DCDuring TALK 19:38, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

google groups:"it's 65 today" gets two relevant hits, and google groups:"it's 65 outside" gets another six. You're right that it's not as common as age, height, etc.; I think the reason for that is that we tend to be less precise with weather than with personal statistics, and when we are being precise, we generally include units. —Ruakh_TALK 18:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

jackrabbit start

Sum of parts? Pretty sure it's a noun. (Needs formatting, and a better definition) SemperBlotto 16:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Found numerous references of it, indicating that it is commonly used. If you count the second sense for jackrabbit, I guess it could be considered SoP, but I'm not sure. It does need to be cleaned up though.--TBC 21:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's sum of parts; this is merely using jackrabbit attributively. --EncycloPetey 19:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Assuming this argument is correct, does this mean that jackrabbit can be an adjective? Pingku 14:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily; most English nouns can be used attributively, meaning that they can precede another noun (or in some cases an adjective) without becoming a full adjective. —Ruakh_TALK 15:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Given this, and what references I've found for jackrabbit start, the SoP argument seems compelling. How about a redirect to jackrabbit, which appears to deal with it?Pingku 13:48, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

But the sense in question is a verb, not a noun; I would have expected "jackrabbiting start." -- Visviva 02:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time seeing this as SOP for most speakers; I don't know that I've ever encountered "jackrabbit" as a verb in use, while I have read and heard "jackrabbit start" any number of times. This suggests to me that in most vocabularies (including my own) this is a set phrase, not a combination of jackrabbit+start. -- Visviva 02:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly not from the verb. Why can't it be attributive use of the noun, not that that would preclude its inclusion as an entry? Is "jackrabbit" a common term in the UK? If not, that alone would argue for inclusion. DCDuring TALK 03:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

The noun is currently defined as the animal only; I don't see how that could possibly be sum-of-parts. -- Visviva 05:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it is not SoP. There is no figurative sense for the bare noun alone. Whether the noun or the verb is the origin, I wouldn't know how to resolve. I just thought that the attributive-use-of-a-noun pattern is so common as to barely require any thought as to etymology. The metaphor just seems obvious. The noun "jackrabbit" is much more common, I think, and seems a more natural source of derivation. I don't have any evidence one way or the other for the relative ages of "jackrabbit" as verb and "jackrabbit start", which might not be conclusive as to the PoS anyway. DCDuring TALK 10:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

DCDuring, I'm not UK but from Australia (where rabbits are an introduced pest). I did a search through NewsBank (Australian newspapers only) and found a whopping 74 hits for "jackrabbit". Many of these were references to the animal, to a particular band, or to "Jackrabbit Slim's" from "Pulp Fiction". Also several refs to the novel (and prison slang term) "Jackrabbit Parole". There was one reference to "jackrabbit starts", which was covering a US story. The colloquial references were mostly centred around speed, acceleration and shyness (the latter particularly as a reason for the other two). A "political jackrabbit" appears to be a politician who goes to lengths not to be accosted by reporters. Jackrabbit also appears to be a role in the game of rugby, perhaps a "utility back". Finally, I found this, from my home town:

"Botswana runner Tiyapo Maso was caught by a lead pack of 20 at the 25km, having enjoyed more than a hour of global fame with jackrabbit tactics over the Sydney Harbour Bridge and out to Centennial Park which could only have one conclusion -- pain. He finished 78th in 2:38.53." ("Marathon magic for Ethiopians Abera tames tough course", The Adelaide Advertiser - Monday, October 2, 2000, author: Paul Malone.)

Pingku 11:18, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

For the marathon story I would have thought the "hare" (from Aesop) a more slightly more apt metaphor. I don't think that every attestable metaphorical use of a noun must be included as a definition, though I have nothing against such efforts. In this case, the metaphor emphasises rapid acceleration, especially to make good an escape. Perhaps we should have some similar sense at jackrabbit. "Jackrabbit", especially because of its etymology, struck me as a likely part of Australian English as well as US English. Are imported jackrabbits the object of the famous rabbit fence? DCDuring TALK 12:23, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "hare" would have been more apt, but sports reporting is not always logical. :) But then a jackrabbit is a hare. Several of the articles I found saw fit to remind people (i.e. Australians) of that. The rabbits in Australia were imported by nostalgic Englishmen, and the difference between rabbits and hares remains a bit of a mystery to many. :)

I should emphasise the number of hits I had. 74. That means I was able to do the quick "study" I presented, but also indicates that "jackrabbit" is not a commonly used term in Australia (though it will probably be understood). The sort of "study" I just did might be useful elsewhere (especially if done rigorously), but might take a lot more effort. :) Pingku 12:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

guarriboom

I was trying to find the plural form of this so I could add {{en-noun}} when I found there are only 24 Google hits, most of them from wiktionary or similar sites and none indicating usage. Perhaps it is a misspelling. Pistachio 17:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a book hit, published 2003 before the wiktionary page, so at least it isn't completely made up. Nadando 21:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I've got some information, but not usage of that name. Another name like gwarri or guarri might be better. DCDuring TALK 22:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Do we know this is English? The book Nadando found is using African language examples, and the word (deprecated template usage) boom is Dutch for "tree" (and presumably means the same in Afrikaans). This might be an Afrikaans word. --EncycloPetey 00:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, the book Nadando links to says it's English: "So it is that Khoisan languages, particularly Nama and Khoe, provide many loanwords in the English of South Africa, especially in the area of useful and medicinal plants. Here are some examples: […] guarriboom 'shrub whose fruit can be fermented for vinegar', [comes] from Khoe gwarri, also borrowed into Zulu umgwali; […] .^[40]" The footnote 40 says "Examples […] from Silva 1997" which is "Penny Silva, 'The Lexis of South African English: Reflections of a Multilingual Society', in Edgar W. Schneider (ed.), Englishes around the World: Studies in Honour of Manfred Görlach (Amsterdam: Benjamins, 1997), ii. 159–76". But Silva (who now is the "director" (?) of the OED, by the way) doesn't actually mention guarriboom at all (unless I'm missing it) in that article. She says, though, that "Khoikhoi [=Khoe] words in S[outh] A[frican] E[nglish] include […] the plant names […] guarri, […] ." I don't know whether she means that teh word was borrowed as is, or merely that that Khoikhoi word made it into SAE, possibly altered. She does mention that "[m]ost of the Khoikhoi borrowings now found in SAE were acquired via" Dutch and Xhosa — which might explain the boom.—msh210℠ 19:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I e-mailed Ms. Silva for clarification, and she informs me that she "would say that in South African English guarri is more common than guarriboom (formed with Dutch/Afrikaans boom tree, as you suggest): I've attached the entry for GUARRI n., from the Dictionary of South African English on Historical Principles, OUP, Oxford (1996), as this gives you an idea of the range of compounds formed by the word: guarriboom is only one of them, as you'll see." So, to answer EP's original question, yes, it's English. That DSAEHP quotation she attached to the e-mail includes, as she says, other related words, but also includes variant spellings: "guarri, gwarrie /'gwari/ n. Also ghwarrie, guárri, guarrie, guarry, guerri(e), gwarri, gwary, kwarrie, quarri."—msh210℠ 17:24, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

assward

Defined as "backward", I think (if this exists in English) it is more likely to be interpreted by an English speaker as "toward the rectum". --EncycloPetey 00:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Cited more or less in "backward" or "ass first" sense. Others senses possible but seem rare. DCDuring TALK 00:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

But not cited to mean "backward" in a general sense. All uses apply to direction with respect to a human body only, and seem to mean "in the direction of the ass". Also, all uses are adverbs; there are no citations for use as an adjective. --EncycloPetey 03:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Only backwards for something that has an ass end, I suppose. And that would be why I removed the adjective senses and amended the definition in line with the citations once they were in hand. Thanks for the close attention you have given these words, which both seem to meet CFI and are not in other dictionaries. Such words can help Wiktionary seem to offer more coverage than competing dictionaries, one hopes. I am sorry that the sense that you were seeking does not seem supported by the citations provided. It is a wiki so please feel free to make whatever emendments you feel are appropriate, including finding citations that support your intuitions. DCDuring TALK 04:29, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

But only if I find citations, and the literature I normally read is unlikely to be helpful ;) --EncycloPetey 04:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Nor what I read. I search b.g.c. to find cites for words that are a challenge to cite, as these two. Some are more edifying than others. A lot of vulgarities, invective, slang, and recently trendy stuff is in fiction, usually chic lit and tough-guy novels. I never would have gotten to these two except for RU's "not counted" list. DCDuring TALK 05:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps these may be related to assways, a term I'm somewhat familiar with. Here's an example sentence:

You're doing it assways.

(equivalent to something like "You're doing it all wrong".)

Maybe the (slightly derogatory) sense of backward meaning "old-fashioned" is also relevant.50 Xylophone Players talk 21:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

asswards

As with assward, above. --EncycloPetey 00:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Cited more or less in "backward" or "ass first" sense. Others senses possible but seem rare. DCDuring TALK 00:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

But not cited to mean "backward" in a general sense. All uses apply to direction with respect to a human body only, and seem to mean "in the direction of the ass". --EncycloPetey 03:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

key log

Rfv-sense: The key issue or problem, which if (re)solved, would make the current task easy to complete. The issue around which the whole problem revolves. Also: Literal sense seems SoP: The log which, if removed, would free up the whole logjam. DCDuring TALK 18:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Found some references for the second sense. "Electric utilities are the key log." TIME Magazine, "the "key log" of the economic jam was the public utility situation" TIME Magazine, "Vietnam Negotiations: The Key Log" New York Times, "The key log In the educational jam is the department" New York Times.--TBC 13:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Unable to get access to the NYTimes cites. Inserted Time cite, qv. DCDuring TALK 14:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

As for the first sense, keep as per keystone. Also, I believe it's a technical term in the logging industry (not sure about it, though).--TBC 13:12, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be nice to have even one real usage of the logging sense. DCDuring TALK 14:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

so be it

Sense2: A translation and echo of amen. Not sure I get this. Does it add anything beyond sense1? -- WikiPedant 17:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

"so be it" would be an alternative sense for "amen", not the other way around. As such, delete this sense, and make "so be it" a separate sense on the "amen" entry (currently it's combined with the religious sense).--TBC 18:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you're saying, TBC. Do you mean that amen also means "(indicating acceptance of a bad situation)"? I'm unfamiliar with that sense, though that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.—msh210℠ 20:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify; I' trying to say that sense1 for amen should be split into two. "End of prayers" is hardly synonymous with "so be it" (also, so be it does not necessarily always refer to accepting a bad situation).--TBC 06:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's a literal translation of (deprecated template usage) אָמֵן (amen), but do think it means the same as amen does: it expresses a wish/prayer that something just stated occur. I imagine that that's the RFVed sense means. Did you mean this to be a request for verification of that, WikiPedant?—msh210℠ 20:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, msh, that sense (expressing a wish/prayer that something just stated should happen) did not occur to me. It would be distinct from sense1. I wonder how well it can be attested. I ordinarily associate "so be it" with a situation which the speaker finds less than congenial but which he/she is prepared to accept (after swallowing hard). -- WikiPedant 20:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that what amen is? Our definition for amen is "so be it"! Perhaps both should be rewritten as "(expressing a wish/prayer that something just stated occur)" if it's citable. Or perhaps something else is meant by the "amen" sense of so be it and by the "so be it" sense of amen. Any ideas as to what else it could be?—msh210℠ 20:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think I disagree on two counts. First of all, it's true that taken literally, "so be it" is a jussive use of the subjunctive and therefore expresses a desired state (just like "G-d's will be done", "be it resolved that […] ", etc.); but my experience matches WikiPedant's, that it always means "O.K., fine, whatever, I can take it." Second of all, in my experience "amen" indicates agreement with something just uttered — "This is the best country on Earth, and everyone who doesn't like it can get the Hell out." "Amen!" — and expresses a wish/prayer only in the special case that the thing just uttered was a wish/prayer — "I wish the people of this country would learn to live together in peace and harmony." "Amen!" (though in some religious circles there's a tendency to blur the distinction between what should be and what will be, such that "Someday everyone will live together peacefully." "Amen!" means both). —Ruakh_TALK 23:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the "echo of amen" sense given for so be it is evident from [1]. And it's definitely a sense distinct from the "I can take it" sense. But you're right: amen means agreement with a recent statement, not only expressing a wish for the future.—msh210℠ 17:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't even understand what it meant, a "translation of amen" - amen is an English word anyway. Removed. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

stagiaire

I think this is French. The English is stagiary according to the OED. (Needs formatting properly) SemperBlotto 07:57, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I added the French, never heard of it in English. We usually say trainee or intern if it’s a noun, or probationary if an adjective. —Stephen 15:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems like the word is used quite some times in English too, probably just directly stolen from French. To give some examples, [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12]. --Eivind (t) 16:18, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems that the Council of the Inner Temple in advertising training posts with, for example, the European Commission, the United Nations,etc use the "french" spelling, without, however, italicising as they would for Latin or other foreign words. I was unable to find any recent use of "stagiary" in this sense, whilst all the post-graduates I spoke to recognised "staadj-ee-air" but not "stagg-ee-airy". — This unsigned comment was added by 217.155.198.152 (talk) at 10:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC).

quinella

Verb sense: to have two members of the same team finish one and two in a competition. Supposedly went through RfV in 2006, but cites out of format, don't seem durably archived. Search didn't reveal any archived discussion of RfV process. Verb might be citable. DCDuring TALK 04:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

google news archive:quinellaed|quinellaing gets more than 133 hits; the sense seems to be “to win both first place and second place in (a competition)”, usually in clauses of the form “<competitor> and <competitor> quinnellaed <competition>”. It doesn't seem to be a given that the two competitors must be from the same team; and even aside from this, our current definition needs to be rephrased to correctly identify the subject. —Ruakh_TALK 11:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

That's something I didn't get. I thought at least that the horses would be from the same stable, the Olympians would both be from Africa, if not Kenya, etc. The problem with with subject derives from the sense of the "sides" being a little nebulous, but, to me, unmistakable. I wonder if a bettor can "quinella" a race, so that the "same side" is more open-ended than def. now shows. Though the noun usage is mostly about betting, the verb didn't seem to be. Most of the usage seemed to be from the Melbourne Age and a New Zealand newspaper that might be repeating the same stories. I didn't check bylines, but this might be the product of one writer. DCDuring TALK 11:30, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it does seem that the two winners have to be "same" somehow, just not the same team necessarily. The problem I meant about the subject is that our definition implies the subject should be some third party, since this sense of "have" is used to mark a non-participant as a topic ("yesterday I had a good friend get hurt in a car crash" means something like "yesterday a good friend of mine got hurt in a car crash, and you can imagine how that makes me feel"). So according to our definition, the subject could perhaps refer to the team/stable/continent/country, or to the bettor/audience/venue; but in fact, it seems usually to refer to the first-and-second-place winners themselves. —Ruakh_TALK 12:47, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you don't want to hear of trifected, which is what Kenya often does in the distance events. (Unless Ethiopia is also there ;-) (yes, there are a few random googles, but more are mis-forms of trisected)Robert Ullmann 12:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

RU: Do you have google alerts set to notify you when Kenya comes up in Wiktionary? DCDuring TALK 14:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

首乌汁

The definition says that it is the name of a patented medicine. I'm not sure that would qualify under WT:CFI. This link provides a description of the medicine. -- A-cai 12:13, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It's apparently a brand name of a liquid patent medicine produced in Guangzhou, which can be found in pretty much any Chinese herbalist's shop or Chinese supermarket with a traditional medicine section). It's so prevalent among the Chinese communities around the world I think it could appear here like Tylenol, Prozac, Rohypnol, Kleenex. 24.29.228.33 16:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

It is not a "patented medicine" - our definition of "patent medicine" is was wrong; it is a medicine that was originally proprietary, but is now generic so that anyone can make their own version, just like anyone can make aspirin, which was itself once a trademark. bd2412 T 09:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

fallen

Rfv-sense: 1. The Devil; 2. An evil spirit, a fiend. I can find no support for these in any on-line dictionary. DCDuring TALK 16:10, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that fallen is sometimes used as a shortened form of the term "fallen angel" (which would explain the first and second senses). I'll have to find some cites, however.--TBC 18:26, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Google Books turns up some relevant results (using the search term, "the fallen")--TBC 18:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Insert at least three of the best citations for each sense and we'll go from there. DCDuring TALK 18:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Trying to find a few usable ones, but most of the results use "fallen" (in the demon sense) in their titles. I should be able to manage to find three, however.--TBC 08:36, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

patent medicine

Hippietrail tagged this as an RfV over a year ago, based on the discrepancy between our definition and Wikipedia's. I did some research and found the following:

• "Patent medicine is an English term which refers to the registration with the British Patent Office of a given compound as a medicine. In the United States it refers to those drugs which are sold without a prescription. Thus, in the United States, the term "patent medicine" is a misnomer since no patent is required." Robert H. Coombs, Lincoln J. Fry, Patricia G. Lewis, Socialization in Drug Abuse (1976), p. 10.
• "The term "patent medicine" originated in England and referred to "patents of royal favor" that kings granted to their bootmakers, tailors, and medicine makers. By definition, true patent medicines revealed their ingredients on their labels as a condition of maintaining their patent on that formulation. The so-called "patent medicines" produced in America were actually proprietary drugs in which the unique shape and color of the bottles along with the label designs were protected by trademark. The actual ingredients within the bottles, however, were kept secret — a practice that only added to the medicine's mystique. "Patent medicine" became a misused term due to the lack of distinction between patented and unpatented medicines in ads and on store shelves." Charles R. Whitlock, Ben Chandler, Mediscams: Dangerous Medical Practices and Health Care Frauds, (2003), p. 39.
• "Just a word as to the distinction made between proprietary medicines and "patent medicines." Strictly speaking, practically all nostrums on the market are proprietary medicines and but very few are true patent medicines. A patent medicine, in the legal sense of the word, is a medicine whose composition or method of making, or both, has been patented. Evidently, therefore, a patent medicine is not a secret preparation because its composition must appear in the patent specifications. Nearly every nostrum, instead of being patented, is given a fanciful name and that name is registered at Washington; the name thus becomes the property of the nostrum exploiter for all time. While the composition of the preparation, and the curative effects claimed for it, may be changed at the whim of its owner, his proprietorship in the name remains intact. As has been said, a true patent medicine is not a secret preparation; moreover, the product becomes public property at the end of seventeen years. As the term "patent medicine" has come to have a definite meaning to the public, this term is used in its colloquial sense throughout the book. That is to say, all nostrums advertised and sold direct to the public are referred to as "patent medicines"; those which are advertised directly only to physicians are spoken of as 'proprietaries.'" American Medical Association, Nostrums and Quackery (1921), p. 6.

So it seems that what we have here is a UK/U.S. usage divide, with the U.S. usage clearly divorced from ownership of an actual patent. bd2412 T 22:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• According to the OED: "a proprietary medicine manufactured under patent and available without prescription". You're right that in the US it seems to have become a synonym for simply "non-prescription medicine". Is it ever used this way in the UK I wonder? I don't think I've ever heard it. Ƿidsiþ 09:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Although the OED has only the "official" meaning, the term is sometimes used in its wider sense in the UK (certainly in Northern England), but this is probably just "patent" in its wider sense of "In extended use: to which a person has a proprietary claim. Also: special for its purpose; ingenious, well-contrived" (OED). Dbfirs 09:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

In the US, there is no necessary connection between a drug being patented and being a prescription drug or being sold over the counter or being a "controlled substance". In the US patent medicine is dated (19th-early 20th century, I think), but referred to non-prescription medicines. DCDuring TALK 11:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

cruz gamada

Portuguese: RFV-sense for use to mean the (deprecated template usage) swastika. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

To note: I don’t doubt that this term is used thus, but I challenge whether such usage is correct. I am no speaker of Portuguese, but it is intuitive to me that (deprecated template usage) suástica would mean (deprecated template usage) swastika whilst (deprecated template usage) cruz gamada would mean (deprecated template usage) crux gammata. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You think this is doubtful why? google books for citation or just look at w:pt:Suástica Robert Ullmann 13:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Or just pt:svástica Robert Ullmann 13:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The two symbols are (understandably) often confused; I just wonder whether the same distinction exists in Portuguese (if only academically). † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't recognise a distinction in English. A crux gammata IS a swastika, or at least so I've always thought. Two names for the same symbol. Ƿidsiþ 09:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This seems a bit complicated, and the issue is not limited to the Portuguese entry. Usage note in Wiktionary article on crux gammata says: "crux gammata is often mistaken for the swastika". Also, the article on swastika does not mention crux gammata as synonym, although it lists more than a dozen of them. The two (or one, if one prefers) symbols have a different history going back thousands of years. Swastika is said to be originally an old Hindu symbol representing the sun or universe, and crux gammata is made up of four Greek gammas, connecting it to divinity in some complex way. Both symbols can be drawn in a number of ways, and some of the ways look same to the eye. There would probably be no problem, if the Nazis had not chosen swastika to their symbol, making it a "bad" symbol and a taboo. I suggest two changes: 1) change the usage note under crux gammata to "crux gammata should not be mistaken for the Nazi swastika", and 2) add crux gammata to the synonyms of swastika. --Hekaheka 12:37, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn’t put too much faith in the usage note that says "crux gammata is often mistaken for the swastika". That note was put there by User:Doremítzwr. —Stephen 15:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think their histories are separate. The symbol was around before the Greeks; they just called it a gamma-cross because that's what it looked like to them. Ƿidsiþ 08:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The OED partially distinguishes them, in that for (deprecated template usage) swastika it has both a Nazi sense (#2) and a neutral sense (#1), and only the neutral sense says “also called (deprecated template usage) gammadion”. Insofar as (deprecated template usage) gammadion = (deprecated template usage) crux gammata, I think Hekaheka's suggested changes sound spot-on. —Ruakh_TALK 03:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

{{rfv-sense}} readded after it was removed without prior verification of the term. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 11:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The Michaelis Moderno Dicionário Português-Inglês translates cruz gamada as swastika, fylfot. This can be considered one quotation. --Vahagn Petrosyan 08:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, not a quotation, but a reference. I’ve added it to the entry. One more like that will be enough to show that the (deprecated template usage) swastika sense is standard. Of course, the sense still needs three quotations showing that usage in order to satisfy the CFI. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

A reference has been provided and the {{rfv-sense}} was removed long ago. RfV-sense passed. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 22:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Neugeborene / Neugeborenes

Neugeborenes

Genitive form: I think the correct genitive form is Neugeborenen, as in "Die Haut des Neugeborenen ist rosa." Mutante 08:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Neugeborenes can't be the genitive, only the nominative/accusative, and only in syntactic positions where the strong form is called for, since this noun is inflected like an adjective. Angr 08:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

proof of concept

Recently resolved on rfc, but now there is a rfv issue, namely the two plurals.

My initial reaction on seeing them was to think that "proof of concepts" should be deleted, in the same way that "mother-in-laws" and "court-martials" are frowned upon. On further consideration, though, I think there is room for two plurals here, but with slightly different senses.

I would say that "proofs of concept" is the "simple" plural, as in In every software house I've worked in the past, I've had to provide proofs of concept of my work. This sentence emphasises the multiple proofs. I would reserve "proof of concepts" for the concept of proving multiple concepts; that is, "proof" is uncountable in this sense.

Hmmm. And what about "proofs of concepts"? "Proof of concepts" doesn't sound right, but let the citations speak! DCDuring TALK 12:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

All three exist in number, "proofs of concepts" having 100 raw b.g.c. hits, the others 5 or 6 times as many. So much for it only being uncountable. DCDuring TALK 12:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

So there is a more subtle point here: does "proof of concept" have countable and uncountable senses? In This document provides proof of concept, "proof of concept" is uncountable, whereas in This document is a proof of concept, it is countable (and therefore allows for These documents are proofs of concept). If "proof of concept" is uncountable only (as I have always understood it to be), then we have no plurals at all, but if it is countable only or countable as well, we need a usage note to distinguish between the two plurals, as, to my mind, they are not interchangeable. — Paul G 09:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

"a proof of concepts" (indicating countability) gets 29 raw b.g.c. hits, some of which are clearly countable uses of some noun sense. Interestingly, as I look at these I find that my own notion of "concept" in this collocation can refer to either the integrated concept of something as a whole or the separable component concepts. I'm not sure that we will help any user very much by trying to explain this in the "proof of concept" entry. "Concept" has different meanings, possibly, but not necessarily worth distinguishing in a dictionary entry. (It would be like having a sense for "container" saying that it was an object that contained other containers because it could be used that way.) Proof has both countable and uncountable senses. "Proof of concept" seems to carry over all the combinations of senses and plural/uncountability of the components, while still meriting an entry because it is idiomatic. Is it worth having a long-winded usage note about the combination plurals, when the component terms could carry most of the water? I would consider using {{infl|en|noun|head=proof of concept}}. The usage note could direct the user to the component entries. DCDuring TALK 12:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

preferences - senses

Rfv-senses: pluralia tantum that which one chooses over something else and computing}user-specified settings of parameters in a computer program

I don't see how def is p.t. and why the second is listed as a plural, or why it is deemed a "computing-specific" sense. But I could be wrong. DCDuring TALK 18:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

surrogatum principle

I have made this entry and cited it, but am unsure about two of the three citations. I could not find more. It may be that the citations should be used to support surrogatum in its disputed Canadian tax sense, which got pushed in June, without yielding acceptable citations. DCDuring TALK 11:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Also see Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#surrogatum above. DCDuring TALK 11:04, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep - check the Wikipedia article, there are plenty of citations and court cases in which surrogatum principle is used [13]. WritersCramp 01:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

profligate

Rfv-sense: Verb to drive away. "Cite" looks like it is of attributive use of noun. Contributor may have been confused by it appearing as "to profligate". Webster 1913 showed is as obsolete Latinism. Webster 1828 showed it as "not used." It certainly needs cites. DCDuring TALK 02:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

manipulexity

Not citable (durable medai) except at usenet. en.wikt is only dictionary with the term. It is a valid term coined by perl maven Larry Wall. DCDuring TALK 23:00, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The Larry Wall paper is on google scholar, and reasonably widely mirrored - so should probably count as durable. There are four groups cites, which might make it technically includable, if they are independent. (I would claim they are not as three of them use whipupitude in the same breath and thus this should RFVfail).

buttwoman

Possibly should be butt-woman, I found a couple quotes using that variation. Template:cite Anyone able to cite this fully, especially the unhyphenated version? - [The]DaveRoss 00:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I added the entry - the unhyphenated version is as spelled on the memorial tablet in Emmanuel Church, Plymouth. I had never come across the word before. Regards Springnuts 06:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

• A butt-woman can also be a woman who sells butts (flatfish). But in this instance it comes from the word butt meaning hassock; she cleans the church and helps the verger or pew-opener show people to their seats. SemperBlotto 07:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I created a cited entry at the main form, butt-woman and turned buttwoman into an alternative spelling entry. Three citations could probably be found for "buttwoman," but it's hard to track down because of the obscurity. It is certainly clear that that is an existing alternative spelling (and common enough in dictionaries, for what it's worth). Dominic·t 04:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

write-off

Phrasal verbs are never hyphenated, but the verb senses might derive from the noun "write-off" (itself derived from the phrasal verb "to write off"). Can anyone confirm? If so, it might be worth adding a usage note pointing this out, to save possible future edit wars; if not, these would belong at write off.

I've already deleted "write off" as the supposed alternative spelling of the noun and "write-off" (which was given at write off as a supposed alternative spelling of the phrasal verb). — Paul G 14:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you as to preferred spellings and predominant practice, at least in print. Not 100% sure that hyphenated and solid-spelled forms are not sometimes used as verbs. "Write off" is sometimes used as a noun. Business jargon is at least as prone to questionable usage as ordinary English and there's no prescriptive authority nor any inclination to pay any attention to one. DCDuring TALK 15:27, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

I would also agree with the entries as they are now. Although alternatives of this particular entry can be found, I would think of such items as "write off" = noun as misusages. -- ALGRIF talk 17:34, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

ABC cities

There are a few book references that might cover the definition, but most mentions seem to be refering to somewhere else, or get away from the tri-city idea altogher.--Dmol 19:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

ABCD cities

As per ABC cities above.--Dmol 19:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

ecosomatic

A person who believes that the built environment affects behavior, in particular, the belief that social issues such as crime can be influenced by the built environment. I doubt that this sense is citable. DCDuring TALK 00:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

badding

Nothing obvious on a quick Google. SemperBlotto 15:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Found one usage. There are many mentions in dialect dictionaries. Apparently a true verb. What is standard for such dialect items. DCDuring TALK 16:39, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that is reasonable. Dialect words won't get into print very often. SemperBlotto 21:23, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I suppose that I should insert dictionary notes to deter a needless subsequent RfV. DCDuring TALK 23:18, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

hostessship, headmistressship, goddessship

The usage note at hostessship says, "The term appears unhyphenated in the unabridged second edition of Webster's Dictionary, yet is spelled hostess-ship in subsequent editions. This trend is also prevalent in headmistressship and goddessship, which, respectively, may be hyphenated."

• English does not allow the same letter three times consecutively, and usually hyphenates to avoid this (compare cross-stitch), but I acknowledge that these closed-up forms might have currency.
• American English more readily closes up words that are hyphenated in British English. If these terms are to be included, they need to be marked as "US" because they would be considered incorrect in British English.
• The fact that Webster's amended "hostessship" to "hostess-ship" in later editions suggests that they recognised they had made an error.

By the way, "respectively" is redundant here as "may be hyphenated" applies to both words. — Paul G 08:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

I am unaware of the rule. There is no authority to promulgate a binding rule. Wiktionary does not normally give much weight to rules, except with respect to context tags. I doubt if it is "error" correction as much as changes in prevailing usage or in information about such usage that the other dictionaries follow. DCDuring TALK 10:48, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Why are these items at RfV??? hostessship, because used in w:A Winter's Tale, would meet the well-known work rule. The others are cited. No argument challenging the citations has been made. DCDuring TALK 10:54, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, the First Folio spells it (deprecated template usage) Hoſteſſeſhip; are you sure that the specific edition quoted in our entry constitutes a well-known work? (Also, I'm not sure the well-known work rule applies to misspellings, as this may be; but then, RFV isn't great at identifying misspellings.) —Ruakh_TALK 00:44, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of the question of editions in Shakespeare, which is why I got the First Folio reference into the notes. I have no idea what ought to constitute a well-known edition of a well-known work. That it was Samuel Johnson's I thought would help the claim. This is the first time that I've seen this issue come up. DCDuring TALK 01:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact remains that whatever edition it is, people will read it and can therefore decide to look up the word. At the very least, we should have some sort of "obsolete form of" entry. By the way, because this section isn't precisely titled "hostessship", the RFV link wasn't working, so I thought it was un-listed and removed the tag. Language Lover 01:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I've restored it, thanks for mentioning. —Ruakh_TALK 01:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't notice it was you that added that. I don't really know enough about the history of editions of Shakespeare. —Ruakh_TALK 01:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the First Folio is, more or less, the first "authorized" edition of the plays. Some of the older "Quarto" editions were "pirated". I think the quality of some is considered poor, but Shakespeare was dead by the time the First Folio was printed. In any event this was apparently the first publication of "The Winter's Tale". Presumably the later Folios (let alone the later editions) reflect both true corrections and adjustments to then-contemporary printing and spelling conventions. Because the issue here really is just spelling, we might have to wade into this in more detail than normal. Is the a true Shakespeare scholar in the house? DCDuring TALK 00:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with DCDuring, RFV is the wrong place for these. Let's compare freeest, which only passed as a misspelling, but that's perhaps because of the recency of the term. However, also compare various other attested terms that violate this so-called "rule" which no one has provided citations for: skulllike, bulllike, gillless, crosssection, etc (please don't RFD any of those until this discussion is over). Bear in mind the sheer number of words that break rules (slough can be pronounced three different ways, efficiencies breaks the "I before E except after C" rule twice, and barbaric pronounces the "bar" combination two different ways). To exclude clearly attested words because they break rules is completely absurd. Teh Rote 00:54, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The rule “‘i’ before ‘e’ except after ‘c’” is only for an [iː] sound; an exception is made for <ies>-terminal plurals of <y>-terminal nouns. Also, you must agree that (deprecated template usage) skull-like, (deprecated template usage) bull-like, (deprecated template usage) gill-less, and (deprecated template usage) cross-section are a lot more common that their unhyphenated forms. In language, I’d wager that any rule of broad application will have its exceptions, especially in one so widely spoken as English. Nevertheless, this does not bar such terms from being included (as long as they are attestable); however, it is only wise that it be noted when they “buck a trend” when some may term such bucking as “violating a rule”. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

fi

Rfv-sense - musical sense. Not in the OED. Not in Grove music online (not that I can find). SemperBlotto 15:32, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

This'll be a pain to cite, but it's definitely real. All the normal solfege (sp?) syllables representing notes that are a full step below the next normal solfege syllable (viz do, re, fa, so, and la) have counterparts in -i that are just half a step above, i.e. sharps (viz di, ri, fi, si, and li). Similarly for flats: re, mi, so, la, and ti produce ra, me, se, le, and te. (di=ra, ri=me, fi=se, si=le, li=te.) The system isn't perfect, because in the letter-names, E♯ and F♭ and B♯ and C♭ do exist, they're just equivalent to F, E, C, and B, respectively, whereas the solfege system doesn't even have analogous names, at least for the sharps (I'm less sure about ?fe and ?de, but I've never heard them). Of course, with solfege these things are less necessary, because most people use a movable do, such that sharps and flats aren't as common as with the letter-names. —Ruakh_TALK 23:02, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sp.: solfège (French) or solfeggio (Italian) † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:32, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

google books:do re mi fa so la ti di ri fi si li ra me se le te pulls up a lot of hits, many of them relevant; but I'm having trouble distinguishing mention from use. I'm not sure what the difference even is, for something like this. —Ruakh_TALK 23:10, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I move we close this as passed. (I don't want to do it unseconded as is.)​—msh210℠ 02:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

rear admiral (lower half)

We don't normally allow such article titles. But is this one pukka? SemperBlotto 07:42, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I had the same gut reaction as you, but this does seem to be a standard format phrase. It gets 658 b.g.c hits, although some of them are in the format "rear admiral, lower half,..." or rear admiral lower half instead. The parenthetical form seems the most common on a quick look. --EncycloPetey 16:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Comment: this is the O-7 rank, formerly known as Commodore, being applied to non-line officers. - Amgine/^talk 18:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Check this out: [14]. It's an official US Navy site. --Hekaheka 13:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

rear admiral (upper half)

As above. SemperBlotto 07:45, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the O-8 rank, formerly rear admiral being applied also for non-line officers. - Amgine/^talk 18:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Golden Gate Bridge

Has passed RfD. It's sole current meaning is literal and does not seem to justify its inclusion, but there are no citations shown supporting any other meaning. DCDuring TALK 11:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Have we ever had a discussion about including proper names of world-famous landmarks? I don't recall one. --EncycloPetey 05:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Nor I, but I haven't been here long. The RfD discussion of this was quite brief and resulted in a it passing. This is the only one of a list of these brought to RfD which passsed RfD. I would assume that it would have to meet attributive use requirements under our current rules. DCDuring TALK 12:48, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Found in books.google.com: "Hoga, the Golden Gate Bridge of Sweden", "Pont du Gard — the Golden Gate Bridge of 19 BC", "jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge of political reality", others where the context is not clear. I don't think an attributive use requirement is healthy because in many cases we'd be trying to force a connotation that may not carry weight. Even if it's credible by our standards, three out of millions of citations doesn't make it noteworthy enough to mention. DAVilla 06:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I always thought the purpose of the attributive use criteria was just to provide evidence that an otherwise unincludable Proper noun was in significant usage in a non-encyclopedic sense. I can't think of wording for a sense that encompasses these usages. DCDuring TALK 00:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Great Wall of China, Eiffel Tower, Grand Canyon, World Trade Center, Louvre; world famous landmarks are used both attributively and metaphorically all the time, in several ways, we should list the literal meanings and allow the reader to interpret the extended meanings themselves. I say this regardless of whatever the CFI currently has to say about them, if they aren't already allowed they should be. - [The]DaveRoss 01:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The big American dictionaries such as Random House have this and similar names. The fact that they keep getting deleted here convinces me that our criteria have not been thought through or are poorly worded. We should have the names and the criteria need be reworked. —Stephen 01:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I feel that those dictionaries are just trying to outdo the others by being more encyclopaedic. Perhaps what we really need is a combined Wikimedia search that will suggest Wikipedia results if the dictionary doesn't have them. (Actually, I think we have that already.) Equinox ◑ 01:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

When we say we don't want to be encyclopedic I always thought we meant in depth of content not in scope of content. There is certainly linguistic relevance to place names and landmarks and monuments, there are often translations, etymologies, irregularities in pluralization, regional namings -- the list goes on. We don't want to be encyclopedic in how we describe words (i.e. we want to define words not describe the object in question) but we shouldn't limit the scope of the words we will define simply for the fear that we might cover the same material that an encyclopedia might also cover. - [The]DaveRoss 01:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

The big American dictionaries are at least as scholarly and professional as the OED. They don’t try to "outdo" anyone by being encyclopedic. As long as we are controlled by this irrational, amateurish loathing of multi-word and other complex entries, we will remain a children’s grammar-school glossary. —Stephen 01:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, want to sneer a bit more? I can tell you're enjoying it. Equinox ◑ 01:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Among the OneLook references that have this: Columbia Encyclopedia, Columbia Gazetteer of North America, Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, and Wikipedia. Among source dictionaries: Encarta and Random House. Cambridge, Oxford, Collins, MW, and AHD do not. If we fail to include it directly, the WMF family remains represented. Evidently not every dictionary feels compelled to have even major gazetteer entries. That we have a sister project that has such items would seem to relieve us of the burden of duplicating content.

What WP does not have is a full range of translations. Their etymologies are uneven. I suspect that they do not cover linguistically (toponymically) interesting, but otherwise non-notable places. They do have nicknames. They don't have lists of all the placenames suffixed in "-field" etc.

I can see a role for a WikiGazetteer project that addressed the peculiar needs of topnymy. I don't know that Wiktionary will be a good home for the effort, just as it has not proven a suitable home for the taxonomic hierarchy, for a thesaurus, or even for grammatical formulas (X one's Y off), all of which have linguistic justification, two of which have no plausible alternative home in the WMF family.

Golden Gate Bridge delenda est. DCDuring TALK 03:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Stephen G., but many dictionaries, especially American college dictionaries do try to outdo each other in the number of entries listed in the jacket marketing text, and in the prominent entries and buzzwords you can find while browsing in the bookstore, at the expense of more valuable lexicographical definitions. They insert non-dictionary encyclopedic entries for self-promotion, with questionable actual value for the customer. Landau 2001, Dictionaries: The Art and Craft of Lexicography says so, in pretty much so many words. If you doubt it, I can hunt down some quotations.

But we don't add any value, or save any bookshelf space, by adding an inadequate copy of a Wikipedia entry instead of a link. Aping the print dictionaries' marketing strategies is a disservice to our “customers.” We also don't have any mandate to translate the name of every person, place and thing into other languages.

The entries we have should depend on their lexicographical identity—looks like Empire State Building arguably noses in, Golden Gate Bridge arguably doesn't— or their onomastic qualities, which we haven't even begun to address. —Michael Z. 2009-06-06 15:58 z

September 2008

nom nom nom

Really? SemperBlotto 07:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Should be num-num-num. —Stephen 07:41, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

There's pleny of usage with this spelling. Almost half a million sites on Google web, almost 50,000 on images. --Dmol 08:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

It's an onomatopoeia that's surprisingly widespread (though alternatives "om nom nom" and "om nom" are equally as common). Some cites: "This should feed me for days. [Nom, nom, nom]" (San Francisco Chronicle), "Nom nom nom: Alligator Season Starts Today!" (Miami Times ), "Retro-gamer cupcakes OM NOM NOM NOM" (Boing Boing), "Nom nom nom: Indiana welcomes two new restaurants for students" (The Penn), "This Chain Chomp Cap Is Like "Arf! Arf! Om Nom Nom" (Kotaku)--TBC 21:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to merge or link this with nom? Currently there are entries for nom and nom nom nom, and a mention of "om nom nom", but we have nothing for "nom nom" (which appears to be a short, somewhat unusual form of "nom nom nom"), or for further repetitions used to intensify the interjection ("om nom nom nom", "nom nom nom nom nom", etc.). I doubt we want a never-ending chain of entries for this. Which ones should we have, and how do we deal with the ones without separate entries? My instinct is to put them all under nom with redirects set up for "nom nom nom", "om nom nom", and "om nom nom nom", but I think that may not be the Wiktionary way. Dfeuer 02:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Redirect to nom: it's SoP, if you will: nom + nom + nom. The only phrase I can think of that's like this but that's not SoP is I say, I say, I say (and I'm not sure about that one).​—msh210℠ 02:48, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps (deprecated template usage) ha ha, (deprecated template usage) ha ha ha, (deprecated template usage) ho ho, (deprecated template usage) ho ho ho? Equinox ◑ 03:25, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

What about the "om nom" version? Is that the same or separate? Dfeuer 05:04, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

rolling down the windows

Is this legit? Does it have wide currency? Is it a noun phrase, or does it belong at "to roll down the windows"? (That is, would you say, "Rolling down the windows is his favourite move" or "He is always rolling down the windows"?) — Paul G 16:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. This entry is missing the usual sense of lowering car windows, which is idiomatic as most newer cars no longer have a handle to "roll" them down. --EncycloPetey 18:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

In terms of books, it seems to appear in three glossaries, but no actual usage [15] [16] [17]. Haven't delved into groups yet. Conrad.Irwin 18:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

out the window

Is this really a noun, as the definition suggests? If so, is it actually "out of the window" ("out" being a slangy way of saying "out of")? A cursory glance at the first 10 Google hits out of 13,500 for "an out the window" gives this as an attributive noun phrase only, mostly (correctly) written as "out-the-window".

If it is not a noun, then I think this is really "go out of the window" and should be defined as "(of an opportunity) to be squandered" or something like that. — Paul G 16:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it's (what we call) an adverb (as in "go out the window") and perhaps also an adjective ("another opportunity out the window!" —or is that just an elision of "(has) gone"? See [18]). Same for down the drain, which we currently list as a preposition and which is tagged with {{rfc}}.—msh210℠ 17:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I often heard it when I was much younger. I heard it as both adjective (predicate) and adverb. In meaning it was mostly as MSH describes. "That [opportunity] is out the window" or "They had a chance to win the pennant, but now that's out the window" are examples. I can't quite get an attributive use scenario though. I'm not sure how many verbs besides "go" that it can modify as an adverb with the "idiomatic" meaning, which is just a figurative extension of the literal meaning. DCDuring TALK 18:32, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Still in relatively recent use. Lyrics from a 2001 Sugar Ray song: "All the things that we used to know have gone out the window." --EncycloPetey 21:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

youtube

I think it possible that YouTube (Citations:YouTube) will make the grade, what about the lowercase version? Conrad.Irwin 11:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I have enough citations for YouTube#Noun and YouTube#Verb, and am closing in on YouTubed#Adjective. I think everyone who can be sued spells it YouTube. Perhaps on groups, unless Google automatically "corrects" the spelling before displaying it ? DCDuring TALK 18:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that this probably deserves an entry, particularly for the thousands of times I've seen the phrase YouTube generation this year. Personally, as a middle-aged man, I only encountered YouTube this year but it is mentioned in various areas: politics, commerce, sociology...--Jackofclubs 10:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I think the lowercase version should probably be used as an alternative spelling or at the very least, redirect it back to the uppercase article as I'm sure it's still widely used even though I would probably use it with capitals (= "I'm just YouTubing", "I'm on YouTube", "Just YouTube it!" and so on). I think it's okay it's to be a bit loose with this, at least in the verbal sense, since it's not a very standard form of English grammar to use two capitals in a verb for instance. AndyPandy 20:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

YouTube is not a word, it is more or less slang. 98.226.32.129 09:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Slang words are still words. See WT:CFI for guidelines. Equinox ◑ 20:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

hamster

I can't find hamster used as a verb anywhere.--Brett 00:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Groups is the best for finding terms like this in use. I found various senses for the word, but none seemed to be in use on multiple groups in adequate count. I could not find the sense in question, but I didn't do an exhaustive search. One can also find hamstering in bgc, which refers to some kind of civilian foraging to rural markets for produce, etc., especially during wartime and postwar scarcity in the UK, though this usage seems to have been Dutch and German as well. See hamstern. DCDuring TALK 14:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Confirm hamstern is used in German. Not even that rare. Mutante 12:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Same for Dutch: hamsteren Jcwf 13:39, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

And here I thought that to hamster was to accumulate stuff, much like a packrat def.2 ...

in German hamstern does mean to be like a packrat...--BigBadBen 20:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

baggs

Alternative spelling of bags, a verb meaning "lay dibs". See dibs. Single citation is from Australia. DCDuring TALK 19:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't locate the 2006 Daily Telegraph citation on Google news or at either the UK or Australia newspaper sites. DCDuring TALK 20:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

pookie

Several definitions were added and removed in its history. H. (talk) 09:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Pickett's charge

Headword does not match strange article title. SemperBlotto 21:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

• This was moved to Pickett's charge‎ - where it now seems rather encyclopedic. SemperBlotto 15:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I've found some cites that might warrant keeping this for its figurative meaning: something like "valiant futile frontal assault", synonymous with charge of the light brigade, but without as good a literary publicist. DCDuring TALK 00:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I entered this term because it is a catch phrase, a misconstrued rallying cry, a buzz word for optimists and pessimists alike, and a historic event still studied in military academies in many countries. Wayne Roberson, Austin, Texas 14:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC) 03 Oct 2008. 9:10am CDT.

The historic event is encyclopedic and we have the WP link for that. The citations I found support the meanings that are on the citations page, IMO. It wouldn't surprise me if additional citations or reconstrual of the existing citations might support the senses you mention, but a dictionary entry cannot cover all the divergent interpretations of a historic event. DCDuring TALK 14:56, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

cookbook

RFV etymology. On a hunch, I'd imagine that the etymology is just cook + book, and not from German. I was going to change it, but maybe RFV is a better place. --Jackofclubs 08:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly (deprecated template usage) cook + (deprecated template usage) book, but that's not a very common compound style in English. It wouldn't shock me if it was a calque of German (deprecated template usage) Kochbuch. —Ruakh_TALK 16:47, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

MWOnline dates it at 1809, which, to me, makes the calque seem more plausible. Some dictionaries call it an Americanism, with "cookery book" the UK term. German popular cultural influence in the US was strong at that time. DCDuring TALK 17:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikibooks

Was rfd'd without being listed - does anyone know what kind of cites we are looking for to show that this exists? Conrad.Irwin 00:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

bookseller

1. A person engaged in the business of selling books.
2. A person who works in a bookshop/bookstore.

I'm not sure how the second sense differs from the first. Surely if you work in a bookshop, you are engaged in the business of selling books. — Paul G 06:56, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Not all 1s are 2s. Not all 2s are necessarily 1s, either.

1. A 1 could be a manager or owner of a bookstore. For example, The Riggios, who own much of Barnes and Noble in the US, are not often in any of their 800 stores, nor are many of the employees, many of whom might call their administrative or managerial duties "bookselling". One could be a non-store-based bookseller as well.
2. Are 2s such as textbook buyers, coffee-shop functionaries and cash register operators booksellers? (There is a joke involving a guy complaining about his job cleaning up after the elephants, the punchline of which is "What? And quit show business?") DCDuring TALK 12:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, partly. I know booksellers who operate their business out of their home, so there is no shop or store. The first definition covers those people. However, I cannot imagine anyone who "works in a bookshop/bookstore" who is not "engaged in the business of selling books" being called a "bookseller". I think the definitions should be merged as "A person engaged in the business of selling books, especially one who works in a bookshop/bookstore". Functionaries who purchase books are bookbuyers, and people who sell coffee only are not booksellers. --EncycloPetey 19:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't sense 1 include companies as well as people? E.g. "Barnes & Noble is a major US bookseller." Methinks that would make the second sense more distinct. -- Visviva 12:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

deuces wild

Template:baseball two on, two out, 2-2 count, 2-2 tie (or variant thereof). Never heard of it. Says its a noun. Can't tell without cites. DCDuring TALK 16:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

First three hits are mention in various baseball dictionaries, I couldn't find a use. Then again this is most likely a term which would be used by a radio or television announcer and would therefore be written down less frequently. The flip side of that is that baseball has been around for a while and most terms which have true currency there make their way to published writing eventually. Some non-durable quotes which may be useful:

• It was deuces wild for Damon Sublett, who had been out of action since October 14. He played 2B and was 2-for-4, with 2 RBI and 2 runs scored. Sublett hit a 2 run go-ahead homerun in the 5th inning. (this one seems to be referring to the general prevalence of twos, not the situation) - link
• Players on the Lewis Cass baseball team shake their hats with the scoreboard showing two balls, two strikes and two outs indicating the next pitch is a ‘roll of the dice’ Thursday in the Class 2A Cass Sectional final against Northfield. (photo title is "deuces wild" - link
• Fukudome is up, with Deuces Wild, and a chance to do some damage for Tabata’s Cougars. Remember, it’s never a blowout in fantasy. (Sorry!) Okay, full count, runners on the corners… and… foul ball… and Ball 4! Alright, bases loaded for the ninth Cub to bat this inning, Micah Hoffpauir. (in this one it seems to only mean 2 outs, as there is clearly a 3 ball count) - link
• On the radio, Vin Scully is weaving together a story about the old days, talking about how a Pittsburgh team once won a game because of a pillow fight in the stands, which may be the one tactic the Dodgers haven't tried. // "Deuces wild," Scully says. "Two balls, two strikes, two out." (this one is from the LA Times website, not sure if it was ever published) - link

In general I am not seeing a distinction between usage for the specific count and situations (not even baseball specific ones) where there are a bunch of twos. I would say generalize and keep or toss altogether. - [The]DaveRoss 16:43, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

goldy

golden. Not in OneLook dictionaries (except Wiktionary. DCDuring TALK 16:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

• It's in the OED. Not marked as obsolete or anything. SemperBlotto 07:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

word

Rfv-sense: Template:music Spoken-word poetry accompanied by one or two musical instruments and performed as a unit. I'd like to know more about this from citations and/or usage examples. DCDuring TALK 21:23, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

change up

Is this a US protologism? To me, it just means to change gear (in a car) to a higher gear. SemperBlotto 15:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Real and fairly long-standing in US vernacular; perh orig AAVE. The stuff about Obama is complete BS AFAIK. -- Visviva 17:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

OK - needs formatting though, and probably an improved definition. SemperBlotto 17:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I have inserted two senses that I know: one baseball, one general. I know that I can get plenty of cites for the baseball sense, probably for the general one. I'm not sure of the relationship between the general one I added and the rfv'd one. DCDuring TALK 00:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

dead ball

Rfv-sense: (cricket) An arm signal given by the umpire in certain circumstances when the ball becomes dead (arms crossed and re-crossed below the waist).

Is it appropriate and accurate to assign this name to a signal from the umpire? Should this be done for all signals made by people in various identifiable circumstances? A policeman giving a stop sign, should that be a definition of stop? __meco 20:31, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't think that there would be much usage of "dead ball" to refer to the signal as opposed to what was signified. This contrasts with "wave", "salute", "thumbs up", "red light". We could have at least three senses: the state of the ball, the determination by the umpire that the ball was in that state, the indication that the ball was in that state. And perhaps in professional sports, the official record that the ball was in that state. But that way madness lies, for most entries. DCDuring TALK 20:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Here's a troublesome citation:

• 2005, "Cricket for beginners", part IV, BBC News, Aug 26, 2005

  In one of Australia's recent innings, the umpire gave a dead ball as the ball hit ....

That would seem to refer to the signal rather than the signified. I think I will leave this to the philosophers. DCDuring TALK 21:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

rhotacism

Rfv-sense for “inability to pronounce the letter R”.
This seems to be contrary to the other two senses. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:24, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, all are right. See w:rhotacism. —Stephen 21:28, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Our information might have been copied thence, or, conversely, Wikipedia’s information might have been copied hence. None of that article’s references confirm this sense. IMO, Wikipedia cannot be considered a reliable authority when that which it asserts is not referenced. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Here’s one:

• 2005: Bernard Fogel, PhD, CCC-SLP, Exercising the Rhotacism in Absence of Pathology (ADVANCE)

  It is universally accepted that the rhotacism, a defective utterance of the /r/ sounds, is usually the last and most difficult American English consonant to correct functionally.

  I use two methods to help correct the rhotacism.

† ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:42, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

They are correct, referenced or not. A famous case of rhotacism, meaning the inability to pronounce r’s, is the comic character w:Elmer Fudd. It is very easy to find references if you need them...for example: http://books.google.com/books?q=inability+rhotacism&btnG=Search+Books —Stephen 21:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Verified (provisionally). They may have been correct, but the lack of references to reliable authorities meant that that wasn’t evident. It’s verification that matters — truth that cannot be shown to be truth just isn’t good enough. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

The challenged sense now has four supporting citations. RfV passed. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 22:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

confectionary

Rfv-sense: (deprecated template usage) confectionary ≅ (deprecated template usage) confectionery.
It’s marked as Australian, but it might just be non-standard. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:49, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

It's in Macquarie, tagged as obsolete. However, it's also in the OED in this sense, with no tags but with the most recent citation from 1844. I would need some evidence that it is really Australian, and not just globally obsolete; an initial b.g.c. search gives no such indication, although this sense is difficult to filter from the others. Definitely real, in any event; note many occurrences of "confectionaries and sweetmeats" and vice versa. -- Visviva 11:31, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I would think the context tag is wrong, that it is more general, certainly US. The OneLook dictionaries mostly include the sense, but not Oxford or Cambridge, so it might not be used in the UK. DCDuring TALK 11:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

October 2008

cygnine

looks like a word, of course, but where's the evidence?

Plenty of evidence. For example, Roget's Thesaurus. It’s a word like asinine, leonine, canine, porcine, feline, chevaline, and so on. —Stephen 03:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is a quote from an academic journal, contrasting anserine (duck-like) with cygnine (swan-like). --EncycloPetey 04:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

• 1901 — Elliott Coues, On the Classification of Water Birds, "Publications of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia": v. 53: 193-218, p216, footnote

  The genus Choristopus, Eyton, apparently Anserine rather than Cygnine, is said to possess this character […]

Is it just me, or in your cite, does it seem to mean "being a swan" or "being of the swan family" rather than "swanlike"? I think it's just an adjective version of "swan", with all the different meanings that you'd expect ("of, pertaining to, being, or resembling a swan or swans"). Also, we seem to be missing a noun sense referring to some sort of Australian natural poison. (BTW, my impression from b.g.c., which our entry agrees with, is that "anserine" actually pertains to geese rather than to ducks.) —Ruakh_TALK 01:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

utmostly

Listed as an adjective, defined as an adverb, but illogically constructed. There are Google books hits, but I'm not sure that "in an utmost manner" explains anything. --EncycloPetey 00:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

• One of a number from the same user. All bad, most have been cleaned up, some deleted - I would have deleted this one. SemperBlotto 07:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

  I did, but it was re-entered. With Google Books hits, it seemed better to take it somewhere it could be improved. --EncycloPetey 16:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Many days have been passed, so the RFV should be removed at anytime. Steel Blade 15:35, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The originally challenged adjective sense has but one cite, not from a well-known work. The adverb PoS was added and cited by Visviva and is apparently good. The adjective sense now has an RfV-sense tag, but it is unlikely we can do better than Visviva at attesting it. DCDuring TALK 16:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

eo

Rfv-sense: Latin pronoun, colloquial form of (deprecated template usage) ego.

zenzizenzic

It's in the OED entry for (deprecated template usage) zenzic, but with only one quotation, which capitalizes it, writes it with a capital letter, defines it, and spells it differently (Zenzizenzike). —Ruakh_TALK 15:04, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I just added 3 citations from google books. Goldenrowley 05:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

RFV Passed. Goldenrowley 05:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's a bit premature to count this as passed. One of those cites is for (deprecated template usage) zenzizenzizenzic. The other two don't have the same part of speech, and I can't decipher the adjective cite. —Ruakh_TALK 20:21, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong but right now we're just trying to find 3 usages to pass: not three for each part of speech. With 392 hits on Google and 3 uses in Google books, generally the word is passing. The compound was my oversight: I did not notice it was part of a line-breaked longer word, when I added it. To replace that, there's a third cite at Google books but I can't get the snippet to work: Robert Burton, Philosophaster: Philosophaster - Page 41 by Robert Burton, Connie McQuillen, 1993. Goldenrowley 05:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it's three per sense, else how would {{rfv-sense}} work? —Ruakh_TALK 17:14, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

mote

Added by an anon contributor, the -e looks wrong for a feminine noun in Lithuanian. --EncycloPetey 21:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Also old rfv for English verb sense. See mote#Etymology 3. DCDuring TALK 19:50, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

super-ginormous

I see little evidence of use on this. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:42, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there is little evidence but maybe in uses as well. — This comment was unsigned.

If it is not and has not been in use, it is not a word for Wiktionary. Why waste time on it? You are better off to find the usage first before you take the trouble to make a good entry. DCDuring TALK 23:29, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if this is a waste of time of doing so. You can decide whatever you feel about the word "superginormous". What do you mean by "If it is not and has not been in use, it is not a word for Wiktionary."? It was used.... please search for Google. :/ But ONLY you can decide, not me. — This comment was unsigned.

120 hits for a word on the entire web is basically nothing. In contrast there are 930,000 hits for "ginormous" and 106,000,000 for "big". Numerous misspellings and nonsense words get more than 120 hits. A longer word, "internationalism", gets 970,000.

You could find the citations at google books, google news, google scholar, or google groups. DCDuring TALK 11:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Cited, I think; there appear to be exactly three CFI-meeting uses (in our standard corpora, anyway), spanning just about exactly one year. -- Visviva 03:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

• Now its passing depends on whether we accept a cite of "super-ginormous" as relevant for "superginormous". I could go either way on that, I suppose, but haven't knowingly accepted alternative forms for attestation purposes in the past. DCDuring TALK 11:21, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay then. I think we all may and should leave its definitions the way it is and all it needs now is an alternative form of superginormous. — This comment was unsigned.

Each entry is to be cited separately. DCDuring TALK 12:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay then. — This comment was unsigned.

I don't think cites for an alternative form should count as cites for the main form. As it stands, I like the sound of the word, but it needs to be deleted- one cite is hyphenated, thus ruining everything IMHO. Teh Rote 13:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, I'm done here. Happy citing! BTW, there's a new cite for the hyphenated version. -- Visviva 13:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hyphenation of prefixes is a matter of personal taste, and as super-ginormous is the same word as superginormous quotes with or without the hyphen should be fine. If we are to keep this (which we probably should), it possibly wants marking as {{rare}}, {{informal}}, {{neologism}} or all of the above. Conrad.Irwin 21:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Based on the three citations: Should both entries appear? Should the one with one cite be a redirect to the one with two cites? Should there be a cite on the redirect page? DCDuring TALK 22:23, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Well it is only one word - just because someone decided it'd look neater hyphenated does not make it different - so if we keep one we should keep both. The standard "Wiktionary way" to do this is to use "{{alternative form of}}" or something similar. I reckon we should hard-redirect the Citations page though (if not the entries too</troll>). Conrad.Irwin 00:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Open question: Are alternative forms shown one word (needing three citations or either form) or two (needing three citations of each form)? If this isn't decided here, it will have to go to WT:BP. DCDuring TALK 15:02, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted the hyphenated form as unattestable: it's been almost a year now. This leaves us with (deprecated template usage) superginormous, one of whose three citations is hyphenated. I suppose we need a third unhyphenated one to close this. Equinox ◑ 12:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

suggilated

bruised black and blue as a result of a beating. Actually would be a past and past participle of suggilate, which appeared in Webster's 1828. Not much use for any of the four forms. 1 News. 2 groups. One group hit might be a mention. DCDuring TALK 23:47, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Several in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 22:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

at the high port

And while we're at it, can someone who really knows tell me in what position you'd be holding a rifle if you were holding it (deprecated template usage) at the high port? I know it's a position of readiness, for example held while running (deprecated template usage) at the double. Somewhere online it said 'at the high port' means to hold the rifle above one's head with both arms outstretched, but I'm thinking that might be a modern extension of the term applied to such a punishment or exercise. Oh, and our current entry for (deprecated template usage) at the high port describes a rare slang sense stemming from the "readiness, quickness" of soldiers in this particular rifle position. We need to list the real rifle position, but I can't find it's description anywhere convincingly. -- Thisis0 03:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC) ':Edit: Ok, so I just found this Apparently, it does mean hold a rifle in the port position well over the head. Any other thoughts welcome. Any cites for the slang sense? -- Thisis0 03:55, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Needs a picture or two, once we're sure of what the sources mean. DCDuring TALK 11:57, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

account manager

Rfv-sense: Template:business Someone who is in charge of financial accounts, especially in businesses. I always that that definition given was of what was called an "accounts manager" in the UK, Oz, and NZ and an "accounting manager" in the US (and Canada?). I also thought that an "account manager" was a salesman. DCDuring TALK 23:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I claim no linguistic accuracy, but isn't an account manager somebody who manages one account (=single customer's interaction with your company) and so accounts manager would be somebody who manages several (and could probably equally be called account manager, because it's a bit unusual to pluralise the attributive adj)? I think I've heard both, but it's not the area I work in, so I can't be certain. OTOH you have customer liaison but not customers liaison, so I don't know how likely the accounts is; it just seems like something I've heard. Equinox 23:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Raw Google hits: account mgr 25M, accounts mgr 1M, accounting mgr 3M. Account manager is a person who is in charge of one or more named customers or of a specified segment of the market. Accounting refers to financial bookkeeping and accounting mgr is thus a different thing. The Rfv'ed definition seems to be of an accounting manager and should indeed be deleted here. A separate entry for "accounting manager" would in my opinion be pretty close to a SoP, and no more worth inclusion than e.g. sales manager or purchasing manager. --Hekaheka 04:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Based on bgc scanning "accounts manager" seems to also be used more-or-less synonymously with "account manager". I can refer to "my account manager" and refer to someone who has a title of either "account manager" or "accounts manager". Also an "account manager" could be in charge of directed the provision of goods and services to one or more customers and only have incidental selling responsibilities. There may be other possibilities. It does seem possible that the term is occasionally used as the RfV'd sense says, but I didn't collect the cites as I saw them. DCDuring TALK 11:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

From the US west coast I hear it all the time in business as account manager (not accounting). My understanding working for them is that they manage accounts (business clients). Goldenrowley 06:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Are we ready to reach the conclusion? Nobody has defended "account manager" as manager of financial accounts and thus the sense should be deleted, --Hekaheka 20:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

marketising

If this is real, then it needs a definition rather than an example. SemperBlotto 21:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Lots of bgc citations for marketize/marketise (now added), mostly for process of converting toward a market economy, applied to Western public sector and to former socialist economies. I'll look more for the sense given. DCDuring TALK 22:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Comment on usage: I think in the USA we'd either use (commonly) marketing or (rarely) marketizing instead of this spelling. A version with "z" as an alternate spelling has two times as many hits at Google Books. Wouldn't it be more British to use the "s" version? If yes, I find it odd to see an example of two American products Sony and iPod used as an example for a British spelling? Goldenrowley 06:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

If we don't get cites for the noun (like plural form}, this will just be a participle anyway. At marketize we have the 2 senses I found in use. This should be a "soft redirect" to there or marketise. DCDuring TALK 11:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

brivet

Nothing obvious in Google book search. SemperBlotto 15:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

A couple of entries have now been turned up, using the word in the right context. I don't know if they will be sufficient, but the article's talk page contains fuller discussion. Llykstw 16:16, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps an OED consult would be in order. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 02:42, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not in the OED Online. (I don't think SemperBlotto would have RFV'd it if it were.) —Ruakh_TALK 23:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

SB'd mentioned that he'd looked it up there, but I forgot to strike my request. Thanks. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 23:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Three Google Books references are now listed on the discussion page, albeit some with a variant spelling 'brivit', plus the usual in-context uses 'in the wild'. Are we getting close to resolving this rfv? 213.86.133.215 15:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

featuristic

Protologism? There are some Google hits but very many of them seem to be errors for (deprecated template usage) futuristic. Italian translation did not exist (removed). One hit for the French translation given. SemperBlotto 16:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Failed; deleted. Equinox ◑ 12:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

excelsior

Really used as an adverb in English? Perhaps it should be an interjection. Equinox 19:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd bet on interjection and not adverb. DCDuring TALK 20:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Closing. Somebody has changed the adverb to a usage note. Equinox ◑ 12:59, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

November 2008

stabil

There is currently no attestation of the Czech entry of stabil, and two native speakers--me and User:Karelklic--do not know the term. --Dan Polansky 12:05, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Czech-speaker User:Duncan MacCall is the one who wrote that stabil means landline phone. —Stephen 17:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

The main discussion on the subject took place here. To sum it up: the word exists and it's used, though not quite as much as I had thought, but as I was only able to prove this by sourses which aren't durably archived, and thus failed to meet our CFI, I'm not opposed to its being deleted by anybody else (while strongly rejecting to do so myself). --Duncan 21:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

play

(intransitive) To deal with a situation in a diplomatic manner. Can this possibly be intransitive? What sort of sentence might it appear in? Equinox 16:09, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

If we meet with Shakashvili, how will it play?

But the definition isn't quite right. More like How should it play? and that is impersonal or avalent. Robert Ullmann 19:26, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I think of the sense used in the cite as applicable in any context (diplomacy, business negotiation, politics, interpersonal relations, entertainment, advertising) where "audience" reaction (one person, many, or mass) matters. It is close to a sense of play out, but MW has go over as a synonym, which is better. (BTW, the entry seems to lack some senses.) DCDuring TALK 19:52, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Chamaole

Formerly: Transwiki:Chamaole

A Transwikied Chamorro word. --EncycloPetey 01:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I know this has been on the list for a while, but I'd give this the benefit of the doubt and just leave it in as a transwiki for now, because it is not likely we have anyone who speaks Chamorro that can cite in that language. Goldenrowley 02:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Velcro

Adjective and verb are lowercase, right? --Connel MacKenzie 19:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I would remove the adjective altogether, since it's attributive use of the noun. --EncycloPetey 20:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Removed. Equinox ◑ 19:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The suable publishers tend to show it capitalised (Books, News, Scholar); Groups has more lower case. Other dictionaries also show it mostly capitalised as a noun, less consistently for verb. Both upper- and lower-case forms are attestable, I expect, even the upper case form of the noun by the tighter standards for trademarks. DCDuring TALK 21:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Dictionaries cannot be sued for putting a trademark as a word (look at the money Google wasted on this one!!) as long as they can show citations. Wikt has the CFI process for this. The ONLY thing a trademark holder can do is request the dictionary to place the word as trademarked, as part of the process of maintaining possession. But if the people are using the word as a common noun, verb etc. then hard luck. The only thing that trademark possession means is that, within the territory to which the trademark applies, no other trader can sell a similar product with the same name. Trademarks are, believe it or not, a consumer protection rather than a supplier protection. If it were not like that, then you would not be able to sell a second-hand Ford. ;-) So. To sum up. This entry should probably uppercase trademark, and lowercase noun, verb, etc. IMHO. -- ALGRIF talk 10:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

vigour

Verb? Was it really, or just a poetic nonce somewhere? --Connel MacKenzie 13:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

b.g.c. suggests that (deprecated template usage) vigo(u)red did exist, but I'm not finding too many uses as a real verb; and the uses that I do find don't seem to have this sense. (I'm really not sure what's up with them.) Still, it's in a few dictionaries — we got it from “vigor”, in Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, Springfield, Mass.: G. & C. Merriam, 1913, →OCLC. — so it probably warrants fuller examination. —Ruakh_TALK 16:11, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

antic

Rfv-sense: To make grotesque. I couldn't find this sense for "anticking" or "anticked". DCDuring TALK 00:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

For me the first hit at google books:anticked is some edition of Antony and Cleopatra, Act II, Scene 7, line 119, with Anticked us glossed as “(1) Made dancers of us, (2) Made us grotesque.” The first hit at google books:anticked grotesque is another edition, same scene, line 147 (presumably there's some prose in the scene, so that different editions will have different line numbers?), which glosses Anticked as “transformed into antics (grotesque performers)”. (We do have that sense at [[antic#Noun]].) Unless we have a reason to doubt these glosses, I think this would fall under the "well-known work" ConFI. —Ruakh_TALK 02:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind having a dated sense, but I do mind having a dated gloss. "To make grotesque" is not a gloss that communicates to me. Nor does it seem the only or the most direct reading of the Shakespeare passage. All the other uses (not very many independent ones) suggested something like "make fools of" or intransitively "play the fool". Websters 1913 showed that sense as obsolete and cited Shakespeare (no specific citation). MWOnline shows no verb sense. I thought there might be some other citations or contexts that could make sense of the definition as written. Perhaps the OED can shed more light on this. DCDuring TALK 03:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Nope, no more light. The OED Online does have this sense (†1. trans. To make antic or grotesque. Obs.), but its only quotation is the same one from Shakespeare. My understanding is that the OED includes at least one quotation for each sense from each century where it's attested, so apparently this sense isn't attested outside the 17th century (at least so far as the OED is aware). —Ruakh_TALK 03:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

prived

Nominated for deletion many months ago on what were essentially verification grounds. Moving here to close up there. bd2412 T 11:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thomas More's Utopia ("well-known work") for sense of "deprived" (adj.), arguably Middle English. Also possibly another etymology with same meaning: eye-dialect for "deprived", "'prived". I doubt the "spoilt" sense and the verb. DCDuring TALK 16:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't even have the verb - I went through the history of prive and there never was an English verb (from which allegedly prived is formed). --Duncan MacCall 18:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If we let this run here for a month, giving a chance for something we've missed, we should be able to clean the entry up. I don't recollect what we do about entries like [['prived]]/[[prived]] < [[deprived]]. DCDuring TALK 19:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

jumpup

Definition is questioned.Goldenrowley 16:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Def seems close to right. Should be lower case. (I will move it.) Uppercase apparently only used in Australian place names. Not limited to Northern Territory in Oz, also WA. Lower case has other senses. DCDuring TALK 16:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Please inspect cites. 6 support use in Australia, 4 in place name. 2 support sense. One weakly contraindicates. DCDuring TALK 17:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Also see jumpup#References. DCDuring TALK 12:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

apologie

Is this French or English or both? Either way the entry needs to be fixed because its categorisation for both Latin derivations and nouns are French.--50 Xylophone Players talk 17:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

snout as verb

snout has a verb form listed, meaning to provide with a snout. Can we confirm? (Saw some entries at google books that might mean it has a sense for an animal to dig or nose with its snout, I was looking for snouting). RJFJR 03:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Could they possibly mean constructions like large-snouted, hairy-snouted? You can, in a way, read those as "provided with a snout of such a kind", but it doesn't imply a full verb with all the inflections. Equinox 13:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Here are some random data points, which I am too tired at the moment to do anything constructive with:

• As a legit verb, "snout" can apparently refer to something done to hogs before slaughtering.
• We should definitely also have the sense "to push or probe (as) with a snout", which accounts for at least 1 in 100 hits on b.g.c. (the other 99 being scannos for "shout").
• The sense given is more problematic. I'm inclined to think that it exists, but the only cites I can find are for the past participle, and they're right on the line between verb and adjective: watchtowers snouted with machine guns, shoes snouted with a metal pike. This seems more like [participle]-with-[noun] than [adjective]-with-[noun] (cf. "red with blood"), but I'd like to see at least one clear-cut use.
• "Snouting" also apparently has a sense in early cyclotron lingo, but again attestation seems to be participle-only and therefore dubious as a verb. -- Visviva 15:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"Snouting" seems to be one of w:H. L. Mencken's favorite words. He uses it in a way to suggest three pig behaviors,: sniffing out, rooting, eating greedily:

It would be wrong to list this under the infinitive verb as lemma, because it is not used in the infinitive. (Listing this way would be a hypercorrective back-formation.)

OED has other verb forms, but this one is a separate entry labelled ppl. a., meaning provided or furnished with a snout, or snout-shaped. Wiktionary:Entry_layout_explained/POS_headers allows a Participle header, but comments it “Used in some Russian, Lithuanian, and many Latin entries.”  —Michael Z. 2009-04-11 22:02 z

growler

Rfv-sense

Agreed - this was the type of iceberg most feared by the Titanic, as it was barely visible.— This comment was unsigned.

Yeah, I've also heard growler for a kind of iceberg before; verification is at [19], but I haven't time now to sort through those.—msh210℠ 22:47, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I can personally attest to the sense "A roughly half gallon jug typically used to carry beer", as I have friends who brew beer professionally and sell growlers. This sense and the "iceberg" sense appear in Merriam-Webster's 3rd ed. --EncycloPetey 22:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

And the final, UK sense seems attestable [20], but, again, I haven't time now to do it.—msh210℠ 23:03, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Striking, since the tags have been removed from the entry. Each of the RFV'd senses has at least one quotation. However, I'm not actually marking them "RFV passed" per se, and anyone wishing to re-RFV them may do so. —Ruakh_TALK 18:47, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

audacity

How do the two senses of audacity differ? RJFJR 01:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The first is expressed with a negative connotation; the second is neutral to positive in its connotation. At least, that's how I read the two senses currently on the page. I'm not sure that both senses would be distinct if we had citations. I've not heard the word used in a particularly positive light. --EncycloPetey 01:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

rheumatic as noun?

example sentence: "The rheumatic was confined to her bed." Can we find citations? Would be a parallel to arthritic as a noun: "the arthritic was confined to her bed." RJFJR 00:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

• The OED has the noun as rare for a rheuumatic patient. But (deprecated template usage) rheumatics for (deprecated template usage) rheumatism is very common in the UK. SemperBlotto 08:40, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

wikify

Jargon or real? DCDuring TALK 11:30, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The {{wjargon}} sense is not only inadmissible, but also redundant with the first sense, as far as I can tell. I've added two more senses. -- Visviva 07:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Which senses are you rfving? Wikis are very popular, WikiMedia have the biggest ones, sure, but sense 1 at least meets and surpasses CFI. For the others, I admit, I'd never use the word in that way. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:08, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

From the history, I can see that senses 2 and 3 were added shortly after the rfv. I have converted the RfV to 2 RfV-senses for sense 1 and sense 4. Sense 1 seems to have been cited. Sense 4 has not in nearly nine months, so I would say that it has failed. Neither sense 2 not 3 are cited and probably should be, but as part of a new RfV once this one is closed. DCDuring TALK 00:05, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

asearch

All the Google hits I could find seem like scannos of "a search". --Jackofclubs 13:27, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

• You could probably argue for a Middle English header (although I hate that) – I've added a Wyclif cite. It appears a lot in his Bible, which is obviously quite a well-known work. Ƿidsiþ 13:41, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
  • That's for aserch though. --Jackofclubs 13:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Could you please render the citation in proper(contemporary) English, I cannot understand it. Bogorm 13:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I think Bogorm's problem (which I share) is why separate Middle English entries and translations of (some?) Middle English citations are needed. Given all the spelling variations and inflected forms, we would harvest a lot of entries too. We might find more than 20 forms of terms related to serch. DCDuring TALK 16:58, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand you. Do you mean we should have entries for all spelling variants? If so, I agree. But this is the lemma form. Ƿidsiþ 18:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't sticking to the point. I was arguing for Middle English entries, which you had said above that you hate, using Bogorm's and my difficulties with understanding the Wyclif passage as support. More specifically to the point at hand, the cite is not of the term asearch#English. It seems instead to be of aserch#Middle English or aserche#Middle English or aserchen#Middle English. DCDuring TALK 19:21, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I think I already lost that argument ages ago. There are quite a few ME entries here. But the point is this: when do you draw the line. There are many early-modern texts which are just as hard to understand, and I would find it very weird ‘translating’ those. Also, there are very few words which only exist in Middle English, ie which did not survive into early modern and therefore I think it's more useful to collect this historical development under one =English= heading. (Although annoyingly, asearch isn't a good example because I don't think it did outlast ME!). Ƿidsiþ 14:06, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

December 2008

standoff as verb?

Current definitions for verb don't look like verbs to me. RJFJR 20:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I assume it's an error. As you suggest, forms like standoffed and standoffing would be absurd. I've removed some mistaken verbs of this kind in the past. Having said that, standoffing appears once in Google Books, and user:DCDuring stood up in support of standby as a verb, so I suppose you never know! Equinox 21:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Agree. I don't see any way to use this as a verb except to take it apart into "stand off". -- Pinkfud 21:46, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Not this one -yet - afaict. DCDuring TALK 03:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I have created stand off with correct definitions. This supposed verbal form of what is generally accepted as a noun is a no-no for me. It would need some pretty convincing cites to support the definitions given. I'm not searching, as I believe the search will be a futile waste of time. -- ALGRIF talk 14:53, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

We seriously need the nautical usage(s) for stand/stood/stands, stand off, stand into. The cruiser stood into the harbour. The harbour was blockaded by two British frigates standing off the coast. (and that is a verb of course ;-) Robert Ullmann 15:01, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Be my guest and add them. I had not thought about these, to be honest. Cheers. -- ALGRIF talk 16:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

If we want to be strictly descriptivist, I think it's clear that many speakers write the bare forms of many intransitive verb-particle idioms without any space or hyphen; for example, "please login" gets >50 MGhits (raw), even though "he logined|loginned" gets <60 (real) and "he loggedin" gets <20 (real). In the case at hand, google books:"designed to standoff" (for example) pulls up three distinct non-scanno verb uses. However, we're not strictly descriptivist; we do have some concept of "misconstruction" or "misspelling". So, how do we want to handle this? Is it a misspelling? (If so, I don't think it's common enough to be included.) —Ruakh_TALK 17:30, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The inflected forms are, um, rare. Is [[standoff]] just an alternative spelling of [[stand off]], with a note that it doesn't inflect? or categorised as a defective verb? It wouldn't be unreasonable to indicate it as non-standard too. DCDuring TALK 18:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I've rewritten the section. Please take a look. —Ruakh_TALK 15:46, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine. To keep this from being rechallenged or "corrected", should we also have a usage note? The inflection-line could be missed of taken as an error. I don't think the talk page copy of this discussion is enough to prevent a repeat. DCDuring TALK 17:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I've taken a stab at it. I put it in a template, because it applies to a lot of these idioms, but that may not have been the right decision. —Ruakh_TALK 17:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

n-dimensional

[From an earlier comment I made on the talk page.] Isn't this really covered by -dimensional? I think there is nothing special about the letter n here. Mathematicians can use any letter they want. I don't see (or like the idea of) corresponding entries for k-sided, n-sided, k-gon, n-gon (see -gon)... Equinox 20:51, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

n-dimensional is a valid term. The n refers to number and means any number. I’ve never heard of "k-dimensional", nor have I heard of n-sided or n-gon. Where did you see those terms? —Stephen 00:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

n does not "refer[] to 'number' and mean[] any number". If a mathematician wants to refer to some n-dimensional space for some n, then that's what he'll call it: "an n-dimensional space for some n". Not merely "an n-dimensional space", leaving the listener to understand that that means that n is any number. (Same, incidentally for n-gon, n-torus, n-sphere, n-hedron, n space, etc. An exception is p-adic number, and there may be more exceptions, but that's the general rule.) This entry is, per nom, covered by the entry -dimensional and should redirect thereto, or be deleted. But this really belongs at RFD rather than here, I think.—msh210℠ 17:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

That's somewhat true, but check out google books:"n-dimensional". Still, I think this is SOP: n in general is used this way. —Ruakh_TALK 22:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree unanimously with Stephen and must even admit that n can mean solely number, there is no other possibility. n-gon sounds more than facetious. Please, keep the entry. Bogorm 18:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't call n-gon facetious. It turns up with regularity in geometry textbooks, even at the grade school level, at least in the US. It is used in the discussion of polygon general properties to mean "any polygon with n sides" (and therefore n angles as well). For example, the sum of the interior angles for any convex n-gon is 180 x (n - 2). The use of the term n-gon in this situation saves the author a step in explaining that n stands for the number of sides/angles. --EncycloPetey 23:07, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

The point was that Stephen has never heard of n-gon and neither have I, because the habitual letter is k(I am a citizen of the EU). I am forsooth flabbergasted to be apprised of the deviation described by you and taken up with in the USA. Bogorm 17:10, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I am similarly shocked that n-gon is not standard in the UK (but am not completely surprised, given some other significant notational differences I've seen). The term n-gon makes more sense to me intuitively, since we use N for the set of natural numbers, and thus the value of n must be one of those numbers (excluding n < 3 for Euclidean geometry). Doesn't standard set theory notation use the capital letter for the set, and the corresponding lower case letter for the elements of that set? The variable k isn't used much in the US, at least in the pre-collegiate math texts. I think I've only even seen it used in proofs by mathematical induction. --EncycloPetey 20:11, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, n-gon is not uncommon in the UK. Whether or not it is "standard" depends on whom you ask! Dbfirs 17:48, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion at Wiktionary:Tea room#-dimensional which includes the question as to whether [[-dimensional]] deserves to be an entry, as it does not appear to me to be a suffix, though the entry bears that PoS header. DCDuring TALK 23:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This should be in WT:RFD, not here. N-gon is a definite keep, likewise k-gon if that's what used in the EU, and n-dimensional is no more sum-of-parts than three-dimensional. N-sided looks more like a modifier construction though. DAVilla 19:18, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Allowing both k and n doesn't escape the issue that any letter can be used. (More real examples from Books: "which divides P into a q-gon"; "also belong to a p-gon".) three-dimensional may be notable because it is so common; I don't think the rationale for keeping it can be purely that none of these are sums of parts, because something like seven-hundred-and-six-dimensional would be shot down by anyone. Separately: I don't understand how -sided and -dimensional differ in their construction; could you explain what you mean about only one involving a modifier? Equinox 19:25, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Not entriely sure. Why do we have three-dimensional and four-dimensional after all, and not three-sided or four-sided? Maybe it's that the number of dimensions paints a really different picture in our minds, whereas the number of sides is simple counting.

I'm curious, are p and q prime? If so then a p-gon and an n-gon are not the same thing. In higher-level geometry, each regular polygon is a special creature. Primarily, they can't all be constructed. 67.9.175.207 16:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This is yet another jargon term within my own field. In geophysics, we can and do find buried structures by magnetic, gravitational and seismic surveys. Now, if we find what looks like an ancient lava flow, it's important to know whether the shape is tabular, lenticular, or irregular. Short of digging it up, the best way to do that is with a series of so-called n-dimensional calculations done on the data. The "n" that yields results closest to the data is taken to represent the most probable shape. I'd say this should be kept. -- Pinkfud 19:38, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

gärna

Rfv-sense of the sense "easily" - I can't think of any context where it would fit, but... \Mike 19:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

This is from Lexin Swedish-English dictionary (http://lexin.nada.kth.se/cgi-bin/swe-eng): Elden slocknar gärna när veden är sur "a fire goes out easily if the wood is wet". Though, this sense doesn't seem so distant from "willingly". Kettler 14:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Mmkay, but "easily" is a vastly broader term where most of the subsenses do not correspond to this word. \Mike 16:01, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Washington

Rfv-sense. Needs cites of attributive use referring to the person. Least controversial is as an adjective. See Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#Washington. (No RfD at entry) DCDuring TALK 19:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

cited in attributive use. DCDuring TALK 20:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Would "Washingtonian" used in reference to G. Washington be considered attributive? E.g.:

• 2005, John W. Matviko, The American President in Popular Culture, p. 4:

  By appearing in uniform, Jackson was able to convey his strong character through these images. Jackson had seized on one element of the Washingtonian myth and clung to it.

bd2412 T 05:26, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No. That's a different derivative word. Attributive use would include items like "Washington administration", "Washington Monument", "Washington Turnpike", etc. where Washington's surname is used itself as if it were an adjective, to describe something associated with him, his philosophy, or in his honor. --EncycloPetey 06:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I've added Washington's Birthday as an entry, which should settle this discussion, as it is clearly used attributively here. --Jackofclubs 08:36, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I do not see how a regularly created genitive is the same as an attributive use of a noun. --Duncan 15:38, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't. Possessive use is not the same as attributive use. --EncycloPetey 18:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

RFV failed, sense removed. —Ruakh_TALK 15:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

knaggligt

Rfv-sense "tough". Maybe I'm just tired, but I really get the connection between this pair of words. \Mike 23:46, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

RFV failed, sense removed. —Ruakh_TALK 15:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

craft

RfV for the historical–nautical sense; it may also need sense-spliting. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:47, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I can verify these uses, but the only sources I have for the net/lines/hooks is Smyth's The Sailor's Word Book (1867). Will split and clean up senses. - Amgine/^talk 04:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Birkenhead

Moved from rfd for cites of attributive use per WT:CFI#Names of specific entities. DCDuring TALK 12:14, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

It's a surname.451 bearers in England and Wales.--Makaokalani 14:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Not in the entry. Evidence? What about other 3 senses? DCDuring TALK 15:21, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for removing the rfv - I mistook it for the rfd mentioned in the talk page. I have no opinion about earls,they are no use for me anyway, but when a word is an attested surname, it's sensible to add a place name definition, to avoid confusion, and to show which one derives from which. I'm just putting surnames into categories. Place names are creeping in, there should be some limit to them. --Makaokalani 15:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

What you say seems sensible to me for such entries, although one could argue for placing the place name in an Etymology section, as we sometimes do for unattestable brand names.

Though I think that many proper noun entries are too duplicative of WP articles, I am really interested in achieving alignment between WT:CFI and our practice. At present I see the supplanting of CFI by votes on individual entries. If we have a policy of including surnames, is our evidence standard the same as for other entries (thereby favoring the names of authors!!!)? I could see the merit in distinct evidence standards for various classes of Proper nouns, but I would like it discussed and voted on. DCDuring TALK 17:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

gemmule

I think it is probably right, but the Wikipedia article only mentions one sense. Some cites would help anyway. H. (talk) 14:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. As someone formally trained in bryology, I have never heard "gemmule" used, nor can I find it in the standard bryology reference works I've checked thus far. Bryologists use the term (deprecated template usage) gemma, and these are already very tiny. There is no use for a diminutive when the object is only one cell or a few cells to begin with. How much smaller could it be? --EncycloPetey 20:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

fmi

—Ruakh_TALK 23:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Try searching Groups for the exact phrase "FMI contact". Equinox ◑ 23:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

depotate

A 19th Century source says that depotates (ambulance attendants) served with Hannibal's army (3rd Century), so presumably the term originates in Latin? I would like more sourcing for this sense. There is a second sense that sometimes is rendered despotate; is depotate an alternate spelling? --Una Smith 15:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Further discussion shows that the first sense of an "ambulance attendant" is probably a typo/error for Latin deportantes, which is substantive use of a plural participle form. --EncycloPetey 18:57, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Casachia

Another TBot pseudo-Neo-Latin entry--this one for Kazakhstan. In the 1662 Blaeu Atlas, the region is labelled "Kasakki Tartari" (Khazakh Tartars). This is the only information I have, since the term would have to be relatively recent in Latin. --EncycloPetey 19:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Latin Wikipedia says w:Casachia is good. —Stephen 03:15, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Based on what? There aren't any citations there. The fact that there is an article on the Latin Wikipedia titled w:la:Casachia is not sufficient support to meet CFI. --EncycloPetey 22:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 16:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

annodate

annodate in English? RJFJR 03:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

RFV failed, English section removed. —Ruakh_TALK 16:20, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

flameberge

misspelling of flamberg, flamberge, I think. DCDuring TALK 15:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

ultramontane

Rfv-sense - across the Alps (flagged but not listed)

This looks good to me. We need to say that it is from a Northern viewpoint - so has an opposite sense to that of (deprecated template usage) cisalpine and (deprecated template usage) transalpine. SemperBlotto 22:53, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

unsure

Rfv-sense: "lacking confidence, conviction or determination"

This appears to be a case of thesaurus creep. The sense most simply is "lacking confidence", with the additional nouns adding no nuanced meaning or expansion. (The lack of conviction, in fact, is not necessarily an element of unsureness - ask any soldier if xe is unsure xe should be a soldier, as opposed to having a conviction xe should be a soldier.) - Amgine/^talk 02:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, should be trimmed. (This seems more like an rfd-sense, but no matter.) -- Visviva 02:28, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

RFV failed, sense removed. —Ruakh_TALK 16:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

mannequin

Requesting verification for "manikin" sense. Does that sense ever occur with this spelling? -- Visviva 09:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Kaffir

Encarta: Dictionary

þe

The quotation cited is from 1431, which is before the circa-1470 Middle-English–Early-Modern-English boundary, making it invalid as a citation of an English word. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:18, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Why not just change the L2 header to Middle English, even if there is usage in something printed post-1500? There are probably many English "obsolete spelling" entries that would probably benefit from such a change, even if they are all in Roman characters. DCDuring TALK 17:09, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

If we have citations both præ- and post-1470, then we need two sections: English and Middle English. Of course, the Middle English section would list the definition simply as “the” and not as “Obsolete spelling of the”. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Go nuts! DCDuring TALK 20:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Done. I'm assuming that this assuages your complain Doremítzwr. If not, please feel free to reinstate rfv, as I have removed it. If so, could you strike this thread? -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 20:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

It does about the misplaced citation; however, I’m curious as to whether (deprecated template usage) þe saw any use in (post-Middle) English. (I imagine it probably did, considering the fact that our citation is from Middle English’s twilight decades…) † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:06, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The English section now has three citations; are they sufficient to verify this word’s (extremely restricted) use in English? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 04:08, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. I see why you're asking. The groups cite seems mention-y. The 1901 cover title use seems like graphics. I'd sooner stipulate that it was still in use after 1500 than have those as precedents. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 23:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

cut up

Rfv-senses (X2):

1. To aggressively move in front of another vehicle.
2. To be upset.

I've only heard 1 as cut off and 2 as broken up. DCDuring TALK 19:54, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

The second sense about being upset, I have heard many times. Is it a UK expression.--Dmol 00:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Both of these senses seem OK to me (in the UK). SemperBlotto 08:17, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The vehicle sense is good, but the "upset" one is subtly wrong. To cut up is not to be upset; to be cut up is. ("She was cut up about it", not "She cut up about it"). Equinox 09:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, I missed that. Not sure how to word the definition in that case.--Dmol 09:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The vehicle sense is common in UK, at least. Sense 2 is possibly an adjective? I can't think of any active voice use of the verb cut up with this meaning. -- ALGRIF talk 15:46, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Collins has it as an adjective, BTW. -- ALGRIF talk 13:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Are we saying that the vehicle sense is "in widespread use" in the UK only, then? DCDuring TALK 00:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Strong keep for #1, cut off isn't even a synonym of it. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:55, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

This is an RfV. Votes don't matter. The two senses would need citations. It appears that sense 2 is just wrong. The word is an adjective, which now appears in the entry, properly tagged. We need for UK speakers to declare sense 1 "in widespread use" in the UK or to find citations. Isn't there a UK speaker who can find such a UK idiom? DCDuring TALK 10:13, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

reparation

Rfv-sense - verb. Nothing obvious in Google books for "reparationing" or "reparationed" that isn't a spelling mistake or OCR error. SemperBlotto 15:50, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I see two real hits for reparationing and one for reparationed, but I'm not sure what they all mean. The -ed one clearly means "to force to pay reparations":

• 2001, J.N. Stroyar, The Children’s War (novel), Simon and Schuster, ISBN 9780743419284, page 191,

  “Money,” Wolf-Dietrich stated categorically. “Look what happened to us in the First World War. Shit, if they had won, we’d have been reparationed back into serfdom. […] ”

and the -ing ones both take regions as their objects, so might mean the same thing, but I don't have enough context to be sure.

—Ruakh_TALK 19:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Islamic fascist

The sense defined as "(pejorative) Islamic fanaticism, fundamentalist or fundamentalism". What does that have to with fascism politically, and what reputable sources, if any, have used it this way? (I'd question the other senses too, as SOP, but that's another matter.) Equinox 16:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

We're descriptivist; our quotations don't have to be from "reputable sources". If we ignore our entry's failure to distinguish "fascist" from "fascism", it otherwise seems to be accurate; the American Right Wing really does use these terms this way. (At least, I think so. The Right Wing might only use "Islamofascist". google news:"Islamic fascist" gets two hits at the moment, and both are potentially ambiguous.) —Ruakh_TALK 19:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with facsist or fascism. It is used by the U.S. "Right" because it is a dirty word, which doesn't need to be understood, it is just intended as a slur. (Although is especially effective as a deflection of noting that the present administration of the "Right" does have fascist characteristics.) Many (perhaps most) pejoratives are not literal. But I haven't heard or seen this form, just "Islamofascist". Robert Ullmann 03:00, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

75 Books' hits [21], mostly contributive, AFAICT ambiguous about whether the speaker meant our sense 2, 3 or 4. I wonder if senses 3 and 4 might be merged, but the greatest fault I found about sense 4 is that it defines fascist (a person I believe) as fanaticism and fundamentalism - only fundamentalist doesn't seem out of place there IMO, the others should be at Islamic fascism, if anywhere (269 Books' hits [22]). And finally - it shouldn't have too much to do with real fascism, like our sense 1 does, for that would just be asking for deletion as a SoP, wouldn't it? --Duncan 09:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

• Keep - I don't have a problem, with the definition as it stands. WritersCramp 23:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources: [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] — This unsigned comment was added by WritersCramp (talk • contribs).

However, if you do a google web search you get Results 1 - 100 of about 24,100 for "Islamic fascist". (0.48 seconds) WritersCramp 23:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

sloom

Is is really heavy sleeping or just slumber and is there really snoring involved?

The following quote speaks more for slumbering:

The squire sloomed

and slept in his chair; and finally, after a cup of tea, went to bed.

There also seem to be meanings in Scottish like wilting of flowers etc.

In Dutch the word is an adjective meaning sluggish, particularly in the sense of dumb-witted. Jcwf 21:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

According to the online Dictionary of the Scots Language ([28]) the Scots meaning suggests light sleeping: A dreamy or sleepy state, a reverie, day-dream, a light sleep, slumber, “an unsettled sleep” for noun and To sleep lightly, doze, slumber fitfully for verb. --Duncan 12:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

inclusive or

Used as a conjunction in running English text. 67.9.175.207 06:57, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

By geeks? Most people would say "or both" because it is simpler and shorter. Dbfirs 22:56, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

clocked out, but headword needs a noun sense. Would translations apply to the noun sense? DCDuring TALK 19:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Only occasion in which I might imagine using "inclusive or" (or its Finnish equivalent, rather) as conjunction is when reading out a logical formula in the same way as one reads out a mathematical formula (I think we have entries of the expressions used in reading out mathematical formulae). It may be hard to find a permanently archived quotation of this baby, though. Whether it merits an entry, I leave to others to decide. --Hekaheka 04:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

One way to handle this would be to write a usage note similar to that in the entry exclusive or. --Hekaheka 05:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

That seems right. I've added the noun. It is really the PoS that bothers me. I can imagine that in some geekspeak dialect this might be understood even in speech, but, in the absence of evidence, the conjunction should be deleted. DCDuring TALK 12:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

google-proof

Only published use seems to be written by google. Conrad.Irwin 12:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

write a test

A previous RFV verified the usage of the phrase. This one is a separate issue: whether it's sum of parts. The talk page suggests that this is just one construct using write and test (because we also see there "The tests will be written"), so I think that the South African sense should merely appear under write. Equinox 12:05, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Where are the citations from the previous RfV? Three of the four links are dead. None seem to have been to attestable sources. Was the previous RfV properly closed?

There are at least two distinct sensess:

1. To make a test; to design examination questions or test cases.
2. To take a test;

I don't doubt that at least the "take a test" sense is in use, though not much in the US. We don't have the appropriate wording at write for these, IMO. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 13:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's SoP imo. It's a question for RFD afaIct. (Incidentally, I know the phrase as meaning "take a test" from older UK books, not from SAfr ones. Can anyone confirm that this, perhaps dated, UK usage?)—msh210℠ 17:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

arcana

RfV-sense for “[a] secret essence or remedy; an elixir”. Etymologically plural, but the sense is a countable singular and the inflexion line calls this noun uncountable. Is this mistaken — in terms of the word’s grammatical, if not its semantic, function? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
This seems identical to the second sense of the singular form (deprecated template usage) arcanum. Is this word properly a plurale tantum, whereas its singular uses are {{non-standard}}? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:48, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

dingleberry

Rfv-sense 3. Another name for the Southern Mountain Cranberry. I doubt it very much! -- ALGRIF talk 18:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It’s listed in the Dictionary of American Regional English, so it looks like it exists. I find the other two sense more quæstionable, personally. If they do exist, are all the senses related, or do they need to be split by etymology? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:09, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The "stupid person" sense is easily attested as slang [29], but I can't say what its etymology might be, or whether the senses might be etymologically related. --EncycloPetey 21:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

All the farmers where I used to live in Cumbria used to call a dingleberry a dingleberry, or a winnet, and a spade a spade, or a shovel. -- ALGRIF talk 11:30, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of Modern Slang, page 55, says that the slang senses derive from the cranberry sense; I would imagine that the "stupid person" sense derives from the fecal sense. The ODMS also says that "dingleberries" can refer to the female breasts, but their citation for this looks a bit sketchy. I'd be very surprised if that could meet CFI. -- Visviva 06:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately the references in the DARE are mentions, not uses, so I don't think that's sufficient (though it is definitely worthy of note). The Range Plant Manual of 1937 may contain a use, but snippet view is not cooperating.[30] This may need to be relegated to "Etymology" if we can't get some more satisfactory attestation. -- Visviva 06:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

lol

Yes, good old "LOL". I bet you're all delighted to see this come up. I am questioning the "lots of love" expansion, which I've seen on several dubious Web sites that list acronyms (and probably copy each other, which might even be how we got it), but I have never seen it used. Can anyone find even one good citation of LOL in this way? Equinox 21:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

There's the oft-repeated story (an urban myth?) of how it was mis-used in an e-mail to a widow, but this is an example of mis-use. Dbfirs 19:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If you know people from the older generations then you'll see that it used to be used for "lots of love" a little. A couple of years ago, my mum was in her forties and a little technologically challenged; for months she thought that my sister was being very affectionate ending all her text messages with "lots of love." I know personal experience isn't citable but at least I can assure you that it is definitely a legitimate sense of the word. D4g0thur 17:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

January 2009

guh

English interjection. Not in any major dictionary I can get hold of. Usenet has a mass of baffling usages. Equinox 09:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I note the creation of the English section was an edit done on 26 May 2007, the first and only done by the editor involved. Pingku 12:03, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Guh?! Clearly widespread use. OK, maybe not, but I know I've heard this plenty of times. A b.g.c. search is unencouraging... maybe there's a competing spelling? -- Visviva 04:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Does google groups:"guh it's" help?—msh210℠ 19:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I've only ever heard it from the character Amy Wong on the TV show Futurama. According to her Wikipedia article:

She uses Martian slang, which is simply American slang with altered consonants, such as "Guh" (duh) or "Shman" (man).

Her IMDB quotes page includes examples that aired in 1999 but were set in the year 3000, so it spans 1001 years, and obviously slang in the year 3000 has to be independent of a turn-of-the-third-millennium TV show, no matter how wonderful the show was, so I think it meets CFI. ;-)

—Ruakh_TALK 00:02, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ruakh, but it might be a tad premature to include etymology from the year 3000. - Pingku 15:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that guh is the letter G (hard pronunciation) and by extension (a la rap) any of a small set of words beginning with a hard G. For the interjection, this might be 'God'. There is also the rap lyric "We a guh somewhere" (Ziggy Marley), where it appears to mean 'going'. - Pingku 15:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

gẃraidd

Tagged but not listed.
This word does indeed exist in Welsh with the translation (deprecated template usage) root. (However, it is correctly spelt without the acute accent. In Welsh, the stress is normally on the penult; if it is on any other syllable, an acute accent denotes the irregular stress — as, for example, in (deprecated template usage) carafán and (deprecated template usage) casáu.)
I’ve not come across the adjectival sense of (deprecated template usage) manly before; however, the word’s form makes perfect sense (as the combination of: (deprecated template usage) gŵr + (deprecated template usage) -aidd). Perhaps the acute accent is used to differentiate the adjective from its nominal homograph; however, I have only ever seen the circumflex and grave accent used for this purpose, and never the diæresis or acute accent.
† ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:53, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

One more thing to note: If this adjective does indeed exist (sans acute accent), then our entry for (deprecated template usage) gwraidd will need to be split by pronunciation, with the monosyllable (deprecated template usage) gwraidd pronounced as /ɡwraið/ and the disyllable (deprecated template usage) gwraidd pronounced as /ˈɡu.raið/. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I've responded on Talk:gẃraidd with the results of an enlightening Google search. &mdashhippietrail 02:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

So it is used to avoid homography…
As enlightening as that excerpt is, it is still but a mention, and we need use. The only usage I could find anywhere on the internet was a thirteenth-century pœem (spelling modernised). Is this adjective obsolete? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:40, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It's in the Geiriadur Prifysgol Cymru p. 1698, in this exact spelling with the acute accent on the w. The dictionary itself gives several quotes showing use of the term, but none from later than the 18th century, and none using this exact spelling. However, that doesn't necessarily mean it's obsolete, as the dictionary usually only provides quotes for words up to about the 18th or 19th century. Angr 21:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

prefices

Plural form of (deprecated template usage) prefix.
Not so; (deprecated template usage) praefixus is not a third-declension Latin noun. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 07:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The etymology doesn't matter; the form is used.

• 1981: Reiner Luckenbach, Beilsteins Handbuch der organischen Chemie‎ (English edition), page 1571

  The names used in the index...are different from the systematic nomenclature used in the text only insofar as Substitution and Degree-of-Unsaturation Prefices are placed after the name (inverted), and all configurational prefices and symbols...are omitted.

I get over 600 b.g.c. hits doing an advanced search for "prefices" but excluding "prefixes": [31]. --EncycloPetey 07:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I grant you that it exists; however, it is hypercorrect. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 07:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's hypercorrect, just formed by analogy with indices. It does carry a bit of snootiness, but I wouldn't call it hypercorrect. To be hypercorrect, it would have to have some degree of correctness to begin with. :P --EncycloPetey 07:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

So it’s non-standard?
(deprecated template usage) -ex → (deprecated template usage) -ices is a correct pluralising pattern for a fair number of words from the Latin third declension; however, it is misapplied in the case of (deprecated template usage) prefix → (deprecated template usage) prefices, which renders the usage hypercorrect. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 07:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You seem to have missed my final punctuation (:P). --EncycloPetey 07:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn’t; my first sentence was intended as a joke, too. Urgh! Too tired methinks… † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 07:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

• Given that the (mis-)use is common, do we tag it "common misspelling of prefixes" or "proscribed", or just put a usage note to point out that it is not "correct Latin"? (And do we allow fices as the plural of fix? :P) Dbfirs 21:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

  We can only call it "proscribed" if we find published style guides that disfavor that spelling. We don't have to worry about additional spead beyond the words (deprecated template usage) prefix, (deprecated template usage) suffix, (deprecated template usage) affix, and the like, just as (deprecated template usage) mouse -> (deprecated template usage) mice has not spread to (deprecated template usage) spouse -> (deprecated template usage) spice or (deprecated template usage) grouse -> (deprecated template usage) grice. --EncycloPetey 21:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

  Unfortunately, I cannot find any style guide that mentions this, but I am surprised at how frequently this spelling occurs, even on academic websites and documents. The only alternative plural in the OED is "praefixa" (different spelling, and from E. BREREWOOD Enq. Lang. & Relig. in 1613). Perhaps we should just put a usage note so that our readers do not think that the "alternative" plural has equal weight. Dbfirs 09:42, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Doremitzwr, I think the problem is due to the absence of both words (suffix and præfix) as nouns in Latin, they are simply nonexistent as nouns, but only as participia perfecti passivi of the respective verbs. Someone from the modern grammaticists has decided to botch up this noun from the Latin participle and thus caused the mess with us ascertaining unsuccessfully whether the noun belongs to the first or third declension... The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 11:39, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

According to the OED, (deprecated template usage) (whence (deprecated template usage) præfix and, more directly, (deprecated template usage) præfixum) does exist in (post-Classical) Latin. (deprecated template usage) Præfix belongs to neither the first nor the third declension; it is a second-declension neuter noun with its case ending removed. Wherefore, its legitimate plural is (deprecated template usage) præfixes; conversely, if one retains the case ending, using (deprecated template usage) præfixum, then the legitimate plural is (deprecated template usage) præfixa. *(deprecated template usage) Præfices is incorrect (specifically, hypercorrect) in any circumstance; it ought to be avoided except if one wishes to convey jocular pædantry (as with (deprecated template usage) thusly &c.). † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 08:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

acronyx

English: Ingrown toenail. Scores, if not hundreds, of mentions. Haven't found an English use. Might be room for Latin entry, used in taxons. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 18:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

christer

Sense 2: an exclamation point (supposedly UK usage). Any citations apart from the single one given? Usage in an actual printing context would be particularly convincing. Equinox 18:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, it looks like this entry should be merged into Christer. —Ruakh_TALK 21:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

India Pale Ale

I doubt this can be attested in attributive use, but it deserves a shot. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 19:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The is a common noun, so it should not require attributive use; regular citations will do. It's a common style of ale, brewed by many breweries, at least on the West coast of the US. --EncycloPetey 04:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's just an ordinary noun phrase. Several varieties, brewed by several different companies, in the UK. Not as popular as it was though. SemperBlotto 08:28, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

But wouldn't it be India pale ale? DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 23:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not principally a "common noun" or "ordinary noun phrase" in the UK, where IPA is a particular brand. You can easily go into a pub in the UK and Ha! I double-checked this and I'm wrong. Apparently, several brands offer an IPA. Around here, there's some particular green-and-gold brand, though, and I assumed that must be the trade mark that no other UK brand could use. You live and learn. Update: oh yeah, I think DCDuring is right that "pale ale" doesn't deserve capitalisation for a generic term. Equinox 01:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

You’re probably thinking of Greene King. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It might be attestable in title case, but almost all occurrences that I've found with that spelling are references to specific products. I have made and cited an entry at India pale ale. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 02:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Is it at all noteworthy that the Wikipedia page for India pale ale redirects to the article at India Pale Ale? Irrespective of that, I agree with DCDuring that our main entry ought to be at (deprecated template usage) India pale ale, with (deprecated template usage) India Pale Ale existing as an alternative-spelling entry directed thereto. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Setting one or the other as an alternative spelling sounds like a good idea. --EncycloPetey 03:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

valence

Rfv-sense: fringes on a blanket. This should be an alternative spelling of valance, right? Valance does not have this specific meaning, afaict. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 02:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Either that or a misspelling. --EncycloPetey 04:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Some dictionaries have it as alternative. I'm wondering whether there is some regional difference. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 15:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Or a confusion between the almost identical spellings and perhaps pronunciations. An etymology for valance might help. Pingku 17:06, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

dry

Rfv-sense: "To forget the words, to lose your way in a speech."—msh210℠ 19:39, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't this sense be at dry up, where it's missing? --Duncan 21:12, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Added the sense to dry up, left it, so far, rfv-ed, at dry. --Duncan 01:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Assume so. I don't see how it could be dry. Equinox 00:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it might be specific to the acting profession - any thespians out there? Dbfirs 09:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

gomic

There have been some doubts expressed about this word's validity, both on the talk page and on Wiktionary:Feedback, so I figured it should go through the standard verification process. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If it fails, we have to fix the translation table s.v. faggot.—msh210℠ 22:48, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If used in Romanian (more likely Moldovan), it is a borrowing from Russian (deprecated template usage) гомик (gomik), a standard pejorative term for than sense. —Stephen 13:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Moxie

Not as popular as Mountain Dew. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 16:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Etymon for moxie. The OED gives one uppercase cite sort of in this sense, dated 1890. (see it here) -- Visviva 10:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The etymology of Moxie itself would be nice. But we don't have any American Indian translations of wintergreen (if the WP speculation is good enough for us), let alone one appropriate for Maine. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 10:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, the OED reserves judgment and refers the reader to the DARE, and for once the DARE entry is conveniently available. I note with some amusement that the DARE's earliest cites for moxie/Moxie qua wintergreen considerably post-date the first production of Moxie ... perhaps the berry was actually named after the drink. ;-) -- Visviva 11:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Plutarch

No attributive usage for this name given. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 08:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The existence of Plutarchian (and Xenophanic) is highly suggestive. -- Visviva 09:52, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm increasingly of the opinion that certain authors, whose works are widely known and who are frequently referred to by a portion of their full name without ever giving the full name, merit an entry for the short form of their name. I think particularly of writers like Aeschylus, Plato, Tacitus, Livy, Chaucer, Erasmus, Shakespeare, Dickens, and the like. The short form is often used as a shorthand for the corpus of their works, or for one particularly well-known work. Consider: "I was reading Tacitus last night," would be understood to mean that you were reading a book by Publius Cornelius Tacitus, most likely his Historiae, even without giving his full name. Simply having an entry for Tacitus that said "given name of classical Latin derivation" and "a lunar impact crater" would not be in the least enlightening. --EncycloPetey 02:39, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Just found this interesting quote (b.g.c.):

• 2001: Jessica Martin, Walton's Live's, chapter 2, page 34

  Part of the intention in this chapter is to ask whether to call a biographer a 'Plutarch' is to pull a name of a popular classical biographer at random out of a hat of appropriate but imprecise possible compliments, or whether it confers a particular kind of commendation on Walton's practice.

So, apparently there is a tradition of calling a biographer a "Plutarch". Martin actually cites a 17th century discussion of this issue from Dryden. --EncycloPetey 02:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Xenophanes

No attributive use given for the person. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 08:59, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wha’?! Why RfV this one? He’s a famous præ-Socratic! † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Because being an Ancient Greek doesn't get you a free pass from meeting WT:CFI. This one would make it as a name word. I'm sure that WP has a page for all the famous Xenophaneses. DCDuring TALK 00:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

This is the English transliteration of a Greek, given name. We include names. I will try to tweak the def a bit, to make it more in line with a dictionary. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added three cites that I think reflect occasional use of this as a byword for a Xenophanic thinker. Where are we on bywords? Can this now be split into a separate sense a la Robespierre? -- Visviva 07:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

After the addition of the cites the use of the given name as a byword is incontestable and thereby the article becomes justified. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 08:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I do think that we should split the two senses. The "religious thinker" sense is obviously cited at this point...although I am a little uncertain as to what its POS would be, so I'll let someone else make that split. It seems the sense referring to the specific historical entity has been removed, so I wonder if we still need three cites for the given name sense. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 00:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I restored the more explicit reference to the pre-Socratic, since no one will get “the Colophonian poet, philosopher and religious critic” who doesn’t already know who the eponymous Xenophanes is (and will therefore not need to look up his name hereon). In re splitting: the one and only (deprecated template usage) Xenophanes (Wikipedia has an article on only one “Xenophanes” — no others are notable, it seems) is a proper noun, whereas the “religious thinker” sense derives from that eponym, and is a common noun (irrespective of its initial majuscule). † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"atr.use"'dget aMEGA-RASBRY4MOST USE-LES PROP[concept if ulike],EVA--user-BLINDppl!--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 16:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Perfectly good entry. One day we'll get CFI changed to "all words in all languages". SemperBlotto 16:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

But doing so may just make en.wikt a shorter WP.

As to the citation standard that has been introduced: if we permit any citation of the form "[det] [X Y] of Z", where [X Y] constitute a proper noun, then Marilyn Monroe, Jerry Rice, Derek Jeter, Michael Jackson, Judge Crater, Charles Manson, etc. will soon be in here. This would be a powerful precedent indeed. DCDuring TALK 01:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

If properly cited and explained, I think these should be welcome here. How many people now understand what Uncle Vanya means when he says "I could have been a Schopenhauer"? How many will understand it in another century? Or when some relict bit of literary criticism declares so-and-so to be "the Addison of his day"? But as with brand names, the standard should be aggressively enforced, and proper names without such citation -- that is, those that are not shown to refer to anything but their normal referent -- should be removed. -- Visviva 03:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand the value of it, but that value in one traditionally captured by encyclopedias. I think that accepting there quotes requires a reinterpretation of the attestation rules that have been deemed to apply to proper names. In effect it is a material easing of our standards. Is this justified as "attributive use" in a broader sense of attributive than we have been using? Has the consensus on how we cite Proper nouns changed over the last year or did I misunderstand the consensus? This might be a very reasonable place to redraw the line for inclusion. But how does this apply to proper names that are attestable in this way only in another language? Does it have any effect of the citation of fictional characters? I suppose we aren't doing all that great a job of getting folks to improve the quality of entries anyway, so we may as well just increase quantity. DCDuring TALK 14:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

variation

• Rfv-sense: "A distinct group of objects or things"

The sense is absent in Webster 1913, Century 1911, and Merriam-Webster online. I can't remember the word in this sense. --Dan Polansky 13:48, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It might make sense if restricted to biology/genetics. See [32] DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 15:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It works as a specific instance of difference, distinct from the phenomenon of difference. I've added an example sentence. --EncycloPetey 01:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

jumpoff

Probably not capitalized, if it is citable. --EncycloPetey 02:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it a dance competition? <confused> - Amgine/^talk 02:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Moved to the lower-case spelling and found one book citation. Need two more. Equinox ◑ 14:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

-ia

Rfv-sense: (English) "Used in forming analogous pluralia tantum, such as paraphernalia and Mammalia."

Two problems with this: (1) Mammalia is a Translingual word from Latin, not an English-original word, (2) the suffix added in paraphernalia seems to be -alia. Are there actually any English words formed from this putative English suffix, that do not fit one of the other two senses given? --EncycloPetey 07:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Difficult. Perhaps automobilia (car collectibles), imponderabilia (inexplicable things)? If the suffix here is -lia or -ilia then perhaps we need another entry for that. Equinox 19:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Administrativia is common on Usenet, I think. I've always understood it to be uncountable rather than plurale, but maybe I'm wrong.—msh210℠ 20:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I would consider it plural, like (deprecated template usage) news (which I think ought to have the entry changed to say as such). These examples, if they meet CFI, all sound like they justify the suffix, and would serve as good replacement examples in the entry. --EncycloPetey 05:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I notice that many of these entries would actually fall under -bilia. I can only explain this as a reference to memorabilia. 70.171.228.228 21:36, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

apostle

One user pointed sense 4 out as "unreferenced and unlikely". Instead of dismissing that entirely, especially as I'm unaware of that sense myself, I figure RFV would be a good idea. If it's verifiable, we should be able to get citations for it. Even if that happens, though, it should probably be an {{alternative spelling of}}. —Leftmostcat 11:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It is certainly a separate etymology, as now shown. It is very tedious to cite. Are there any dictionaries or glossaries that include the spelling? DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 12:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I've given up on trying to verify the challenged sense. I found three other legal senses. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 15:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

this should do nicely. The apostilles referred to are defined by the 1961 Hague Convention, so google on apostle 1961 Hague convention will get you lots of hits. The first books hit is Black's, which should be plenty good enough for us. (;-) Robert Ullmann 16:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has a related story: Cambridge_Apostles. --Hekaheka 03:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

gound

Sleep? Never heard of it. —Stephen 02:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Robley Dunglison's Medical Lexicon] has the entry "CHASSIE (F.), Lema, Lippa, Glama, Glemē, Gra'mia, Lemos'itas, Sebum palpebra'lē; the gum of the eye, (Prov.) Gound or Gownde, from chasser, 'to drive out.' A sebaceous humour, secreted mainly by the follicles of Meibomius, which sometimes glues the eyelids together." and the entries "GOWNDE OF THE EYE, Chassie." and "GOUND OF THE EYE, Chassie.".—msh210℠ 23:25, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

deflation

Rfv-sense: does "deflation" mean reduction of the money supply or does it mean only a reduction in the general level of prices, possibly/probably/always caused by a reduction of the money supply. (Same question applies to all kinds of flations in-, re-, disin-, hyperin-.) clear citations needed, even if tendentious. DCDuring TALK 01:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

The disputed definition is "A contraction in the volume of money and credit relative to available goods." Use of the term 'relative to' seems to imply a ratio, leaving open the possibility that the money/credit supply is increasing, but the availability of goods is increasing faster. (It is not clear, to me anyway, that this would necessarily lead to a reduction in prices.) Perhaps the def should be reworded to clarify exactly what is being calculated. Pingku 11:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

vocal

Rfv-sense: insurance sense. (This might actually be an issue for RFD, I'm not sure.) —Ruakh_TALK 15:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

broken

Sense 9 has the entirely vague quality of seeming wrong to me. I've searched for citations for it but have found nothing. It's entirely possible I'm not searching for the right things, though. It's indicated as being in the Merriam-Webster by one user but this doesn't necessarily mean it's attestable. I wonder if Merriam-Webster is simply being non-discerning with the sense "broken down", used in my experience as a past participle. E.g., The erring soldier was broken down to private for his insubordination. —Leftmostcat 15:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

saoirse

I haven't found any example or dictionary entry of this form for Scottish Gaelic - seems like an Irish form only. (Created by anon together with the Irish form.) --Duncan 19:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

First, keep in mind that I'm maybe only gd-0.5. Certainly not good enough to put it on my Babel. I did a quick bit of googling (for "tha saoirse") and came up with this reference and a couple hits from the GAIDHLIG-B mailing list. I don't know if they're correct. But it may be possible to come up with some better cites using similar searches. It's possible that it's simply happening by analogy with Irish, as the dictionaries are listing saorsa as the correct gd form. Hopefully that helps at least a bit. —Leftmostcat 20:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

scalpea

I can find one iffy b.g.c. hit; the other returns from the search were typos/scannos for scalped. --EncycloPetey 21:24, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

кунакуница

The Bulgarian section must either be hoax or tagged as obsolete (if any sources are found). In the first case one must get rid of the section, in the second - tag it. In a voluminous dictionary it is shown that the Bulgarian word for marten is бялка and куна is not listed at all. Bogorm 11:14, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The fist has been removed by the contributor. Can we verify the second? There seems to be no dictionary of modern Bulgarian which lists this word (see above, the term is бялка). Bogorm 12:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's listed in Vasmer's dictionary as a Bulgarian cognate, so it must exist, if not in standard language than in dialects, older texts or somewhere.. --Ivan Štambuk 16:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

clear blue water

gap between goals and achievements of political parties. Is this still in use? Where? Should it be RfDed? — This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talk • contribs) at 10:21, 19 January 2009.

bombsite

Not seeing much of this spelling. Bomb site is of course much more common.—msh210℠ 20:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, but that's just because I Googled bombsite. Googling +bombsite yields lotsa hits, I see now; can I cancel my request for verification without bothering to cite?—msh210℠ 19:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Closing. Equinox ◑ 00:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Reopening: sense 2 - Is there a figuraitve use? The example given for the figuraitve sense says "like a bombsite", which does not suggest that the second defintion is valid. --EncycloPetey 20:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

pregorexia

The person who created the entry notes: "It was noted as a buzzword of 2008 by NYTimes." Has it been around long enough to meet CFI? --EncycloPetey 04:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't find durably archived hits from before last August; but, it was used in the British Journal of Midwifery, in an article title no less, back in September. Assuming that said is a refereed academic journal (and it does seem to be), then I believe this does meet CFI. —Ruakh_TALK 02:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

ish

citations, regional? Multiple senses seem to overlap. The "adverb" and "adjective" would be indistinguishable from "-ish" in speech, so we need print citations. Is there a citable missing noun (="shit")? DCDuring TALK 12:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

New citation of this word usage:

Using -ish in a non-standard way as in "Good(ish) News from Procter & Gamble: No Ad Cutback Here"[33]

— This unsigned comment was added by 76.170.221.227 (talk) at 07:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC).

I can not find evidence in b.g.c. (fiction} [423 raw hits for "ish"] for the purported adjective and interjection. Most hits are eye dialect for "is" (ish#Etymology 1), the proper nickname "Ish", and the ubiquitous adverbial development of the suffix ish#Adverb, but for which I have found only 2 cites in standalone use. I'd be inclined to keep the adverb and mention the potential broader use in usage notes. DCDuring TALK 12:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

A-team

Any evidence for this used as a verb? --EncycloPetey 05:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

This is silly. "A Team" means the 1st squad of a special forces unit or ODA (see description of ODA]) or (e.g.) a sports club. The whole point of the television series (w:A-Team) was that the members were anything but the "A Team". (I always enjoyed the show, where they would always succeed mostly by accident, at which point the leader would intone "I love it when a plan comes together!"; and the expenditure of many thousands of rounds of automatic fire, with no one ever getting hit ;-)

Might be a noun entry, but I doubt the verb from the TV series' concept has any use. Robert Ullmann 08:15, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

key

Verb, sense 7 (just added by an anon.): To link (as one might do with a key or legend). -- WikiPedant 18:35, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Added 1 cite for now.—msh210℠ 00:42, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

nowever

Most Google hits seem to be either for "now ever" or typos for "however". A few real hits, but all for the same work? SemperBlotto 12:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

non plus

RfV tag since June 2007. Not cited during 9 months in RfV. We have long had nonplus. I have added non-plus which is abundantly attestable. I have not found English for the inflected forms of non plus. I have not determined an easy effective way to separate English non plus from Latin and French. DCDuring TALK 20:26, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

protologism

An anon. recently restored this page to a full entry. I was about to revert him, but I’m not sure whether I should. (deprecated template usage) Protologism kinda looks like it could satisfy the CFI, unless there are some independence issues in re Wiktionary that I’m not considering. What do others think? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:23, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Google protologism|protologisms (Books • Groups • Scholar): No b.g.c. or news-archive hits. Two Scholar hits, but it's not clear to me whether either was in a refereed academic journal, or even durably archived somewhere. Several Google Groups hits, but all are problematic — either mentions, or non-Usenet, or directly quoting from Wiktionary or Wikipedia, or using it in a list, or by our very own Language Lover (talk • contribs). (I guess the one by Language Lover isn't actually problematic, but there's something weird about quoting our own contributors' Usenet posts. I'd really rather not do it without good reason.) —Ruakh_TALK 00:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I would like to keep it, with the existing warning. An occasional visitor in Wiktionary's discussion pages might want to check what is meant with it. --Hekaheka 01:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

If it doesn't pass the letter and spirit of CFI, then it doesn't belong in the dictionary. If we invent our own words, and then break our own rules to publish them, then we shouldn't be in this business. Move it to Wiktionary:protologism if you really want to keep it. —Michael Z. 2009-04-03 02:10 z

Found what I believe is a durable quote from the April 2007 issue of Prospect. (At least it is in the online version of that British magazine.) I'd say that one likely isn't problematic. No mention whatsoever about Wiki-anything in the article. — Carolina wren discussió 04:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, converted back to {{only in|{{in glossary}}}}. —Ruakh_TALK 01:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

adolescentilism

• Moved from WT:RFD DAVilla 06:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Only one citation so far is any good. The Devil does not convey meaning, and Annabelle du Fouet is mention not use. DAVilla 06:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

The 2003 use by The Devil does indeed convey meaning, in the same way that the following dialogue conveys meaning:

>I often eat apples.

That’s very healthy of you.

The above dialogue only conveys the meaning that apples are a foodstuff and that it is a healthy thing to eat them regularly; it says nothing about apples being a type of fruit, that they are about the size of a tennis ball, that they can vary in colour (usually greenish to reddish), but that doesn’t mean that the use of (deprecated template usage) apple in that sentence isn’t intended to convey those qualities. If we expected the full meaning of a term to be explicit in a quotation for it to count, we wouldn’t have any entries for terms expressing complex concepts. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:16, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

In the case of apple we could get many citations in support of any attribute of a good definition. In the case of a rare word, we can perhaps get three citations in support of its existence and we can infer what it might mean. The current definition is clearly an overfitting of a definition.

The definition ("The desire to act like or be treated as an adolescent.") has at least three attributes: "desire to act like" (vs. behavior alone) or "desire to be treated as" (vs. enjoying the behavior in itself) and "adolescent". One could easily argue that the "adolescent" element is contained in the stem. I don't think that -ism or -ile are specific enough to make clear what this means simply from the morphology. Three citations would be just enough to specify one of the two definitions. The citations don't seem specific enough to allow one to determine either meaning to be correct.

There is no such term in, for example, the 1012 pages of entries in the APA Dictionary of Psychology (2006) (nor "teenism"). Perhaps it would be possible to make some inferences from the meanings of puerilism and infantilism or the meaning of adolescentile. DCDuring TALK 21:07, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you’ve just made all the arguments on both sides. Sentential context of use isn’t the only important context. Appeals to etymology, the patterns of meanings of related words, and the prefatory definitions of the authors themselves are all vital for correct definitions. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

quasi

Rfv-sense: conjunction. Not in OneLook dictionaries. OED? Use in law? DCDuring TALK 13:13, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

I would gloss it as "as it were". It is in the OED as an adverb ("now rare"), which seems about right. On the other hand, many of the OED's cites are either in italics or quotes. The cites that I came across on my own were also mostly in italics (thus presumably intended as quasi#Latin): [34] [35]. On the other hand, this one isn't: [36] (on the third hand, I can quite tell what the guy is on about). For now I'd go with probably real, probably an adverb rather than a conjunction, but needs a bit more looking-into. -- Visviva 07:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

February 2009

microfortnight

9 b.g.c. hits, all of which seem to define the term immediately (and often humorously). --EncycloPetey 01:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

The term is indeed intended humorously, and sources do tend to define it when they use it; but neither humor nor defined-ness is a criterion for exclusion. —Ruakh_TALK 07:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

See WT:CFI#Conveying meaning. If all supporting quotations are mentions, rather than use of the word, then we don't have support for this as a word in English use. --EncycloPetey 06:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Right, but that's not what you said. You said that they "seem to define the term immediately", which WT:CFI explicitly says is not a problem. —Ruakh_TALK 13:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

More important than being immediately defined, the term rarely appears to be actually used. DAVilla 07:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This is indeed used in all VMS (VAX) and OpenVMS (VAX, Alpha, Itanium) Operating Systems as a timing parameter set in the SYSGEN parameter list. It is not only humerous — This unsigned comment was added by 84.86.77.75 (talk) at 18:24, 1 February 2009 (UTC).

The citation is fine as an example, but is it not a mere mention? I would have thought that something only being used immediately next to its definition is virtually proof of it being a protologism. I recall being beaten about the head and shoulders concerning such. That the definition is put in the mouth of a character does not make it any the less true that it does not have meaning independent of its definition in the specific usage. DCDuring TALK 20:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

ruthless

Rfv-sense: (Of a problem etc) Difficult to solve. - never seen it personally, no evidence in my usual suspects references. - Amgine/^talk 23:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Two "ruthless problems" in Google Books: "The antitax phenomenon is an increasingly ruthless problem for schools"; "it appeared to him that the still more ruthless problem of £ sd awaited". On second thoughts, it might not mean "difficult to solve" here, but "unforgiving" (as though the problem has been anthropomorphised and made "ruthless" in the normal sense). Equinox 00:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think your second thought is right. The two problems described as ruthless seem not only difficult but impossible to solve and thus "without pity or compassion; cruel, pitiless". Delete sense. --Hekaheka 00:57, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

thwack

Sense 2, supposed computing slang. Equinox 01:23, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Tag as figurative, perhaps. --Connel MacKenzie 00:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

But only if we can find at least one reasonable citation on Books or Groups. Equinox 00:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

resoluter

in resolute it is said: "resolute (comparative resoluter, superlative resolutest)" and those entries are there.

However I have not found anywhere that this case is an exception of the rule: "more resolute" and "most resolute"— This comment was unsigned.

I agree these forms are rare, and the inflection lines on resolute should list the more common forms (only or more prominently). But resoluter does exist: see "I'm the little 'Heart's Ease'!". And so does resolutest: see Paradise Regained.—msh210℠ 19:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

commerciality

Rfv-sense: The essence or attributes of things pertaining to commerce or trade; the quality with which commerce is undertaken; and, the inherent association with trying to make a profit from commerce or trade.

Huh? DCDuring TALK 00:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The first version of the entry had:

This is defined in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (published by the Oxford University Press) as "commercial quality or nature". It also defines "commercial" as "of or relating to commerce or trade" and alternatively as "viewed as a matter of profit and loss"

So "commerciality" refers to: the essence or attributes of things pertaining to commerce or trade; the quality with which commerce is undertaken; and, the inherent association with trying to make a profit from commerce or trade.

What we have in the first paragraph is "commercial quality or nature" and a couple of definitions of commercial, all from SOED. The second paragraph is interpretation, apparently based on the supposition that dictionary entries are consistent. Pingku 17:39, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation.

I defined and cited a fairly obvious basic sense that definitely represents more than half of the Books usage. There may be a US legal sense related to the "commerciality" doctrine(s). There seems to be at least one sense that has to do with intellectual'/artists' revulsion at the consequences of someone's trying to make money commercially. DCDuring TALK 18:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Clocked out (6 months) DCDuring TALK 01:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Great Satan

Rfv-sense 1 -- isn't this just great + Satan? Even our one citation doesn't capitalise the "great" so I don't think it's the same thing. I suppose this should have been an rfd really. Ƿidsiþ 15:58, 8 February 2009 (UTc)

Maybe we should put the quote on the citations page for this so it doesn't get lost (or at great Satan) and delete the sense on wrong capitalisation grounds. DCDuring TALK 17:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

military exercise

Rfv-sense: "War game." -- Visviva 02:50, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

War game is a common type of military exercise. In smaller versions, different companies of a battalion are assigned to one of two imaginary sides and they battle each other using fake ammo. In larger versions, entire nations are involved. NATO war games include participants of all the NATO nations. The USSR was involved in war games as a cover for the invasion of Czechoslovakia after the Prague Spring. Very normal practice. —Stephen 05:29, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, military exercise -- in a sense which appears to have a consensus for deletion as sum of parts -- is a hypernym of war game. The question is whether there is a sense in which it is a synonym of "war game", i.e. where a person referring to a "military exercise" would be understood not as referring not merely to any old "military" "exercise" (e.g. noncombat training maneuvers) but specifically to a war game. Tricky to cite, but if it's real we should have it. -- Visviva 05:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's sum-of-parts. In a military context, a soldier might say to another “we're participating in an exercise next week". But outside of that, the qualifier military is necessary, otherwise the listener may think of jogging, jumping jacks, and burpees (I can't believe that's a red link—creating entry!).

Regarding synonymy, I think many or most civilians wouldn't see a distinction between war games and military exercises. —Michael Z. 2009-03-05 21:53 z

managerial inbreeding

I doubt that actual usage of this purported idiom conforms to sense offered. Not in OnLook references, except WP. DCDuring TALK 04:24, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

catch up

Rfv-sense: 3 senses. 2 seem UK and probably included in broader definitions just added (which could bear more improvement). One broader sense is included in one of the new senses, but but awkwardly. DCDuring TALK 12:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Senses 3, 4 & 5 would all be generally understood in the UK, but are they not all just particular uses of sense 2? Do we need to include every nuance of meaning? Dbfirs 15:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

foo-foo

The two Southern US senses. Sounds a bit like baby talk to me. -- WikiPedant 05:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Ma, pa, mama, papa, mommy, daddy, yeah (Welsh), nah (Welsh), pee-pee, poo-poo, do-do, no-no, so-so, go-go, oh-oh, uh-uh, la-de-da, do-re-me-fa-so-la-ti-do, bong, bam, oops, Danny, Fanny, Lanny, Granny. These sound like baby talk, yet they are widely used and (most of them) understood throughout the English-speaking world. My maternal grandmother and family used foo-foo in both senses (although mainly in the context of food), and I heard the expression/word "foo-foo" in school classrooms (Roanoke VA) and in other situations. The use of foo-foo is expressive, understandable, and logical, particularly in context. I'll try to track down written examples. Wayne Roberson, Austin, Texas 14:49, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

This entry needs work. The unchallenged sense, though a real alternative spellings, seems to belong at fufu. The second usage example is perhaps a metaphorical use of the first, with the purported extra meaning coming from the adjective. Under another etymology there may be an adjective that means something like "poufy" that might be what the third sense is getting at. DCDuring TALK 15:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for citing fufu. Fufu (accented second vowel per Wiktionary) is the key, it seems. I believe we're dealing with several African languages that have a word with a sence that touches on fufu (accented 2nd vowel) and/or foo-foo. Use of the word in US South probably comes from African-American English. I've seen (earliest ca. 1987) in various ethnic-food stores (Austin, Houston, San Antonio, Rio Grande Valley) at least three different labels of boxed "Foo Foo" containing banana flour, yam [name], corn [maize] flour, and mixtures with these and wheat flour, tapioca [manioc/yuca], sugar, etc. Once I heard my maternal grandmother refer to a hastily made sweetened egg-white cake icing as "foo-foo", and later my mother warned me about using the word because some people might be insulted. I didn't use the word much thereafter, but it struck me wherever I heard it -- used disparagingly likely as not. Next time I see the stuff on a grocery shelf I'll copy the label as a citation. Would you tell me the best way to submit the word to be researched/commented on by Wiktionary folks? Wayne Roberson, Austin, Texas 17:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

What we're doing now is likely to lead to something as soon as someone familiar with, interested in, or conscientious about it notices. I can find numerous travelogues and cookbooks that refer to italicised (deprecated template usage) fufu, evidently treating it as an African word. The entry doesn't seem too far off the usage, but the last one seems the toughest to cite. It also seems to be part of Jamiacan English/creole. The poufy sense was unambiguous in only one cite. DCDuring TALK 17:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

account for

• Sense 2. to be responsible for destroying or putting (people, aircraft, etc.) out of action. - Was someone getting confused with "be accountable" I wonder? -- ALGRIF talk 15:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I think this is like "Wills accounted for 3 of the Dodgers' 5 runs in the game." or "Toxic fumes accounted for more of the deaths than either the impact or burns." Perhaps the senses are: "deemed to be the cause of" and "causing", rather than what is in the entry. DCDuring TALK 17:06, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it just needs tidying up, then? -- ALGRIF talk 17:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Missing senses, too. DCDuring TALK 17:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Cited IMHO. DCDuring TALK 16:04, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

haxx0r

Sent hither from RFD, where it was kept on condition it's attested.—msh210℠ 23:01, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Only one Googlebooks entry that I could find, and it is already cited in the article. Could not find any definitions in any other online dictionary. This looks to me like it could be a neologism, or protologism. I cannot verfy this entry at this time. Razorflame 06:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I added that book one and forgot to mention it here. There's plenty more on Usenet, though, if anyone is inclined to wade through it. Equinox ◑ 17:18, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Now cited.—msh210℠ 22:48, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel comfortable passing it with pseduonyms like "VoRtEx" and "Mentski", although in all honesty those are better quotations than the other Usenet cite, which is intentionally illiterate. DAVilla 19:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

passage

In the sense that "anything" can be sexual, I suppose one might make this allusion. But it isn't the meaning of the word in any fundamental sense. --Connel MacKenzie 00:05, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

tête-bêche#French

Rfv-sense: Two of the defining English terms are non-idiomatic and contradict the third. Does this mean (deprecated template usage) head to toe? Does it mean "upside-down"? Does it mean "alternatingly head up and head down"? I don't have suitable resources. DCDuring TALK 18:27, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

• To me it means er, what I would call in English ‘top to tail’, ie when two people are next to each other but each a different way up. Like if you sleep in a friend's bed, you might sleep tête-bêche so that your head is next to their feet and vice-versa. I think it's also used as a synonym for ‘sixty-nine’, the sexual position. Ƿidsiþ 19:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, apparently it also means sixty-nine position. —Stephen 20:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

So, the only sense of three I suggested would be "alternatingly head up and head down"? I saw some usage that seemed to refer to a way of packing suitably shaped items in a box. I don't think we can exclusively rely on idioms and slang English definitions! DCDuring TALK 21:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't speak French so can't comment on its literal meaning, but I have always heard that the English philatalic meaning came from the French meaning "head to toe".--Dmol 22:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

That's what our English entry shows. But we don't have any sense at head to toe other than "completely" because that is the only idiomatic sense. I don't think idioms don't make good glosses. DCDuring TALK 23:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I've found an image that illustrates one of the French senses. DCDuring TALK 23:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

French Wiktionary says of fr:tête-bêche: adverb, "said of two people (or by extension, two objects) that are laid out in the opposite direction from one another, the feet of one being even with the head of the other." —Stephen 21:24, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems a little long, but no one was taken with my "alternatingly" sense. DCDuring TALK 22:49, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

fall

The final sense = to cause something to descend to the ground; especially to cause a tree to descend to the ground by cutting it down.
It seems to me that an earlier editor had it right when he/she added this embedded comment after this defn:

<!-- this example of the tree appears to be a confusion with the verb to [[fell]], and taints the definition-->

-- WikiPedant 05:23, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

MW3 includes fell as the definition of transitive "fall". Etymologically there might be a confusion or something else, but it seems real. It might be nice to determine usage context, but tedious to do so. DCDuring TALK 12:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

It's in the OED also, but the "tree" sense is given separately, tagged as dialectal and specific to US, AU and NZ. Shakespeare used the general sense in Richard III: "To morrow in the Battaile, thinke on me, / And fall thy edgelesse Sword, dispaire and dye". [37] -- Visviva 17:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Same in Chambers: "archaic and US". Equinox ◑ 21:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I used to hear "I fell it" meaning "I dropped it" in Liverpool (UK), but I'm not sure whether this was Scouse dialect or just over-generalisation of "It fell". Dbfirs 15:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

assault rifle

There are currenly three definitions for assault rifle,

1. A rifle or carbine that is capable of selective fire, has a detachable magazine, and fires an intermediate-power cartridge.
2. Template:colloquial A semi-automatic firearm that resembles a military weapon.
3. Template:colloquial An assault weapon as outlined in various legislations in the US.

An earlier definition covered this better with

1. Any of a group of military rifles that fires a shortened rifle caliber round from a high capacity magazine.

To this was added a usage note with ...

• There is no widespread official definition of assault rifle, and the meaning varies among different jurisdictions. However, according to the US Federal legislation, any semi-automatic rifle is an assault weapon if it has a detachable magazine and has two or more of the following: a pistol grip, a folding or telescoping stock, a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor, or a grenade launcher.

We need to simplify these three defs. I can't see why all of them can't go back to one. I think the 2nd one is wrong, as no one would consider a .22 gun an assault rifle just because it looks like one. (there is such a model). Nor should we have the third one, as it is redundant, and matches the first two. It's also POV where none is called for.

What can we do here to settle this, as it has been going back and forward for a while. I definitly disagree with the claim that an assault rifle needs to be selective fire, as it does not. (Wikipedia claims this also, but that's not gospel) .--Dmol 03:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Point of order: this seems like an RFD discussion.

Having separate definitions based on individual countries' legal codes is not viable; some words could end up with a separate definition for every English-speaking country. The usage note is fine IMO, but that's as far as it should go. Re-merge per nom. -- Visviva 04:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how this is so much a matter of debate. The only way to definitively settle on a definition is to require attested usage (normal Wikt standards) for each specific attribute in the definition. We are a descriptive dictionary of usage with specific standards for inclusion. We do not have official technical definitions. An official technical definition, even from a durably archived source, has no value whatsoever for attestation, being a mere mention.

Other dictionaries make do with a single, fairly vague definition. My quick review of usage at COCA shows that the vagueness accurately reflects current American usage. Much of the usage is of the form "[model name] assault rifle". Perhaps one could infer a more specific definition from the features of the leading models mentioned.

If disputants insist on a specific definition, let them produce some valid citations.

IOW, RfV any sense that doesn't seem likely to be attestable. If there turns out be enough attestable usage, fine. If we have ten attested definitions, fine. If we end up with an appendix containing 3,000 attested (or unattested?) legal definitions of assault rifles, so be it. I doubt we will find anyone to do the work to support even three valid senses. DCDuring TALK 04:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I will respectfully accept the exclusion of my definitions until i can attest them (not that i'm that resourceful). My only dispute now is the usage note. I had thought assault weapon was the term used in various US locations for bans on certain combinations of features. If not, i can believe it. I suggest that in the first mention of assault weapon here, weapon be italicized. --Leif Runenritzer 05:02, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

hammocking

Originally added by Wonderfool/Dangherous back in 2006; no citations, I can't seem to find any. There's a Wikipedia article (added by an IP address), but that's no proof of the reality of the term. 75.215.10.65 (really, User:JesseW not logged in) 07:50, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems real (also hammocked, thus scheduled): [38] (apparently from a book), [39], [40], [41] Equinox ◑ 15:27, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

azzazame

Any takers? Noun? Caps? (Needs formatting) SemperBlotto 08:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Only used in dictionaries? The JSTOR google hit is actually a review by one Peter Behnstedt published in Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 117, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1997), pp. 598-599. He reviews The Arabic Contributions to the English Language: An Historical Dictionary, compiled by Garland Cannon with the collaboration of Alan S. Kaye, 1994.

He gripes:

The inclusion of Arabic names of towns, people and tribes is only justified if they are used as nouns, like Mecca, mocha, and fez. But why Karbala/Kerbala (p. 225)? Hashemite (p. 207), Himyarite (p. 209), Karmatian (p. 225), Maronite (p. 246) can be included, but Azzazame/Azzazimah (p. 145), Baggara (p. 147), Beni Abbas (p. 152), Kababish (p. 222), Rualla, Ruashid (p. 285), Shammar (p. 300), Shukria (p. 304), Hasan and Husain (p. 207) are simply names. If they are included, why not Ali and the Aulad Ali?

Seems like an argument for caps and "Proper noun", if it (and Azzazimah) is to be included at all. Pingku 11:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

giggle juice

Rfv-sense - nitrous oxide. SemperBlotto 17:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Google Books with subject:fiction gives no hits for the sense.—msh210℠ 18:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Added one Usenet citation. Equinox ◑ 21:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

paramukti

Tagged but not listed. Wikipedia article does not exist. SemperBlotto 09:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

megannum

As far as I can see, megaannum is preferred. I recommend moving this and entering the single A spelling as a redirect. Also, I'm not convinced by the plural form as given, but I'm not sure enough to say it is outright incorrect. -- ALGRIF talk 16:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Redirects are rare at Wiktionary. The usual procedure would be to mark it as an "alternative spelling" or "common misspelling" (as the case may be) of megaannum. Angr 20:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

romaji

I do not think that this is English. Japanese is rōmaji. Requesting verification. Bendono 08:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

• It's in the OED - that's good enough for me. The Japanese entry is listed as a misspelling already. SemperBlotto 08:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

You'll need to cite it on the entry then. And listing it as a misspelling does not entitle it to having an entry. Bendono 08:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the citation. I think that it is just sloppy writing, but my opinion is unimportant and it will suffice. I have opened a formal RFD for the Japanese misspelling. Regards, Bendono 09:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

put into a flap

"fluster". Only one mention in this sense. We seem to not have the sense of flap meaning tizzy, uproar. DCDuring TALK 20:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I would support two senses, but don't they belong under the noun flap, or at least reduced to the more general phrase in a flap? You can also put into a tizzy or create an uproar, but none of these phrases is that special. —Michael Z. 2009-03-02 20:43 z

A quiet decease for this in 30 days, not a fracas. DCDuring TALK 20:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I would support in a flap -- ALGRIF talk 10:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

relusion

Prtotlogism? If OK needs to have etymology removed from the definition. SemperBlotto 19:47, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be a nonce from that one work. Some usages on Google Groups are errors for resolution. Equinox ◑ 00:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

¡Ay, caramba!

As all the quotations have quote marks around this expression, and it is using the upside-down-exclamation-mark thing, Isn't it is just a quote from Spanish rather than an English term in it's own right? Conrad.Irwin 00:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I question the capitalisation of ay at the very least. I doubt the punctuation should be present as well. Equinox ◑ 00:43, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it’s just a quote from Spanish. —Stephen 01:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

As well as Bart Simpson's catch phrase (along with eat my shorts). — This unsigned comment was added by 75.95.119.189 (talk) at 01:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC).

Failed RfV in this spelling. Moved to ay caramba. DCDuring TALK 17:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

• Unstruck my strike.

Clocked out

1. This seems to be Spanish because of the punctuation.
2. Don't we exclude non-essential capitalization and punctuation from headwords?
3. The first quotation was of Spanish dialog quoted. The other two links are dead and I cannot find the quotes on bgc.
4. caramba is already an entry.
5. "ay caramba", in English, would seem likely to fail CFI because ay (in this sense) and caramba are or should be senses, though it might be a set phrase.
6. In Spanish, "ay caramba" would be even more likely to fail CFI.

DCDuring TALK 18:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

good

"Goody-goody; lacking in spirit or personality." In what sort of sentence would good mean this? Equinox ◑ 19:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

As in "she was such a good girl". A derogatory use of the word "good". Goldenrowley 00:10, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose I don't find that very convincing on its own. Do you think you could find a real usage that makes the same point? Equinox ◑ 00:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe in “such a ‘good’ girl,” but not “such a good girl”. Anything can mean its opposite when spoken facetiously, but I don't think that's really a sense of the word in isolation. I'd like to see some real examples, too. —Michael Z. 2009-03-06 03:44 z

We often contrast good girl with nice girl. A nice girl is girl with a strong moral center, while a good girl lacks self-respect and a moral code and thus is easy to bed. Boys want to date a good girl, but marry a nice girl. —Stephen 19:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't recognise that distinction at all, I'm afraid. Ƿidsiþ 16:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It ought to be as easy to attest as AAVE (deprecated template usage) bad if in use, though I'm not familiar with it except as Michael suggests. DCDuring TALK 17:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so “good girl” means one thing among college boys at the bar, and another from a dad to his two-year-old. But still, I suspect this applies to almost any adjective with positive or negative connotation (“bad girl” – does bad#Etymology 2 warrant a separate etymology?). Do we have any guidelines on how to handle ironic usage of words? If the former sense is common enough that it can be attested, then it should be attested, and perhaps clarified with a context label or usage note for foreign-language learners. —Michael Z. 2009-03-11 06:03 z

The good thing about RfV is that, after a decent interval, no less than 4 weeks, an entry or sense that nobody takes the trouble to cite is deleted without the need for further discussion. I personally rarely (but sometimes) find it desirable, let alone necessary, to include ironic use.

It is also very tedious to cite such usage, sometimes requiring looking at hundreds of snippets to find clear ironic use. The problem is severe with unusual senses of common polysemic words like this one. DCDuring TALK 15:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

tangid

I can't verify a English definition. It seems to come from Urban Dictionary. The word is used in a few obscure Middle English references. Goldenrowley 00:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

temperature coefficient

Any takers? SemperBlotto 19:57, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you like it now? --Hekaheka 17:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, OK (usage notes may just be encyclopedic) SemperBlotto 17:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I had some doubts about the usage notes too, but I thought it necessary to explain that there's not only one, but many different temperature coefficients. --Hekaheka 19:57, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Removed rfv tag as there seem to be no objections to the corrected version. --Hekaheka 18:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

slay

Rfv-sense: to defeat (presumably without killing). Seems dubious. -- Visviva 11:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Colloquial usage in UK. (Many Google hits in British newspapers etc. - especially sports) Dbfirs 09:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

peer

Rfv-sense. To look surreptitiously. Not by my lights. Other senses needed. DCDuring TALK 17:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Not surreptitiously, but searching or with difficulty. Edited accordingly. --Hekaheka 18:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

rip

The second computing verb sense: not extracting from a disc, but copying back onto it. Equinox ◑ 20:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

contribulated

A nice Books result, but not enough context for me to see what it means. Someone with more brains or with access to more context may be needed. Any other hits? Likely tosh as defined, but who knows.—msh210℠ 17:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Definition seems wrong. The Books use MSH found seems to be a translation from w:Tertullian elsewhere translated as (deprecated template usage) contribulate. It must be a translation of the past participle of (deprecated template usage) contribulo, that is "much afflicted". Many of the cites are Latin or Italian, of a humorous complication of "contribute", or scannos. DCDuring TALK 19:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The definition actually looks like discombobulated. Author's confusion? Equinox ◑ 23:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Aleutian Islands

I don't see how WT:CFI#Names of specific entities could be met. DCDuring TALK 02:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know the answer, but same criteria should be applied to all archipelagoes (the archipelagoes having the word Islands in their name, and currently in Wiktionary, are listed below) and scores of individual islands that I found too cumbersome to seek at the moment. I left out Faroe Islands, because they are an autonomous area, Cayman Islands because the term has attributive use in money-laundring world as well as Solomon Islands and Marshall Islands because they are countries as well. I say, once again that our policy for place-names is not formulated in a useful way. --Hekaheka 13:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Aegadian Islands
• Aeolian Islands
• Andaman Islands
• Andaman and Nicobar Islands
• Balearic Islands
• British Virgin Islands
• Canary Islands
• Channel Islands
• Cook Islands
• Falkland Islands

• Friendly Islands
• Galápagos Islands
• Heard Island and McDonald Islands
• Ionian Islands
• Kuril Islands
• Leeward Islands
• Lipari Islands
• Maltese Islands
• Midway Islands
• Northern Mariana Islands

• Orkney Islands
• Pelagian Islands
• Pitcairn Islands
• Riau Islands
• Sandwich Islands
• Scilly Islands
• Shetland Islands
• Society Islands
• South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
• South Shetland Islands

• Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands
• Turks and Caicos Islands
• United States minor outlying islands
• United States Virgin Islands
• US Virgin Islands
• Virgin Islands
• West Frisian Islands
• Windward Islands

Many of the above are primary divisions of a country (especially if dependencies are considered primary divisions, which I think they should be), so would pass under Atitarev's proposed criteria. The Aleutians, however, are not. (Not that this is directly relevant to RFV, since the proposed criteria have not yet been voted on, let alone enacted.) -- Visviva 16:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

By Atitarev's proposed criteria we would not have this entry but would have at least Aleutians East Borough, Alaska, aka Aleutians East Borough, East Borough, and, possibly, Aleutians West Census Area, Alaska.

I guess I had a different reading. But in any case, the "primary divisions of a country" criterion has gotten a fair bit of support in the past --- in the sense that people are especially reluctant to delete anything that meets it -- but it would protect only Alaska and Juneau in this part of the world (and maybe Anchorage if we're being generous). -- Visviva 16:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I had read Atitarev's criteria as including all subdivisions but his words would "[A]llow regional centres - capitals of states, provinces, counties, shires, regions, prefectures, oblasts, etc.) regardless of their size", but apparently not allow the entities they were centres of. This criterion would allow The City of New York and may allow Bronx. Of course, "etc." leaves a lot of room for inclusion, many jurisdiction being the seat (if that is what "centre" means) of their own governments. Alternatively, we might exclude jurisdictions whose seat is not a "capital" and have other criteria to allow places like Anchorage.

(I don't know how this would treat districts such as those for schools, sewage, water supply, fire protection, etc)

1. Does "primary" allow a given point to be in more than one place? If nations are "primary", then are we allowing secondary "states" and "provinces", and the "centres" of all other administrative units and regions?
2. By what explicit criteria or policies is Anchorage to be included?
3. Is it the official name of each allowed place that is the main entry, State of Alaska, the vernacular name Alaska, or both? City and Borough of Juneau, Alaska (apparently actual official name, though I'm not 100% sure about "Alaska")? Should we use US Census names? DCDuring TALK 18:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• I expect we can say useful things about Aleutian (though that entry is not terribly inspiring at present). It seems unlikely that there would be anything useful for a dictionary to say about the phrase Aleutian Islands. But this being RFV, I guess we'll see. -- Visviva 16:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to keep this and all other geographical entities which are important enough to have established translations in major languages. I added a few examples. --Hekaheka 20:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Wiktionary_talk:Criteria for inclusion#Names of specific entities contains discussion of the issue. Should matters not related to this RfV be there or at a BP discussion? DCDuring TALK 19:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

rephasing

Rfv-sense. debt rescheduling. Plausible, but never heard of it. DCDuring TALK 03:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• See [42] for a mention. SemperBlotto 13:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

corporate nationalism

Protologism? (Deletion of Wikipedia article is being voted on) SemperBlotto 13:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• I created the entry as part of the debate over deletion of a Wikipedia article which just defines the meanings of the term. Definitions of the meanings of terms belong in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia, if they belong anywhere. I don't think it is a protologism. At least the third sense of the term (belief that nations should discourage or prevent foreign ownership of local corporations) seems to have been quite widely used for some years. See The last bastion of corporate nationalism may finally be crumbling The Economist Mar 19th 2008. Oil-rich Norway has a history of corporate nationalism Reuters Apr 12, 2007. French corporate nationalism was amply demonstrated last year The Guardian 27 February 2006. But I don't feel strongly that the entry should be retained. Aymatth2 14:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

• Collocation can be found over 100 years, but our entry has too many definitions (5) each of which would need to be cited. I'd bet on most uses in Books or Scholar defining the term, possibly idiosyncratically. Uses in News might reflect a broader, less precise meaning. A problem is that, a priori, the referent of corporate could be "corporations", "organised groups" (fascism), "government", even "the citizenry". It seems SoP to me anyway. I'm inclined to leave it to someone else to clean up (merging definitions) and cite. DCDuring TALK 16:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

gub

Nominated for speedy deletion, but seems real, though possibly with the wrong definition (might mean "mouth" in fact: hard to tell). See google books:"into his|her gub" e.g.—msh210℠ 00:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it's "mouth": "in my gub" OR "open my gub" OR "my gub shut".—msh210℠ 00:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Given that all the viewable cites appear to be from Scottish authors, perhaps {{Scottish English}} would be an appropriate marker? Carolina wren 00:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've flouted convention and modified the RFVed definition while the RFV was in progress, thereby effectively failing it, and I apologize. (I will not revert, since I think I'm right that it will fail. But:) For the purpose of this discussion, and in order to keep it open (unfailed), let me state that the sense for which verification was requested is "a slang expression for 'stomach'". I have not found any clear cites for that to date. (The sense of "mouth" has not been RFVed.)—msh210℠ 22:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Based on the cites this looks like the Scots version of English gob, which is certainly common in England, where I've never heard gub. We should probably link between them, and it's probably safe to copy the etymology from gob to gub. --Qef 18:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheaster

Formerly: Transwiki:Cheaster

The source is Urban dictionary. Protologism ? It would be nice to sort it out by Easter. Goldenrowley 02:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a protologism, been around for a few years at least. [43] All uses seem very mention-y, though. -- Visviva 16:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right it seems legitimate so I moved it to mainspaces for Easter. Goldenrowley 21:37, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Striking. Equinox ◑ 00:50, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

notional

Rfv-sense "Concerning the value of an asset." I wouldn't know how to tell whether a quote supported this sense. That is, I don't know what this means, unless it is just wrong. DCDuring TALK 14:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I would have just removed it; it seems like whoever added this sense must have been confused about "notional value" or some similar phrase. But I suppose it's possible that someone somewhere has used "notional" in this way. -- Visviva 15:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have less confidence in my knowledge. Actual usage has outstripped even the business/finance glossaries which, at best, seem to have definitions solely for the notional value sense. It also seems to be abused to minimise bad news by referring to unrealised losses on "mark-to-model" accounting as "notional". DCDuring TALK 16:27, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

corner solution response

"A non-negative dependent variable that is roughly continuous over strictly positive values that takes on the value zero with some regularity." Books shows only quotes from various editions of one author. Scholar quotes not visible enough to me. DCDuring TALK 22:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC):

Quite probably SoP: corner solution + response. DCDuring TALK 23:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

ma tante

Originally RfVd in 2007 but never listed.

The current content appears mistaken, at least from fr:tante and the edit summaries. "My uncle" is UK slang for pawnbroker or fence. The sense now is aunt, as of today.

'matante' is an informal regional use (Quebec), e.g. 'auntie'. 'ma tante' would be a SOP 'my aunt'. - Amgine/^talk 01:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I don’t understand what you mean by "The sense now is aunt". This phrase (or chez ma tante), besides the SoP sense of "my aunt", also means w:Mont de Piété, a sort of Franciscan pawnbroker. —Stephen 20:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

ninety-nine

"A wafer cone designed for ice cream manufactured by Askey’s." If it's a brand name, I assume it should be capitalised (and perhaps not in Wiktionary). If it's a generic term, it shouldn't mention the manufacturer. I've had plenty of "ninety-nine flake" ice-creams since I was a kid, but I'm not sure about this. Equinox ◑ 03:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

quantitative analysis

Rfv-sense: Template:finance The process of analyzing hundreds of factors to reach a financial decision, such as when to buy or sell common stock. I'm not familiar with anything in finance called "quantitative analysis" that is not SoP. DCDuring TALK 00:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

maximum pain

Price of stock at option strike price. I'd like to see it in actual use, not mention, in this sense. DCDuring TALK 00:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

passive

Rfv-sense: Not bearing interest. Possibly a dated sense. DCDuring TALK 00:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

loose scrum

Seems plausible, but Web hits suggest that "scrum" and "loose scrum" might actually be synonymous?

—Ruakh_TALK 15:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand them as being separate terms. A "scrum" is an organised, tight pack, usually put together by the referee. A "loose scrum" occurs during play when the ball becomes free, and is pretty much as per the definition given, being open and not tight. It is part of the sport's terminology. -- ALGRIF talk 16:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Wait, but your explanation doesn't seem to match our definition, either. Our definition says that a "loose scrum" is a kind of scrum, but your explanation suggests that "loose scrum" and "scrum" are mutually exclusive? —Ruakh_TALK 17:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of rugger, but I used to play it at school, and as I understand it, the terms are mutually exclusive. (Perhaps with a small, grey, overlap) We need the input of an amateur expert. -- ALGRIF talk 19:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

'Pedia give us the following: "Originally there was no distinction between an awarded or "set" scrum (today officially called simply "scrummage") and a "loose" scrum (today officially called a ruck). The side awarded a scrimmage simply had one player put the ball on the ground and let go of it; there was no requirement of a tunnel, although players were required to be onside, i.e. not ahead of the ball. The most common way for a scrimmage/scrummage to be so awarded (there being no referee to actually award one, but as the rules specified) would be the occurrence of a stalemate between the player with the ball (who would declare "held") and opponents holding him (who would call, "Have it down"). A scrummage could also occur as a ruck today, in which opposing players simply close around a ball already on the ground." See also ruck. -- ALGRIF talk 15:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

chinese snooker

Tagged 20 Feb by Maro, but not entered here. Query is "Chinese" or "chinese". As far as I can see it is with a small "c" especially as it does not actually refer to the country. I find most references in lower case also. It's a bit tricky to see, however, because of all the quotes about "Chinese" snooker players, tournaments, etc. -- ALGRIF talk 16:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

economic vehicle

def. is balderdash, IMHO. Please show me wrong. DCDuring TALK 17:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Seen quite a few uses of it as a SoP of economic (sense 1) vehicle (sense 5), which the current definition could be taken as a hyponym of, though I am doubtful of the restriction to just that subset of meaning. However most usage seems to be of economic(sense 2) vehicle (sense 1). Might be worth keeping as an entry to show how the various senses usually interact. Carolina wren 18:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

ramp up

"To be in the process of learning a new ability". Equinox ◑ 20:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I guess I could “ramp up my skills” in a particular field, but to me this looks like an application of sense 1, with the more specific meaning only provided by the appended object skills in this example. —Michael Z. 2009-03-16 21:30 z

I partially agree with Michael. I've added a sense and examples, transitive and intransitive, that refer to start-up or a project, which might fit the RfVed sense better. Take a look, please. DCDuring TALK 22:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

form

"To develop a conception in mind". I don't think the example sentence is plausible and I think the intended sense is sense 1 (as one would "form an image": shape it). See User_talk:EivindJ#form_new_sense Equinox ◑ 21:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I just couldn't possibly see how you give an opinion "visible structure", when you "form an opinion" or "form an idea". When it comes to the example sentence: you're probably right ... my bad. Someone who can do better? --Eivind (t) 21:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

MWOnline has 9/12 senses/subsenses for this verb, 3 for intransitive, 6/9 for transitive. Encarta has 8. We have 4 total. DCDuring TALK 23:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

cooperation

Rfv-sense. Five senses that seem to me included in two real senses. DCDuring TALK 00:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

At least two of these senses are clearly widespread use, RFV passed. Did you mean to RFD? DAVilla 05:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I see this has been moved to RFD: WT:RFD#cooperation. Equinox ◑ 15:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You should look more closely. Unstruck until remaining senses resolved. 72.177.113.91 10:32, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

digger

[ digger Etymology for sense meaning Australian soldier. ]

Etymology is given as - Derived from Australian Colonial goldfields terminology. The term represents the mateship of common interests and activities where most of the population were gold miners, and almost everybody was a mate, a "digger", with a common cause against the troopers, the traps, the mining licence inspectors.

This does not show how the term came to be used as an informal term for an Australian soldier, nor does it match any other definition given. I also took out the "See also cobber" from this etymology, as cobber does not match any digger definition. The closest I can think of is that both are sometimes used as a term of endearment among friends, but this is a tenuous link and is not part of either the definitions or the etymology.--Dmol 00:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

See User_talk:Dmol#digger. Equinox ◑ 00:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC) (I have copied it below, may as well keep it on the same page)--Dmol 05:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

From Chambers 2005: "digg'er n a person or animal that digs; a miner, esp a gold-miner; an Australian or New Zealand soldier; an informal Australian term of address; a machine for digging." This suggests that the stuff you removed was correct. Equinox ◑ 00:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

But the term cobber does not mean any of the terms listed at digger and this is why i removed it. I have just added rfv-sense to the etymology, as nothing in it explains the origin of the term meaning an Aussie soldier. The quote you show means we are missing a definition (has now been added), which I alluded to in the listing of RFV, but does not explain the soldier meaning.--Dmol 05:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)--Dmol 00:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• I always assumed that "Digger/digger" came from Word War I due to the trench warfare which ensured years of trench digging for many young men of the period. I am also pretty sure "digger" applied equally to New Zealanders. It is certainly dated now and you're most likely to hear it in period drama cinema or on Anzac day to refer to old age war veterans.

• "Digger/digger" can equally be used as a term of address, but "cobber" I have only ever heard as a term of address or perhaps a synonym of "mate". As in "G'day cobber" for the former, and "He's out playing with his cobbers." for the latter. I can't help with the etymology of "cobber" but both "digger" and "cobber" are definitely synonyms for "mate" with their own nuances, and both dated. — hippietrail 08:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I've added an extra sense, meaning an informal nickname for a friend. It matches the quote given above by Equinox, and i have marked it dated. BTW, the soldier sense is not dated, and is commonly used today. It is heard regularly on the news in Australia.--Dmol 07:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

dismal

Sense 4 (blue, with e.g. dismal are the eyes of the wolf). Not in the OED or Random House, unless this is supposed to mean "blue" in the sense of "woeful" or "depressed" (in which case it is probably already implicit in one of the other defns). -- WikiPedant 23:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Failed. Equinox ◑ 00:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Qapla'

This passed RfV before the current WT:CFI#Fictional universes policy. I just removed two citations that did not pass the policy's requirement (one was in-universe, one was introduced as a Star Trek quote in the text before its use). Of the remaining citations, the South Park one doesn't seem to have anything to do with the sense being cited. I haven't seen the video, but the transcript makes it seem just like an attempt to represent a scream in writing, not this specific word. This needs further verification. Dominic·t 10:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

If someone has access to the script of Team America: World Police, I think you'll find Qapla' used there. Angr 11:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this it? [44] I couldn't find that word in it. Equinox ◑ 22:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but missing the ending apostrophe. bd2412 T 23:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I presume that the Team America web transcript doesn't qualify as an attestation of the spelling Qapla!, but it does serve as evidence for us of the spoken attestation in the movie. —Michael Z. 2009-03-25 00:11 z

Good point. I don't think anyone doubts the spelling, given the language is artificial, so what we really want are instances where the term is used. Being spoken would be superior in some ways, no? DAVilla 23:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Why on Earth would you remove citations? Just because they don't meet the CFI requirement does not mean the quotation can't be listed on the page. 72.177.113.91 10:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, good point. We can be clear that a given quotation does not meet the CFI citation requirement; but if illustrative (and an in-universe quotation, particularly the first use, is good) they should stay. Likewise, CFI-meeting citations that don't help illustrate the term can or should be relegated to the Citations: page. There is seldom any reason to delete them entirely, unless weeding out heaps of them. Robert Ullmann 12:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense, and I wasn't thinking about it when I removed it. (But if we want an in-universe citation a more illustrative and certainly an earlier use could be found.) Dominic·t 12:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The two quotations that remain seem to indicate different use. One is a proclamation of success, the other is wishing success. Either way the single word "success" doesn't really cover it as a definition. DAVilla 23:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Not convinced - if I shout "Success!" before the match, I am wishing success; if I do so afterward, I am proclaiming it. Either way, it's the same word, and I'm not sure the nuance would justify a separate sense. bd2412 T 18:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone really shout "Success!" before it happened? Equinox ◑ 18:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

“To success!” “Wishing you success!” “To our success!” —Michael Z. 2009-03-27 20:10 z

Only if they're native speakers of Klingon. ;-) —Ruakh_TALK 20:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Liberal

Rfv-sense: "Liberal Party". A member thereof, yes, but not the collective. DCDuring TALK 08:27, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Weak keep. We have Labour and Labor for the UK and Australian parties. The only thing is that the term "The Liberals" is often used instead of just Liberal. Difficult to cite with so much of the adjectival form about.--Dmol 10:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Remove, I think. True, in the UK "Labour" is sometimes used to mean "the Labour Party" (as in "Labour is holding its convention this week"). But in Canada (and I think also in the UK), nobody uses "Liberal" interchangeably with "the Liberal Party" (e.g., nobody would say "Liberal is holding its convention this week"). In the case of the Liberal Party, the usual informal short form is "the Liberals". True, people will say "I voted Liberal", but I suspect this usage is elliptical for "I voted for the Liberal candidate". -- WikiPedant 04:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hence the request for verification. 72.177.113.91 10:05, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

'The Liberal opinion is...' is a reasonable construction here in Canada, refering to the expressed opinion of the Liberal Party of Canada. However, that's an adjectival use of a proper noun. - Amgine/^talk 14:47, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Or it really is an adjective, meaning "of or pertaining to the Liberal party, platform, policy, or viewpoint". But that still does not establish that there's a corresponding noun "Liberal" equivalent to "Liberal party". (BTW, as w:Rick Mercer pointed out last week, so far this year the Canadian Liberal party appears incapable of expressing any opinions ;-) .) -- WikiPedant 03:06, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

defenestration

Sense 3 seems dubiously close to a protologism. Any thoughts? This, that and the other 10:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Strange, I thought this had already passed RFV, but I don't see any history even of discussion. DAVilla 23:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

defenestrate's related sense passed RfV, though now that I look all of its citations actually use "defenestration." Dominic·t 12:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

greyboy

I think the def is wrong. It seems to be quite unattestable, and for example Chicago: City on the Make (Algren, Terkel, Schmittgens, Savage) defines the same word as "an African American". Equinox ◑ 17:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

for the first time

"Interjection expressing exasperation". Not idiomatic in English. Translation of Hungarian? DCDuring TALK 20:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Surely it's "(I'm telling you) for the last time": a threat that more concrete action will be taken if the behaviour persists. Equinox ◑ 20:27, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting for the last time as the appropriate idiomatic translation of (deprecated template usage) először? It seems to (literally) mean first time" per this dictionary. DCDuring TALK 23:22, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know one word of Hungarian. I was looking at the provided English definition; I suppose that doesn't match what I said, but it felt rather close: they both express frustration that is the result of a repeated circumstance. Equinox ◑ 23:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

account code

Template:banking The numerical designation assigned to each account for the purpose of segregating status of stock by broad purposes or intended use. Definition seems bogus. Real definition likely to be SoP "A code for an account". DCDuring TALK 00:45, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The intimation (correct) is that account codes are structured and contain information used to classify accounts. This seems like encyclopaedic, rather than dictionary, information. Maybe a usage note - is this enough to justify an entry though? Pingku 16:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

sulphurhodamine

Alternate spelling of sulphorhodamine, or misspelling? It's much rarer. Equinox ◑ 21:52, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

If we accept the authoritativeness of the naming authorities, we could ignore our own lack of standards or misspellings vs. alternative spellings and the inclusion of uncommon misspellings. IUPAC has on-line resources here. We might want a distinctive tag like Template:i-c for terms checked or conformance and use "non-standard" or "non-IUPAC" for others. Maybe we could have a special {{rfIUPAC}} for chemical terms, though {{attention|chemistry}} may suffice and might be better or such entries than rfv. DCDuring TALK 19:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

monkey boy

Added by an anon, this is supposed to be some sort of corporate jargon. Seems suspect to me. Dominic·t 13:14, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The first 2 are just sum of parts to me. Why is the final example one word? Should we verify monkey boy or monkeyboy? Goldenrowley 05:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

The second sense isn't sum of parts to me, but it may be specific to a single movie. I believe all usages of the second sense trace back to a quotation in the film The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension, specifically: "Laugh while you can, monkey boy". As such, it might be supportable with sufficient citations from a variety of science fiction sources not connected to nor quoting the film. --EncycloPetey 05:22, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

aeaeae

Much loved by "weird word" lists. Can't see any usage though. Ƿidsiþ 13:35, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

At least the Greek origin seems to be correct. It’s a question of transliteration. On the Greek Wikipedia under el:w:Κίρκη: Η Κίρκη ζούσε στο νησί στο οποίο ήταν βασίλισσα, την Αιαία... (Circe lived on the island of Aiaia, where she became a queen...).

Not in the OED (checked today) ... The w:English words with uncommon properties list says: For the purposes of this article, any word which has appeared in a recognised general English dictionary published in the 20th century or later is considered a candidate. That is not the case - the only dictionary this seems to appear in is allwords.com ... but they pull their contents off from here. Regretfully, looks like a candidate for deletion. -Iakub 15:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

also appears in 'A smaller classical dictionary of biography, mythology, and geography' By Sir William Smith. On Google Books on pg15 98.229.161.124 01:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

hydrostatic pressure relief system

This particular phrase, while reasonably common in architectural engineering and construction, appears to remain a sum of parts. - Amgine/^talk 14:39, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

If it’s a common phrase in engineering and construction, keep. Is it a system that relieves hydrostatic pressure, or is it a system that relieves pressure in something via hydrostatic means? Very technical. —Stephen 22:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Constitution

Sense 2: Any of ship, real or fictional, named USS Constitution. The Constitution is moored in Charlestown.

Obviously, this would refer to a particular Constitution, not any one. Anyway, which, if any, Constitutions meet CFI? —Michael Z. 2009-03-30 15:03 z

This raises a larger question of whether we ought to have names of vessels, particularly those that happen to be named after common nouns as opposed to proper nouns (e.g. Enterprise, which we have, and Endeavor and Monitor, which we don't). I propose that the test for inclusion of a ship by name ought to be the same as that of any other famous single object, as in the Empire State Building or Eiffel Tower. bd2412 T 23:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking of. No need to propose it, as it is the current policy in effect. This clearly falls under WT:CFI#Names_of_specific_entities. —Michael Z. 2009-03-31 05:54 z

Which unfortunately makes this particular case muddier, since the fictional Star Trek usage is a class of vessels, not a particular one. My sister informs me that the Enterprise in the original show was a "Constitution class vessel", so the term is used attributively. On the other hand, this is a sense specific to just one fictional universe. --EncycloPetey 05:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

In that case, we should use the CFI for in-universe fictional terms for the fictional sense. bd2412 T 01:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

frecency

Equinox ◑ 22:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

While it appears to be used solely with respect to Firefox 3, it is mentioned in online reviews of Firefox 3 by the mainstream press, and thus is likely in print as well for those sites such as PCMagazine's that correspond to a print publication. Doubtful it'll ever get used beyond this narrow field of use though, but who knows? Possibly troublesome to get three durable cites, but I'm fairly certain it meets CFI, tho barely. — Carolina wren discussió 02:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Possibly cited. Please take a look, let me know what you think. (BTW, as Carolina wren says, it appears to be used solely with respect to Firefox 3. So, I don't know how I feel about this; if it were a Microsoft-ism, I'd be clamoring for its deletion …) —Ruakh_TALK 02:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Two of the citations are very poor because the word appears in quotation marks, suggesting that they need to define it: this is bordering on mention rather than usage. The third looks okay, but is very recent (don't we need to span a year?). As you suggest, there are always plenty of Microsoft buzzwords (I believe the new Internet Explorer 8 has a few) that might be comparable, and comparably "unkeepable". I feel we should move the citations to that special page and ditch the entry until (and unless — which may not happen) it really catches on. Web buzzwords are two a penny. Equinox ◑ 04:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: needing to span a year: yeah, that's why I added the very recent cite. The term is only about a year old, so it doesn't span a year unless it reaches the present. :-)   —Ruakh_TALK 11:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind quotation marks so much. Even though a term is awkwardly set aside as such, it can be a structural part of the sentence. However, the citation

a feature called "frecency"

in particular is very weak indeed. DAVilla 07:08, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, good point. :-/   —Ruakh_TALK 22:23, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

O.K., I've added a new cite (from late May). Please take a look. —Ruakh_TALK 17:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

houseboi

I think it's probably real, but we are going to have trouble attesting it. Equinox ◑ 23:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Enterprise

Not great definitions (the most common uses of the name is for one ship or another, not for the name of anything, and possibly not for a series of anything), comprising several starships, a space shuttle, and eight US Navy ships.

WT:CFI#Names of specific entities applies, requiring attributive use. I'll betcha at least one will remain if someone applies themself to this. —Michael Z. 2009-03-31 06:03 z

• And remember that citations for Star Trek senses must not be in-universe. bd2412 T 14:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

flag

Adjectival sense. rfv tag was added by User:Elkaar who forgot to add a section here. -- WikiPedant 19:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

delete Does not look like an adjective to me. The word "flag" only has this meaning (Of or pertaining to an admiral, commodore, or general officer) in combination with the word "officer", and we already have flag officer. Worse, it would be misleading, since there are flag captains as well. --Hekaheka 22:15, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

There's also flag rank, flag bridge, flag lieutenant, and flag plot at least, and googling those will yields sufficiently many citations. This is either an adjective or an attributive noun, but seems certainly to have the meaning specified ("of or pertaining to an admiral, commodore, or general officer"), or one like it.​—msh210℠ 19:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a strong suspicion that one can be a flag officer and not be on a ship in the contemporary navy as well as in Gilbert and Sullivan's navy, so the nautical definition of flag#Noun may not cover all uses of this.

But I also don't see this as being an adjective, as it doesn't seem to be gradable or comparable and can't appear as a predicate, AFAICT.

I would think that an actual designated military position, like flag lieutenant, would have a rationale for inclusion parallel to the legal/regulatory one for ground beef. DCDuring TALK 20:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Re gradability et al., fine, but then we're missing the noun sense, and this should be moved. Re "actual designated military position": I don't know that flag lieutenant is the official title: AFAIK it's just a job description. I could well be wrong, but w:flag lieutenant makes it seem like I'm not.​—msh210℠ 20:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

But the WP is for w:Aide-de-camp. One of the great things about working for the government is that your job description is almost always the subject of regulation (and therefore due process of law) and sometimes actual legislation. Ergo, #ground beef. Also, I'm not sure that there is a good way to write the nautical definition of flag so that it would adequately enable one to infer that a flag lieutenant was a personal assistant to an admiral (or captain?). All words and all that. But if it can be done, the possibly obsolete UK regs defining the position of "Flag Lieutenant" might be a thin basis for a "legal idiom". So long as we can't be seen as giving privileged treatment to academic linguists over military officers, we should be OK. DCDuring TALK 21:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps there is a law defining flag lieutenant in some country, but I can't find it at [45], [46], or [47].​—msh210℠ 22:35, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be at best dated as something official in the US (WWI). It appears as an appointment in the UK in the 19th century. We can leave it to a nautical antiquarian to enter and cite. About the other English-speaking navies, who knows? DCDuring TALK 23:59, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I'm going to delete it. 86.146.46.241 02:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC).

April 2009

Mereon

All three senses- there was an earlier rfv to sense 3 that did not lead anywhere. Very rare as a surname, I found 6 bearers through Ancestry.com, might be misspellings of Merton, etc. City in Europe?? Can somebody find a reliable definition for this word in any sense, in any language? --Makaokalani 14:55, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

What about deleting the whole entry? A rare word with three suspicious-looking and unverified definitions. It can be re-entered if somebody finds a valid definition.--Makaokalani 16:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Going on with the monologue: I'll remove all definitions except the surname. If we mean to include all surnames recorded for three families (without certainty of the language statement) we won't be short of words, but rfd is too much trouble. Alasdair added one more definition as a form of Marion but gave no evidence when asked.--Makaokalani 12:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

diaglot

Reasonable? - but not in the OED. SemperBlotto 19:39, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Sense 3 should be likely be kept, but at Diaglott, not at this spelling or capitalization, the others I'm largely skeptical of. — Carolina wren discussió 20:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

1 & 2 look like misspellings of diglot. —Michael Z. 2009-04-03 20:37 z

I'm very suspicious of the "program written in two languages" sense. Equinox ◑ 19:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

done done

Either a protologism or a neologism, and is sufficiently jargony/slangy I'd prefer to see it cited. — Carolina wren discussió 15:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It sounds like contrastive focus reduplication rather than an actual term of the sort we include. (But, I could be wrong. It's possible that it's a fixed term that simply originated as contrastive focus reduplication.) —Ruakh_TALK 16:19, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

See also: funny ha-ha

façade

RfV for third sense:

• (Organ building) the prospect

–Firstly, what is an “Organ building”?, and secondly, the definition is not at all elucidating; (deprecated template usage) prospect has no suitably explicatory sense. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

DCDuring TALK 18:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Then it means the front side of the organ. Is this generalizable to some sense of "visible side of anything", which is also a generalization of the building sense (sense 1)? Not durably archived, but [48] has "facade of the car" (meaning its surface). Other examples?—msh210℠ 23:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

WNW has the more general sense which they combine with the "misleading false front" sense. They keep the building sense separate. I think we c/should have at least three senses. The organ sense does seem to have a distinctive synonym: prospect. It is less than obvious to a non-church-attending, non-musical person what the façade of an organ might be. A visual-dictionary-style drawing might help more than a wordy definition. DCDuring TALK 23:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

dork

Rfv-sense: door-key child? H. (talk) 20:37, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

There's some evidence (not a lot) that this is a back formation from door-key to dorky, hence a dorky kid becoming synonymous with a latchkey kid. Needs further investigation before eliminating. -- ALGRIF talk 14:32, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

clocked out DCDuring TALK 09:25, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed the sense. H. (talk) 15:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

avoiding

avoiding as a noun, "the action of avoiding". RJFJR 16:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

• Nah. That's avoidance. SemperBlotto 17:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

>100 b.g.c. hits for "avoidings". Most present participles seem to have become attestable nouns. Sometimes there is a word I'd prefer (like "avoidance"); sometimes not. This one has been used by Sidney and Carlyle. DCDuring TALK 20:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that the w:gerund? If we do this, then we add a noun heading for the gerund of every single English verb, don't we? Anyone know if the gerund is always identical to the present participle? —Michael Z. 2009-04-07 22:45 z

Sure, it's just a gerund. No dictionary lists them separately. -- WikiPedant 23:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

We already have hundreds, many with their plural forms. Most English dictionaries don't have entries for inflected forms generally and it has long been policy and practice here to have entries for inflected forms. Not all gerunds are actually attestable as nouns, so there is nothing automatic about having one for each verb (let alone its plural). Nothing in WT:CFI would lead to their being omitted. This is RfV anyway, so only attestation is germane. If we feel they ought be excluded, we should start a BP discussion preparatory to a proposal and vote. DCDuring TALK 00:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to make the point about us already having hundreds. The main issue in terms of dictionary entries (or perhaps I'm just coming from a Scrabble viewpoint) is whether they can be pluralised. I expect almost everybody would agree that beatings is okay but defragmentings is not. As DCD suggests, it has to come down to attestation. Equinox ◑ 01:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'd bet against even "defragmentings", there being no perfect substitute. DCDuring TALK 02:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

defragmentations is a perfect substitute for me: it's the plural of the action or process of defragmenting. Perhaps debatable, but I don't personally have a feeling for the ing being different from the ion. Equinox ◑ 02:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

jack of all trades, master of none

Sense 2, which reads "A master of integration, who knows enough from many learned trades and skills to be able to bring their disciplines together in a practical manner; a polymath; a renaissance man." I'm not familiar with this distinct sense (although it clearly overlaps a bit with sense1) and find no support for it in the OneLook dictionaries. -- WikiPedant 23:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

tussicate

New entry from IP. Couldn't find any evidence myself that this was ever more than a dictionary word, so bringing here. — Carolina wren discussió 00:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I don’t know the word either, but Spanish for cough is toser, Latin tussire. So perhaps it’s a technical medical term? —Stephen 09:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't go so far. English itself has antitussive.—msh210℠ 20:06, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Passion flower

Rfv-sense Passion flower - is meant to be a sex position, so could be fun to verify. A useful link is The Sex Bible (which everyone should own). --Jackofclubs 16:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably shouldn't be capitalized either. --Jackofclubs 16:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

backlash

Verb: "to undergo a backlash". I thought it was more the opposite: to cause or set off a backlash. Equinox ◑ 21:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. One might say "His scheme backlashed on him". Dbfirs 07:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Right, I think. DCDuring TALK 10:36, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

nosebleed seat

[ nosebleed seat sense 2 ]

Sense 2 of nosebleed seat

2 {{idiom}} A seat right at the front of the main stage.

laserjet

I'm seeing this everywhere as LaserJet, a capitalised Hewlett-Packard trademark — not as an adjective or in lower case. Equinox ◑ 21:31, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Two of the quotations have extended the meaning, but the third is just a miscapitalized brand name. I have heard the same in spoken use. If it does pass CFI, I would consider it a rare mistake and label it non-standard, as well as trademark. —Michael Z. 2009-04-10 22:16 z

Which ones? DCDuring TALK 22:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The first two are using laserjet as a synonym for laser printer. LaserJet is HP's trademark, so obviously the Samsung and other laserjets quotation doesn't intend to refer to HP LaserJets. I'd like to see the 1994 quote in context, but it's clearly making the same mistake, and it's been fixed or removed in the 10th edition, available for online preview[49] (it also doesn't agree in number, so I'd like to check that). I really hope this doesn't pass CFI. —Michael Z. 2009-04-10 22:59 z

Eactly. I believe that "laserjet" is commonly used to mean "laser printer". That is what I have defined as a noun. I believe that it usually used attributively. DCDuring TALK 01:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Cited as lower case noun. I'll leave it to someone else to find evidence of true adjectivity beyond attributive use of the noun. DCDuring TALK 22:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Passed in noun sense, changed to rfv-sense for adjective. DAVilla 18:18, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Not passed – the 2009 citation refers to HP's printers, which are branded LaserJet. It is a typo or editing mistake, and not a clear citation supporting the generic use of the term. —Michael Z. 2009-04-20 17:18 z

The rfv was for the adjective. It is the unchallenged noun that has been cited. I doubt that anyone could cite predicate use or comparative/superlative/graded use. But perhaps someone will. I don't see how one could be certain about the specific usage instance being a mistake. Was it subsequently corrected by author or publisher? DCDuring TALK 17:54, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

If it may be a mistake, then it's not a clear qualifying citation for CFI, is it? Shall I post another RFV for the noun sense then? —Michael Z. 2009-04-20 19:07 z

Anything might be a mistake. The text is presumed correct. In this case a plain reading does not suggest any obvious error. Put in an RfV for the noun if you wish. DCDuring TALK 19:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

A plain reading suggests to me that the short article is poorly edited, using ink jet cartridges, inkjet printers, laser printers generally, and laserjet printers specifically for HP's LaserJets.

Filed at #laserjet (n), below. —Michael Z. 2009-04-20 20:18 z

ecumenical

Rfv-sense: "including or containing a mixture of diverse elements or styles; mixed". I don't find this in major dictionaries. --EncycloPetey 18:23, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I think he may be referring to the common usage, "I’m/he’s an ecumenical ___", as an ecumenical abuser (who abuses both sides, both parties, both groups equally). Synonymous with "equal opportunity" (as an equal-opportunity abuser). —Stephen 00:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

patronage

[ patronage as a verb? ]

patronage as a verb? RJFJR 19:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

stargate

Rfv-sense: "Any of the fictional ring-shaped wormhole-based devices used for interstellar travel in the Stargate universe." Needs citations independent of the Stargate universe. DAVilla 04:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Easy enough to search for cites before the move debuted. —Michael Z. 2009-04-19 01:11 z

As long as you can show that they're ring-shaped. DAVilla 03:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

otto of roses

otto of roses calims to be a variant of attar of roses. To me it looks like a really bad spelling by someone who doesn't know what attar is. I'm not even willing to consider it a common misspelling without attestation. RJFJR 19:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems like SOP, since (deprecated template usage) otto is an alternative spelling of (deprecated template usage) attar. —Ruakh_TALK 03:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

faggoth

1. {{slang|derogatory}} A homosexual person of the goth or emo subculture.

Attestations meeting CFI? RJFJR 20:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

One, to start.​—msh210℠ 01:11, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

crescendoes

third person sing. verb: sometimes crescendoes or only crescendos? (Google had some with the es but about 10 times as many with just s). RJFJR 17:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't checked Google (or elsewhere), but the stats you cite seem to answer your question: Both.—msh210℠ 17:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure that the hits you saw were for the third-person singular present active indicative form of the verb, and not for the plural of the noun? Suffixing (deprecated template usage) -es to <o>-terminal words is pretty common in English (e.g., (deprecated template usage) mottoes, (deprecated template usage) potatoes), but that’s not the case for the third-person singular forms, which are almost without exception formed by the suffixation of (deprecated template usage) -s (the exceptions are a few irregular verbs, like (deprecated template usage) be and (deprecated template usage) wit, and archaic forms which use (deprecated template usage) -(e)th). As a verb form, *(deprecated template usage) crescendoes would either be the third-person singular form of a verb *(deprecated template usage) crescendoe or a non-standard third-person singular form of (deprecated template usage) crescendo. (IMO, unless one uses the superior (deprecated template usage) crescendi, (deprecated template usage) crescendoes makes more sense than (deprecated template usage) crescendos as the plural of (deprecated template usage) crescendo because of its pronunciation, which ends in /—əʊz/ rather than /—ɒs/; the conflation of the two pronunciations of <os>-terminal words (the aforementioned /—ɒs/ — usually singular — and /—əʊz/, usually plural) is what leads to words like *(deprecated template usage) kudo, erroneously back-formed from the properly singular (deprecated template usage) kudos — correctly pronounced /ˈkjuːdɒs/ but often mispronounced /ˈkuːdəʊz/.) † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:22, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

trapper

Rfv-sense: "Ornamental covering for a horse". Al dictionaries I've checked say this is (deprecated template usage) trapping, not (deprecated template usage) trapper. --EncycloPetey 18:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

OED has trapper, Obs. exc. Hist., “A covering put over a horse or other beast. . . ; trapping; housing”, with citations from the 1300s to 1902. —Michael Z. 2009-04-21 19:33 z

See some examples of this usage in print. They are easy to find: The wars of the Crusades, 1096-1291 by Terence Wise, Transactions - Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society by Bristol and Gloucestershire Archaeological Society, The seeing stone by Kevin Crossley-Holland, Harlequin by Bernard Cornwell, ... Donama 07:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

tinman

"A toy soldier or other human figure made from tin." Isn't this always a tin man? Equinox ◑ 02:36, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

I found 5 distinct hits on COCA (20 quotes in all), but they were all either the Tin Man from Oz or an allusion to him, and mostly Tinman, not tinman. — Carolina wren discussió 23:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 00:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

undistingued

English, supposedly. DCDuring TALK 16:12, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Probably a sort of typo or misspelling of undistinguished. —Stephen 11:32, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

distingued exists in Middle English. distingué is French, often used in 19th-century English works. distingue#English seems to exist in English. DCDuring TALK 14:09, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

(deprecated template usage) Distingue is an obsolete verb synonymous with (deprecated template usage) distinguish according to the OED; the purported meaning of (deprecated template usage) undistingued logically follows thence. I found one Google Groups citation for this term, which I added to Citations:undistingued; Google Books’ only search result seems to be German; 0 via Scholar and 0 via News; this term may be verifiable if a couple of the hits yielded by the Google Blogue or Google Web Searches turn out to be durably archived. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I have done a crude Middle English entry for [[distingue]] because the OED quotes predate 1500. DCDuring TALK 00:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I note that Wiktionary is the root source of most Web hits for "undistingued". Morphological plausibility does not imply usage. DCDuring TALK 00:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

grandaddy purp

Cannabis variety. DCDuring TALK 19:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Definitely can be cited from Usenet. I might dig something up later. Equinox ◑ 22:51, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look citable today! I suppose I must have been looking at Google Groups generally and not Usenet, which has one (and it's embarrassing to cite because it seems to be a personally-identifying abuse thread). Equinox ◑ 09:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Perhaps it's granddaddy purp.
2. Perhaps purp is citable as a marijuana variety with more ease? DCDuring TALK 10:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't verify it either - deleted SemperBlotto 16:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

New Game+

[ new game+ ]

Can anyone cite it? Equinox ◑ 22:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Chrono Trigger, 1995, SquareSoft. CyberSkull 23:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

We need something meeting WT:CFI: probably three such separate citations. Equinox ◑ 23:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Template:cite video game
• Template:cite video game
• Template:cite video game

CyberSkull 01:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not now and has never counted for attestation. DCDuring TALK 10:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There are some books using the term "new game+", but not enough. -- Prince Kassad 12:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't pointing to Wikipedia, I was citing the games themselves. CyberSkull 04:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

• Template:cite video game
• Template:cite video game
• Template:cite video game

Cited. If others worry about the non-independence of the citations from November 2006 and October 2007 (both of which quote the magazine GameAxis Unwired), then consulting Google Groups Search shows that there are clearly enough examples of use for this term to satisfy the CFI. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:08, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't say I was worried about the independence. It's the same author, so they're outright not independent. Another citation as you mentioned would be good. DAVilla 11:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

I've moved it to New Game+ --Jackofclubs 13:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, but, FWIW, (deprecated template usage) new game+ is more common than (deprecated template usage) New Game+ on Google Groups, and (deprecated template usage) New game+, (deprecated template usage) newgame+, (deprecated template usage) Newgame+, and (deprecated template usage) NewGame+ also exist as spelling variants; they probably all deserve entries. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Iron Age

Rfv-senses:

1. Any dark or depressing era, characteristic of malice, oppression, war, poverty, suffering, etc. Opposite of golden age.
2. A time of poor or controversial progress or achievement in a particular field, as opposed to golden age.

Both seem to be rare figurative use of the classical w:Ages of Man. This is in contrast to the much more common golden age. DCDuring TALK 10:57, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd probably merge them and put Template:figuratively. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

laserjet (n)

See also #laserjet (adj), above.

The 2009 citation[50] uses “laser printers” generally, and “laserjet printers” specifically for to HP's laser printers, which are branded LaserJet. It is a typo or editorial mistake, and not a clear citation of this term for “laser printer” generally. —Michael Z. 2009-04-20 20:17 z

It also appears to be a blog posting[51], cited without page number of any print publication. It's not clear that it qualifies as an attestation in permanent media. —Michael Z. 2009-04-20 20:31 z

The 2004 quote[52] also lacks a print citation. —Michael Z. 2009-04-20 20:36 z

transcontinental

Rfv-sense: "On the far side of a continent." Really? DCDuring TALK 19:45, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 00:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

grotto, cave and cavern

cavern

This may not be an overly exciting topic, but according to our entries grotto is a small cave and covern a large cave. [www.dictionary.com] is less explicit saying that grotto and cavern can be synonymous. Which is right? --Hekaheka 07:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

From OED it seems like grotto being a hyponym of cavern:

• grotto: 1. A cave or cavern, esp. one which is picturesque, or which forms an agreeable retreat. 2. An excavation or structure made to imitate a rocky cave, often adorned with shell-work, etc., and serving as a place of recreation or a cool retreat.
• cavern: A hollow place under ground; a subterranean (or submarine) cavity; a cave.

However, OALD just says (like our entries) "a small cave, esp one that has been made artificially" for grotto and "a cave, especially a large one" for cavern. What seems certain is that cavern has wider usage. --Duncan 14:41, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

COCA counts: (deprecated template usage) cave 6,434; (deprecated template usage) cavern 830; (deprecated template usage) grotto 381.

I think both are right. Synonyms are rarely exact. DCDuring TALK 15:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added a sense to grotto of - A Marian shrine, usually built in a cavern-like structure- which is the common meaning of the term in Ireland. I'm not sure if this is the only place it is used this way, and haven't tagged it with Ireland yet. Anyone know if this meaning is used elsewere. --Dmol 01:12, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Irish sense certainly understood in rest of UK, though we would probably associate it with Ireland. Cave is a general term. Cavern implies large. Grotto implies small or man-made. Dbfirs 07:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

"grottoes" would be a recognised term especially among Roman Catholics. See w:Grotto? DCDuring TALK 19:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

workstrand

Citations for workstrand: a project of work? RJFJR 15:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Like w:workstream? DCDuring TALK 15:13, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Seems like project management jargon. Near synonym/hypernym: subproject. Scholar seems most likely source. I'll leave it to someone who has access. DCDuring TALK 15:25, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Unsure whether quotes are "durably archived". Seems to be in the news because of big UK IT study, which uses the word several times. DCDuring TALK 15:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

чăваш чĕлхи

I've never seen this anywhere other than the Internet, only чӑваш чӗлхи. Is it attestable? -- Prince Kassad 19:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The admins on the Chuvash Wikipedia use the form чăваш чĕлхи and say that the reason is that this is what almost everyone uses. Many of the non-Slavic languages of the old Soviet Union often or usually used certain Roman letters together with the Cyrillic alphabet to fill in for letters that Cyrillic lacked. The Unicode Consortium has newly provided them with special Cyrillic letters, but they have been slow to adopt them. The Cyrillic counterparts to these letters are brand-new and most people in those regions still do not have fonts that have them, even if they had the special keyboards. I have noticed that this is gradually changing. Four years ago, the Cyrillic чӑваш чӗлхи was virtually nonexistent; today, Roman чăваш чĕлхи has 15,700 Google hits, while чӑваш чӗлхи has 23,300. So the Cyrillic is catching on, at least with this language. Some other languages, such as Chechen, have been much slower to change their special Roman letters to Cyrillic ones. —Stephen 17:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have noticed, most of the Google search results using the Cyrillic letters are only databases, and not actual Chuvash webpages. I myself don't know how to deal with this situation (especially as it affects multiple languages), but there should be a solution that works well for everyone. -- Prince Kassad 17:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I just now noticed that. All the Google hits that I see using only Cyrillic are databases. All the Chuvash text pages use the Roman letters. So it would seem that the Cyrillic letters still have not caught on. I think the only way to deal with it is what we have done, to have both ă, ĕ, ç and ӑ, ӗ, ҫ. But if we have only one, then prefer Roman ă, ĕ, ç, since that is what people use. It’s the same as with Spanish ch, Croatian nj, and Dutch ij. There are special Unicode characters newly provided, but nobody ever uses them. People write them separately. —Stephen 18:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

My idea is to use the Cyrillic versions, but provide redirects with the Latin letters. This prevents needless duplication of entries. -- Prince Kassad 20:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the redirect, but I think it should redirect to the forms that are in standard use. This would mean that Serbocroatian words with nj -> nj, lj -> lj, Dutch words with IJ -> IJ, ij -> ij, but French oe -> œ (œuf). And then Chuvash words with ӑ, ӗ, ҫ -> ă, ĕ, ç. If it ever comes to pass that the Chuvash change the alphabet, it will be very simple for us to switch the direction of the redirects. —Stephen 20:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh yay, here comes the Latin vs. Cyrillic arguing again, which I wanted to avoid because we have different opinions on that subject. -- Prince Kassad 21:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

We seem to be talking at cross purposes. This question about the Chuvash is about Latin vs. Cyrillic. If you don’t want to talk about it, why did you start the question of чăваш чĕлхи in the first place? Chuvash and a number of other languages that use the Cyrillic alphabet also use certain letters from the Roman alphabet. There is a long tradition of this and for good reasons. But if you want to avoid the subject, then there is nothing to be said on the subject of чăваш чĕлхи. —Stephen 21:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Chuvash and a number of other languages that use the Cyrillic alphabet also use certain letters from the Roman alphabet - this might be what the Internet community is doing, but historically it is wrong. ӑ and ӗ were derived from Cyrillic а and е with the addition of a breve, in a similar manner to й. ҫ is also a modification of Cyrillic с, and does not originate from ç. WT:CFI dictates the use of Cyrillic letters, as these are the only ones that can be attested in printed sources. -- Prince Kassad 22:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

It’s not wrong historically. It’s only since the advent of Unicode that Roman e and Cyrillic е became fundamentally different symbols, or Arabic ى and Persian ی became different letters. Until about 2000, Arabic and Persian ى were the same, just as English and Spanish e are the same. In a given typeface in the days of metal type, a Roman e was also a Cyrillic e in a house that handled both scripts. A font manufacturer would create a Roman helvetica typeface and take the same e to suppliment the Cyrillic helvetical counterpart. Only the letters that were actually different were actually different. A Roman B was a Cyillic В, but letters such as г, д, з, ж had to be manufactured specially for each Cyrillic font. Until about 2000, typographers mixed and matched Roman and Cyrillic letters that were identical, and it was the letters of different typefaces that could not be mixed. And it is not just the Internet Chuvash community that uses ă, ĕ, ç, they were using ă, ĕ, ç in the days of metal type and in the days of Compugraphic film font technology, because as long as the letters were the same typeface and point size, they were the same letters. Only now have they been differentiated as though they were not similar at all, and this has so far not been completely accepted by users. If they created a single digraph for English sh , ch, gh, and th, they would only be used by a small number of oddballs...the rest of the English-speaking world would continue to use separate letters. In the same way, the Dutch write ij separately, the Croats nj separately. They don’t need or like the special Unicode symbols that were offered to them. And the Chuvash have not accepted ӑ and ӗ. Chuvash Wikipedia uses the Roman letters and always has. Chechen Wikipedia uses Roman I, as does Avar and others. What it means is that they consider ă, ĕ, ç to be Cyrillic today just as they have considered them to be Cyrillic for centuries past, that ă, ĕ, ç are the letters that the Chuvash use and have been using for decades. —Stephen 22:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The question now is what the goal of our dictionary is. Either we try to be be technically correct and use the characters we're supposed to use Unicode-wise, or we decide to be a service to the readers and leave out characters which may have low font support. -- Prince Kassad 16:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

A similar issue comes up with traditional Hebrew punctuation; for example, Israelis usually type English apostrophes instead of Hebrew geresh-es, but conversely, an Israeli restaurant whose name ends in (deprecated template usage) ־׳ס will use a geresh on its signage. In other words, Israelis generally treat the geresh and apostrophe as one character (albeit one that looks a bit different online, א', than in print, א׳), but Unicode treats them as separate. (For that matter, I suppose the same issue comes up in English, with ASCII 's online vs. non-ASCII ’s in print.) I'd be interested in a general solution, if one is possible. —Ruakh_TALK 18:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This is a living language, and we need to serve its readers and writers. On the other hand, Cyrillic e and a with breve have been in Unicode since version 1.1 (1993), so maybe these folks are not using Unicode, rather they might be restricted to some other character set's repertoire for compatibility. Are other newer Cyrillic code points used online, like Ç and Ӳ?

We should probably have entries from the one form redirected to the other. If the standardized Unicode spelling displays correctly on most computers, then let's use that for main entries.

But folks, please let's not confuse the language with technical methods for representing it. Whether you use code points from the Latin or Cyrillic block, you are still spelling the same word with the same letter. These are not alternate spellings, they are different ways of representing the same spelling.

Funny how so much work has been put into the Universal Alphabet, but Unicode still gets used and misused like metal type. —Michael Z. 2009-04-26 19:16 z

Chuvash people use ӳ online, due to lack of a Latin alternative. ҫ is used by Bashkirs for the Bashkir language. Latin Ç is not an acceptable alternate for them (ҫ needs to contrast with ҙ). -- Prince Kassad 19:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I face this problem repeatedly when dealing with Soviet languages. Especially with Ossetian ӕ / æ. So, let's continue the discussion and reach a consensus. While I agree with redirecting entries from Cyrillic to Latin or vice-versa, I don't see what can be done with translation tables. Any ideas? --Vahagn Petrosyan 11:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

There's the alt= parameter for {{t}} which we can use to show the user the Latin version but silently link to the Cyrillic one. -- Prince Kassad 18:38, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

em quad, en quad

en quad

A quad, or quadrat, is a metal object, and there is no question of it being condensed, expanded, or altered in width.

The usage notes (and the ones under em space and en space) imply a second sense of quad “in electronic publishing.” But quads are not used in phototypesetting or digital publishing, and today's designers don't know what they are. Yes, the Unicode standard has named two characters after the em quad and en quad, but these are not used in publishing, and I doubt that their names are attested per CFI. Some publishing systems do have distinct quad left (align left) and quad right (align right) controls, named after the distinct verb sense, as in to quad out a line.

• OED (draft 2009) puts the quad “[i]n letterpress printing,” and calls it “now chiefly hist.”
• M–W: “a type-metal space that is one en or more in width”[53]
• RH: “a piece of type metal...”[54]
• AHD: “A piece of type metal...”[55]
• Webster's Revised Unabridged: “A block of type metal...”[56]
• Monotype, Fonts.com Glossary, s.v. em space: “A space equal to the measure of the em at a given point size. In composition with metal type, it was created by the em quad, a block of type that was less than type high so that it would not print. . . . Em quad is a synonym”;[57] s.v. quad “See em space, en space.[58]

So, if the sense of electronic quads can be attested per CFI, then can we also find a reference supporting the encyclopedic discussion of the difference between quads and spaces? – at best this seems encyclopedic and non-defining, but the facts look arguable to me. If the sense can't be attested, then let's remove the usage notes about it. —Michael Z. 2009-04-24 02:34 z

At least two Microsoft Press books include this sentence: "Fonts use a break character called a quad to separate words and justify text." Equinox ◑ 18:53, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

And this has been copied to a few other websites. It seems to be related to the typographic quad, but I can't find another reference to this precise sense. A fuller quotation:

The blank character is the first character in the Windows character set. It has a hexadecimal value of 0x20 (decimal 32). . . . Fonts use a break character called a quad to separate words and justify text. Most fonts using the Windows character set specify that the blank character will serve as the break character.

0x20 is the regular space, corresponding to Unicode U+0020. So in this context (handling fonts at the program code level?), the regular space is usually the “quad.” Or maybe it's a mistake.

Also confirmed that the Unicode characters for em quad and em space are equivalent and identical:

U+2003 EM SPACE, also known as the “em quad,” is a space one em wide. . . . U+2001 EM QUAD was a mistaken duplicate encoding of the same thing and now has a singleton canonical decomposition to this character. (Gillam 2003, Unicode Demystified)

\quad is a command in TEX digital typesetting, representing “a quad space”, where \enspace, \quad, and \qquad (repr. en space, quad space, and two quad spaces) have identical properties, corresponding to letterpress quads, contrasting with the several smaller word spaces which expand in justification. “Note that \quad, \qquad, and \enspace have no stretch and shrink associated with them.” (Clark 1992, A plain TEX primer; see also the accompanying table) —Michael Z. 2009-04-25 02:42 z

thirteenty

Watch out for scannos for thirteenth. Equinox ◑ 18:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Especially on Fridays. Pingku 18:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

But now I recall that w:Bilbo Baggins famously celebrated his eleventy-first birthday. Pingku 20:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 00:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

OP

Meaning (deprecated template usage) overpowered in an MMO (of an item or player perhaps?). Equinox ◑ 18:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps to clarify; an example is the MMORPG World of Warcraft. Within this game, it is commonly thought that the race Night Elf with the class Druid is "overpowered," simply meaning their skills are significantly superior from the beginning. Using World of Warcraft slang, a sentence in the discussion of this view could sound "nerf drewds r OP," 'translates' into "Night Elf Druids are overpowered."

internal branding

Rfv-sense: Definition seems implausible, having next to nothing to do with any plausible sense of branding. DCDuring TALK 22:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeesh, corpspeak. The definition should be labelled business or buzzword, if it is a good definition at all.

I think what it means is branding, “establishing a brand's identity among a market group”, from brand 3, 4, & 5, aimed at the staff of a company (internal 4). I call it SoP, but possibly includable because the sense of the parts is restricted to a specialized subject area. —Michael Z. 2009-04-25 18:02 z

I now see how it is used and have seen worse: Nation branding], which includes "internal nation branding". DCDuring TALK 18:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Alpha Centauri

There are a lot of star name entries. Do any of them meet CFI? -- ALGRIF talk 16:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Proxima Centauri is since 2006 see History of Proxima Centauri. Proxima Centauri 16:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Sirius is more often called by that name and less often called Alpha Canis Majoris. Alpha Centauri Beta Centauri and Proxima Centauri are most often called by that designation.

WT:CFI#Names of specific entities applies. Is there any reason not to RfV most of the capitalized entries from Category:Stars, as well as the non-alphabetics starting from ٭ and ★? —Michael Z. 2009-04-25 17:16 z

As I see it if Sirius, Canopus, Procyon, etc stay Rigil Kent should stay. If Rigil Kent stays Alpha Centauri should stay because the star system is more often known by that name. Proxima Centauri 17:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Each entry is included on its own merits; that's why we post individual RfVs. That said, can you point out even one star name entry which is attested to meet WT:CFI#Names of specific entities? —Michael Z. 2009-04-25 17:26 z

I don't know what your criteria are. I'm off to some other wiki where I'm valued. Proxima Centauri 17:29, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I guess we can't really discuss this productively if you won't read the paragraph in the guidelines that I just linked to. Good luck. —Michael Z. 2009-04-25 17:47 z

I'm sure at least a few must be includable. I seem to remember Poe or Lovecraft referring to some quality of Algol (al ghul, the ghoul star). —Michael Z. 2009-04-25 17:52 z

According to my copy of Chambers, Rigil is another name for Alpha Centauri, and is cognate to Rigel (the bright blue-white star in Orion). The connection is from an Arabic word (of course), rendered in Chambers as rijl, meaning 'foot'. (Rigil appears in a foot of the Centaur, and Rigel appears in a foot of Orion.) Clearly there are rich pickings for Wiktionarians in star names. :) Pingku 18:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Based on our willingness to include gazetteer entries, I think it is quite revealing of our Earth-centric bias that we have singled out this class of proper nouns for RfV. And what about all the excluded or offensively defined adjectives, like Sirian, Mercurian, et al? After the photon belt hits in a couple of years and we need intergalactic assistance, don't come crying to me when they see all this evidence of our narrow-mindedness. DCDuring TALK 18:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, watch your language! You make it sound like we're all a bunch of dirty earthists. I'm not even from this planet. —Michael Z. 2009-04-25 20:44 z

Watch it Earthlings! I'n from Proxima Centauri 02:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC).

It says "Cite, on the article page, the word’s usage in a refereed academic journal.". Sounds like it would be easy to find all the mentioned star names in some Astronomy journal? Whats the problem? Mutante 20:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

These are proper nouns. We only include them if they become part of the language independent of their proper referents. Please see WT:CFI#Names of specific entities for the requirement. —Michael Z. 2009-04-25 20:41 z

What about our gazetteer proper nouns? We don't seem to be interpreting WT:CFI#Names of specific entities that way. See Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#Rostov-na-Donu. DCDuring TALK 00:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Apotentially useful principle has come to mind. When I step outside on a clear night, I can see many of the referents for star proper nouns. I can't do that with most proper nouns. I think that these proper nouns refer to things people can see for themselves from their own homes merits consideration. --EncycloPetey 02:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

When I step out, I can see a 1970 Thunderbird, about a hundred American elms, my street, a couple dozen buildings including several named ones, and sometimes my mom. Let's leave my mom out of the dictionary.

More specifically, the proposal would potentially add entries for multiple names for the 9,110 stars in Yale's bright star catalogue, including HR 4241, also known as HD 94083, SAO 27809, or BD +53 1439. I think we should articulate any new principles for CFI very carefully. —Michael Z. 2009-04-26 15:07 z

When any person in the Northern Hemisphere steps out on a clear night, any of those people can see those stars. Only you and a handful of people can see a 1970 Thunderbird, your street, etc. Note that American elm, building, street, and mom are all valid dictionary entries and are not proper nouns. --EncycloPetey 19:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Quite right. So does star meet our criteria, but not HR 4241, and Alpha Centauri still awaits three durably-archived attributive quotations.

I'm open to suggestions for new principals, but I don't see a clear relationship of this to our mandate or method (we have many definitions of things forever unseen). There seems to be some agreement that some proportion of proper place names belong, but we haven't figured out why. Our CFI is based on only lexicographical principles, and maybe we do have to go beyond that. It would be nice if we had some common rationale for defining the names of important cities and important stars. I'm not convinced that prominence or visibility is it. —Michael Z. 2009-04-27 05:27 z

As I understand it, a proper noun needs to demonstrate attributive usage (see New York), or representative usage (see Whitehall). Unless anyone can find durably archived quotes about eating Alpha Centauri hamburgers, or show that Alpha Centauri is used to represent another place, person, or institution, such as the seat of the intergalactic peace-keeping corps, then it should be deleted as being "not dictionary material, please add to Wikipedia". That's my interpretation of CFI anyway, and judging from other comments and other decisions, I suspect the majority of you would agree. -- ALGRIF talk 07:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I think that the main reasons for current CFI is that dictionaries such as Webster's seem to follow this policy, and that most proper noun dictionaries are encyclopedic. A striking example (for French) is the "Petit Robert", usually considered as a typical example of a language (not encyclopedic) dictionary. Nonetheless, its proper noun counterpart ("Petit Robert 2") is purely encyclopedic (without any pronunciations, etymologies, etc.). Therefore, I think the added value we can bring is a good reason for accepting all proper nouns, provided they can be considered as words (remember, all words in all languages...). It's very difficult, and usually impossible, to find pronunciation information about proper nouns such as place names or family names (etymological info is less difficult to find, as there are a few specialized dictionaries). Lmaltier 08:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter very much to me whether you keep these star names or not as I can always link my userpage directly to Proxima Centauri but I think you should keep them. Product differentiation works in business and product differentiation should work with dictionaries as well. I suggest making Wiktionary different from Websters so users value the difference. Proxima Centauri

That is an interesting argument for changing policy. We seem to be backing into a policy change that goes in that direction. See Rostov-na-Donu discussion linked above. DCDuring TALK 20:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think the twenty brightest stars should certainly be included and so should other notable stars like Polaris the Pole star or North star. What about Gliese 581? It's a bit notable so I'll make a provisional entry. Barbara Shack 12:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: The notability of a referent is completely irrelevant to anything. The star named Gliese 581 may be notable, but (deprecated template usage) the star named Gliese 581 obviously doesn't warrant an entry. Something could well be notable without there being even one English term for it that merits inclusion. (Wikipedia would then have the difficulty of finding an appropriate name for its article; but we would have no such problem.) —Ruakh_TALK 14:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Among the OED's quotes are such as these, which may help qualify some stars for inclusion in Wiktionary by the current CFI:

• “Binaries and Variables of the Algol Type”
• “Each gem turned into an Aldebaran or a Sirius”

But the OED has many more stars included (even though it is not an encyclopedic dictionary, hence omits many proper nouns). Anyone have insight on their CFI?

Doesn't answer the question, but good reading on this topic is a short paper by the OED's astronomical advisor: Mahoney 1998, “Historical Astrolexicography and Old Publications.” —Michael Z. 2009-04-28 20:23 z

frack, frack

frak

Please add fraks, fraking, and fraked to the decisions Goldenrowley 05:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

frack

Keeping WT:CFI#Fictional_universes in mind. Equinox ◑ 17:35, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

• Move these and their ilk (to the extent that we can find them) to an appendix of fictional curse words. I can think of a few others, my favorite being zark from the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy books (as in, zark off!). bd2412 T 17:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Red Dwarf gave us (deprecated template usage) smeg, but that's caught on sufficiently in the UK to be trivially attestable (from Usenet, anyway!). Looks like you might be able to manage this with (deprecated template usage) zark as well, at least in zarking or zark off. Equinox ◑ 21:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather they all be in an appendix. No doubt there are enough in-universe sources to justify that. bd2412 T 23:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Clocked out without citations. DCDuring TALK 04:12, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Deva

Requesting verification of sense 2, vulgar slang for the male member. — [ R I C ] opiaterein — 17:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

second quest

Citable, bearing in mind that "a second quest" may be literally a quest that comes second and not this supposed unit? Equinox ◑ 00:54, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 00:58, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

PlayStation

Rfv-sense: "An activity or object as popular as the PlayStation" --EncycloPetey 05:05, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Cited. Conrad.Irwin 21:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, that doesn't fly. If it meant what the definition says, we would have "bullfighting is a PlayStation". But thank you for citing the gaming device. DAVilla 07:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

floccipaucinihilipilification

Found some mentions, but no evidence of usage of this word. --Jackofclubs 09:31, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a job for {{only in}} to prevent this and its ilk from wasting our time excessively. DCDuring TALK 21:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

This is found only in what though? --Jackofclubs 07:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking of an Appendix, perhaps "Words often mentioned, rarely used" or similar. DCDuring TALK 10:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd call it a misspelling, and would be inclined to remove it. Pingku 10:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

fooder

Contributor says it's a protologism, but I'm not so sure.—msh210℠ 21:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I find it almost exclusively in terms like "free-fooder", "raw fooder", "raw-fooder", "fast-fooder", "anti-fast-fooder". IOW it is almost always formed by adding (deprecated template usage) -er to an open or hyphenated compound. How should it be presented, then, whether or not it an be attested as a stand-alone? DCDuring TALK 21:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Added that sense (and others which are attested); converted this to a {{rfv-sense}}.—msh210℠ 23:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

wagon

Rfv-sense: Ireland,slang immoral woman. Spelling? DCDuring TALK 14:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I've marked it as dated. It was common enough when I first lived in Ireland about 30 years ago, but haven't heard it much since. But like most insults, they often don't end up in print. Spellings in Ireland are typically British rather than US.--Dmol 00:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The 2 "g" spelling is very rare in US and much less common (not rare, not dated) than the one "g" spelling in the BNC. (I didn't check for this sense in any spelling.) I put a tag at the same sense with the US "wagon" spelling. Was it in "widespread" colloquial usage there at that time, previously, or after? Should 0, 1, or 2 of the spellings remain? DCDuring TALK 00:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

cockmaster

Rfv-sense 2 "- someone skilled with the penis". Looking through Google Groups, this word is usually used as an insult. --Jackofclubs 16:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

• Definitely should have a sense for the insult. bd2412 T 03:13, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

May 2009

Spectator

as in "the oldest continually published magazine in the English language". Is there an attributive use of this specific magazine? --Bequw → ¢ • τ 12:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Does this sort of thing count? "the meaning of the capital letters at the end of each Spectator issue", "he is a regular Spectator columnist". If so, we could easily include many far less notable publications. Equinox ◑ 12:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think we would question their "independence". DCDuring TALK 15:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Cited in attributive use, IMO. DCDuring TALK 15:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The cites given are "...Spectator contributor...", "...Spectator essay...", and "...Spectator piece...". Consider the city of Mukilteo, which WP says had 18,019 people in 2000. Google News and News Archive bring up loads and loads of cites for "Mukilteo man" and "Mukilteo business". Consider the even smaller Arcadia, which according to WP had 391 (yes, three hundred ninety-one) residents in 2000. A durably archived citation in attributive use is then "The other two members serving on on the Arcadia board were Patty Peterson and Mary V. Shead."[59]. I'm holding out for two more.... No: Seriously, the CFI say "A name should be included if it is used attributively, with a widely understood meaning. For example: New York is included because "New York" is used attributively in phrases like "New York delicatessen", to describe a particular sort of delicatessen." (emphasis removed). This does not include terms like Mukilteo, Arcadia (Kansas), or Spectator (with the cites given).—msh210℠ 21:29, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm having trouble squaring this with the gutting of standards in the case of Rostov-na-Donu vs. WT:CFI. WT:CFI seems a dead letter with regard to Proper nouns and, indeed, any multi-part word whose components are polysemic or technical. We don't need votes if we an be so, um, flexible with regard to interpretation. DCDuring TALK 23:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

cap

cap#Etymology 4

Rfv-sense: abbreviation of capture. DCDuring TALK 18:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

In (deprecated template usage) screencap and (deprecated template usage) vidcap, yes. Alone, I am not so sure. Equinox ◑ 20:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 01:00, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

regs

Rfv-sense: "(slang) Abbreviation for regulars, a street term used for marijuana less potent than it's counterpart "murdas". Also called: reggies, reggie millers, regulators, garbage."

• Tagged November 2007. I could not find a contemporaneous heading here. DCDuring TALK 23:34, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm familiar with regular visitors to a chat room, etc. being known as regs. That's the reg sense of regular. Don't know about drugs. Equinox ◑ 00:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Wahnfried

Wagner's house. Quotes don't seem attributive under WT:CFI. DCDuring TALK 00:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Reichism

RFV context. It is a valid word but the definition could use some clarification in context. Goldenrowley 01:39, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

poloniumed

Anything for WT:CFI? Equinox ◑ 01:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I added two citations from news sources. There's more references circulating on blogs and forums. Goldenrowley 03:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

aura

"An inner or special power/energy mentioned of in graphic novels (manga) Ex: In the Manga/Anime series Yu Yu Hakusho, the amount of power someone has is measured by their Aura." Equinox ◑ 16:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I can't really pass judgement on the meaning but I think that maybe it should stay (perhaps with a less specialised tag); I would not say that it is uncommon, e.g. the Pokemon Riolu and Lucario have "aura" based powers. 50 Xylophone Players talk 10:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you reckon you can cite it from our usual suspects? Nobody else is going to bother looking up anime stuff. Equinox ◑ 22:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

pearly

A noun, eh? Equinox ◑ 20:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

• DCDuring TALK 20:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I can't argue with that. Will you humour me and find two more? Equinox ◑ 00:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Corb

Any takers? SemperBlotto 21:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

w:Le Corbusier was the nickname of a Swiss architect, and he was known as Corb for short. —Stephen 21:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes - but are the nicknames of famous people fit for a dictionary? SemperBlotto 11:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Not unless we can attest attributive usage. I don't think I would count the attributive used to indicate possession, as “a Corb building” meaning one that he designed. But if the name signifies an architectural style, it could be suitable for inclusion. —Michael Z. 2009-05-04 13:51 z

Charlie

The verb. Equinox ◑ 23:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete. I thought we'd already RfD/RfV'd this sense in the past, but maybe it was the noun. It's a neologism derived from the character of Charlie (played by Charlie Sheen) in the American sitcom Two and a Half Men. --EncycloPetey 21:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 01:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

AAA

Rfv-senses: (many) On July 30, 2005 many unvetted items from w:AAA were moved here: some proper nouns, some jargon, some dupes. Of proper nouns about 10 are for orgs that have WP articles; some might get articles; some had articles deleted, some are debatable. I've rfved the ones that seem the worst. I have the feeling that the WP dab group is likely to do a better job with proper nouns than us. We might do better with the jargon. Under our current interpretation of the lemming rule the terms would all be included I think. DCDuring TALK 15:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

mater

RfV-sense for “abbreviation of: material; materials”. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

[This b.g.c. search] suggests use in bibliographies for journal names. Not in OneLooks as abbreviation.

BTW, is "mother" sense really "formal"? I think of as a UK public-school, class thing. DCDuring TALK 19:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

As (deprecated template usage) mater, as (deprecated template usage) mater., or elsewise? Seems like a strange way to abbreviate it to me; (deprecated template usage) matl and (deprecated template usage) matl. seem more intuitive to me (and they’re shorter). But hey, if it’s verifiable, add dem cites!

The OED agrees with you; I’ve added that context to the entry. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

We have a few hospitals here (Australia) called Mater, but their full formal name is Mater Misericordiae which I belive is "Mother of Mercy" in Latin.--Dmol 23:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

See quotes at mater#Etymology 1. "Formal" tag removed. DCDuring TALK 00:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ƿidsiþ added an {{obsolete}} sense meaning “the womb” to the entry in this revision; the OED also has it, but its two supporting quotations are unconfidently dated ante 1425 and ante 1475, which makes them both Middle English (the boundary between Middle English and Early Modern English being circa 1470). This information exists in the entry for (deprecated template usage) mater’s Middle English etymon, (deprecated template usage) matere. Consequently, I have requested verification of this sense, which means that it needs supporting quotations that are clearly post the Middle English–Early Modern English divide — i.e., preferably from the sixteenth century or later. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

After four months, no citations have been presented either for obsolete sense of “the womb” or for the abbreviational sense of “material(s)”. RfV-senses failed. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Alahu ekber

Somone replaced "Croatian" with "Croatian (not really)" summising that "no such phrase exists". Conrad.Irwin 16:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

hủy diệt

There's a verb with this name, but I've never heard of this adverb (neither do I know how "destruction" can be used as an adverb) -- Prince Kassad 18:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

hagan

reverse hagan

—msh210℠ 20:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted reverse hagan: no evidence even on the Web generally, let alone our usual CFI sources, and I don't get the impression this came from recent media. "Pull a Hagan" does, though, score a few hits: whether they relate to the given definition I don't know. They are probably just separate coinages relating to different people called Hagan who did copiable things. Equinox ◑ 21:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Mac

Possibly rather difficult: "Mac OS and Mac OS X, the Macintosh operating systems". When does Mac alone mean this? The difficulty is that if you say that some software is "for Mac" it might be for the OS, but that's basically equivalent to the computer because you can't run the OS on anything else (can you?). In any case, can it ever unambiguously refer to the OS and not the machine? I don't think emulation counts, because even then you have an (emulated) machine. Equinox ◑ 22:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Attributive uses like “Mac program” seem to refer to the OS and not the hardware, at least in some cases. Or is Mac just an adjective? —Michael Z. 2009-05-06 13:56 z

• 1991, “Breaking Communications Barriers”, in Compute!, v 13, n 9, pp 28–31:

  Built by Matthew Weed, a blind political science and history major, and Victor Grigorieff, a computer science and psychology major, the system is based on a Macintosh IIfx, although it can run on earlier models, since each Mac program has a similar interface.

• 1993, “The New Microprocessors Powerchips” in Popular Science, v 243, n 1, p 58:

  Apple, IBM, and Motorola have teamed up to produce this 32-bit chip that will be used in future Apple Macintoshes and IBM PCs. PowerPC systems will run Mac or Unix programs, and possibly Windows software in the future.

• 1993, “The Newest Appliance” in U.S. News & World Report, v 115, n 21, p 90:

  If you invest the time to learn one Windows or Mac program, you'll automatically have mastered the basic skills to use hundreds of others.

Need to spend more time searching for cites like this one. There may be cases where Mac refers to either or both the hardware or software.

• 2007, “Uninspiring Vista”, in Technology Review, v 110, n 1, pp 72–4:

  As this shift accelerates, finding software that works with a particular operating system will be less of a concern. People will be able to base decisions about which OS to use strictly on merit, and on personal preference. For me, if the choice is between struggling to configure every feature and being able to boot up and get to work, at long last I choose the Mac.

 —Michael Z. 2009-05-06 14:03 z

big one

Why? — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 14:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this used to mean "a thousand dollars" (as "a grand" still does), but it got demoted (much as "troop" used to mean a group of soldiers, and has come to mean one soldier). —Ruakh_TALK 14:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Both senses cited. —Ruakh_TALK 15:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

the big one

Death. DCDuring TALK 15:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

This is plausible but difficult to search for. A quick glance on the Web did find a few items that might support it, e.g. "Is swine flu 'the big one' or a flu that fizzles?"; "In-custody death: Getting ready for the big one". Equinox ◑ 21:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

To me the "big one" is just a pronoun, possibly meriting an entry, but not with such a limited meaning. It's referent always depends on context: in auto racing, it's a multi-car collision; in California, it's a titanic earthquake; to many veterans, it was WWII. DCDuring TALK 23:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The "death esp. by heart attack" usage probably originates with the old w:Sanford and Son US TV show, in which Sanford (w:Redd Foxx), did a standard shtick where he would clutch his chest, look heavenward, and exclaim, "It's the big one!" I'm not sure how much this usage really caught on beyond the TV show. The California mega-quake sense noted by DCDuring is certainly more common. (And, indeed, back in the early 1960s, on the old w:Dobie Gillis TV show, Dobie's father did a regular shtick where he would speak with pride of being a veteran of WWII, "The Big One.") -- WikiPedant 06:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Watergate

Any scandal

Is this used in the generic sense? I can only find references to the specific Watergate scandal, including indirect ones like “another Watergate”. —Michael Z. 2009-05-08 15:41 z

Any proper name can be used to refer to what it exemplifies (a Thatcher, a Kissinger, a Kennedy, a Vietnam). Only some become eponyms: solon/Solon. This one doesn't seem likely to get there, let alone be there. DCDuring TALK 16:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Watergate salad

“I'll have a Watergate?” —Michael Z. 2009-05-08 15:41 z

Blue

Supposed to be a male given name. SemperBlotto 15:55, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

It is glossed as British, but I have never heard of it here. You can find it on a few baby-naming Web sites, but that is true for literally hundreds of vanishingly rare inventions that are unlikely to pass CFI. Equinox ◑ 15:57, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Blue was sometimes used as an informal nickname in Australia. Very dated, and possibly was not used much back then anyway.--Dmol 05:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I've heard it occasionally in the U.S. as well. In fact, some friends of mine recently had a son, and they gave him the middle name Blue after one of his great-uncles. It's hard to find examples on b.g.c., but I've managed to find three:

• nickname: the main character of Gilbert Sorrentino's 1983 novel Blue Pastoral;
• name or nickname (I can't tell): a character in Carl Weber's 2005 novel The Preacher's Son; and
• name (but given by a semi-delirious mother, with narrator's tone suggesting it's an odd name): a baby in Raymond Andrews' 1979 debut novel Appalachee Red.

Are those enough, or do we need to demonstrate common use for this to be worth including?

—Ruakh_TALK 01:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It was an Australian nickname, usually for someone with red hair. Brilliant Aussie humour strikes again. Ƿidsiþ 09:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a real surname, though. I've added that definition. The given name Blue does appear in birth records. It's mostly a middle name, more often for women: Bonnie Blue, Skye Blue, Blue Bell. But any English surname can be a middle name - Green, Brown, Black, White are not defined as given names. In the absence of quotations, shouldn't there be a minimum requirement of bearers? A hundred, maybe, or even five hundred, among the one billion potential English speakers. ( Five persons would do for Icelandic names.) You can find quite incredible names in vital statistics. Here's a sample from Zambia: Table, Petrol, Seventy, Behave, Railway Station, Moby Dick. --Makaokalani 15:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Defined it as a female given name+male nickname, and added quotes. After all, we have many even sillier names here.--Makaokalani 13:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

andereño

Does Basque use ñ? — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 16:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. See [[w:Basque language#Writing system]]. —Ruakh_TALK 01:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

go out on the town

"To party all night long." Is that a suitable definition? Can you go out on the town but get home before midnight? Can you party all night long at home and claim to have gone out on the town? Equinox ◑ 16:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is not a good definition. I wonder, though, whether this is not an SoP combination of [[go out]] + [[on the town]]. MW and RHU have "on the town" as an idiom at their entries for "town". AHD and Cambridge idiom dictionaries have it too. Other collocations "night(s) on the town", "(be) out on the town", "evenings on the town", and more.

Not worth citing, IMHO. DCDuring TALK 15:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Morocco agency

Defintion is - Any one of the British post offices in Morocco.
But I don't think this was ever a singular, refering to an individual post office. The more common term Morocco agencies meant the entire British postal service, not specific offices.--Dmol 07:32, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Morocco agencies

Rfv-sense, as above, the plural of Morocco agency.--Dmol 07:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

DNF

Rfv-sense — This comment was unsigned.

Delete. It's actually pretty citeable using Usenet ([60]; [61] or [62]; [63]), but I just don't think this is something we want. —Ruakh_TALK 19:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is citeable. I don't like it because the subject is so encyclopaedic and fleeting (who will remember this game in five years, especially when it was never actually released and its developer no longer exists?), but then again we list abbreviations for many encyclopaedic subjects — albeit mostly less obscure. I abstain! Equinox ◑ 20:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added a few more senses for you to argue about! (Some will be more permanent than the Duke) Dbfirs 08:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

act

Rfv-sense: obsolete, uncountable: A state of existence. Does the OED have a cite for this? Date? DCDuring TALK 14:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like OED 2 (obs.), roughly meaning a state of fact as opposed to possibility. Quotations follow. —Michael Z. 2009-05-11 05:27 z

• 1398 TREVISA Barth. De P.R. IV. i. (1495) 78 The noblest thynges of shappes of kynde and of crafte that be hydde comyth forth in acte and in dede.
• 1595 SHAKES. John IV. iii. 135 If I in act, consent, or sinne of thought Be guiltie.
• 1662 MORE Antid. agst. Ath. Ep. Ded. (1712) 2 Plato, if he were alive again, might find his timorous supposition brought into absolute Act.
• 1677 HALE Prim. Orig. Man. 109 They are only in possibility, and not in act.

Sounds like a suitable def might be 'actuality'. Pingku 11:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

humoorikas

Tagged (by Opiaterein) but not listed. Allegedly Estonian for humorous. 50 Xylophone Players talk 15:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Why do you question it? It’s certainly Estonian. See w:et:Eri:Search/humoorikas. For example, "Juhansoni reisid" on humoorikas romaan ("Juhansoni reisid" is a humorous novel). —Stephen 21:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I tagged it because the ever-dubious User:Ross Rhodes added it and it didn't strike me as looking very Estonian. (Granted, I don't speak any, but it didn't look like any I'd ever seen) — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 02:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I question it because I don't speak Estonian. 50 Xylophone Players talk 09:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

ablator

Rfv-sense: "One who ablates." Is this word used in any other sense than "that which is ablated"? Pingku 17:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

In Latin, yes, which suggests the possibility in English. The Latin definition is "one who removes or takes away". --EncycloPetey 20:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

There is also the spelling ablater, which, when it is not French, seems mainly to be used in the sense of "that which removes", in the medical sense of removing unwanted tissue and also in the setting of images on metal plates. "Ablator" seems almost entirely reserved for the sense "that which is ablated". I found one instance of a psychological sense for "one who ablates" (removes from his/her own memory) - it was spelled "ablator", but this might be a mistake. Pingku 12:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

slapdown

The definition given is for "smackdown". None of the first five pages of google hits for slapdown mention wrestling, whereas a search for the term 'smackdown' yields a first page almost full of wrestling-related sites. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 02:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I've converted the rfv to rfv-sense after adding 3 senses. Please take a look since you know what usage is. Edit freely. DCDuring TALK 03:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

bosky

Rfv-sense ""# (deprecated template usage) a dark skinned or black person (not indigenous), usually used pejoratively or abusively. May be archaic."" Conrad.Irwin 14:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

long goodbye

References and citations all say that the disease may be referred to as the "long goodbye". Can we find any text that actually uses it? Equinox ◑ 23:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I added one more quotation which provides a use, not a mention, of the term. But only to humour you. This defn was already adequately substantiated. (BTW, the title of the article given in the Wisconsin Healthlink reference also uses the term in my opinion). -- WikiPedant 05:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

How is it substantiated? Texts that say "'the long goodbye' means this" are not evidence. Equinox ◑ 23:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

By authority. Academic journals and medical school links are authoritative with respect to this term. -- WikiPedant 03:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we usually accept words only on the grounds that an "authority" (however that would be defined) says they are words. Need to meet WT:CFI as with anything else. Equinox ◑ 13:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Attestation, not authority, is the very foundation of lexicography. We accept authority for non-English terms. We are influenced by those authorities who take attestation seriously (the "serious" dictionaries, OED, MW, AHD, RH, Longmans, Cambridge, Macquarie, etc.). It would definitely be preferred that the quotations not surround the headword with quotes or otherwise mark it as not an ordinary part of the language of the writer/speaker and reader/listener. It might be attestable. DCDuring TALK 15:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Attestation and authority are different albeit related concepts. Attestation of a term pertains to the function performed by the quotation (whether it uses or mentions the term). Authority pertains to the source of the quotation. Each attestation carries with it its own degree of authority. Attestations sourced from literary classics or refereed academic journals are rightly recognized at WT:CFI as having greater authority (since only 1 such attestation is needed to satisfy CFI). Like you, DC, I prefer to avoid quotations in which the definiendum is set off in quotation marks, but I'll settle for them as long as it is clear that this is not a one-off coinage by the author. -- WikiPedant 06:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

The straight uses (not mentions) that I find come up in many contexts and always refer to an extended departure. One amusing quote is about it most literally. Others are about extended departures from the public view. The Alzheimer's sense is included in that sense. I am not at all sure that any sense really is idiomatic as opposed to simply an SoP metaphor or figurative use. I also not that is much more common in attention-grabbing titles than in ordinary text. DCDuring TALK 16:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

The specific nickname "long goodbye" for Alzheimer's is widely used in North America by health professionals. I've heard it used this way for many years. I honestly believe it qualifies as a distinct sense. Since you still have doubts, DC, I shall look for more quotations. -- WikiPedant 06:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I have now added 3 more quotations (all uses, not mentions) and expanded the defn and the etymology. -- WikiPedant 22:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

This b.g.c. search produces many hits for "cancer" as affording a long goodbye. It just seems like a nice turn of phrase for the situation generated by many diseases of aging or indeed any debilitating disease without institutionalization. DCDuring TALK 00:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, DC, I saw a few in this vein when I was rummaging around. I see the Alzheimer's sense as a separate, established sense (which has its own wrinkle of meaning since it involves progressive loss of the ability to recognize and communicate with friends and family), but think a 2nd, broader sense is probably attestable with respect to any lengthy, degenerative disease (or even process) which is ultimately fatal. -- WikiPedant 03:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

whomp

To lack redeeming qualities: to "suck", basically. The etymology says that this is from a TV show. Can anyone find citations? Equinox ◑ 01:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

ironist

Someone who does extreme ironing. I can find only one citation (on Usenet) where this doesn't appear as extreme ironist. Equinox ◑ 14:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 01:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

blud

Both senses - Form of address, and close friend. I've googled "hello blud", "goodbye blud", "ciao blud", "hey blud" and "hi blud" but it doesn't look promising. There's plenty of misspellings of blood, however. Enough to deserve an entry? Maybe --Jackofclubs 16:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

takedown bulldog

Some Google hits, but little on permanently-recorded media. Maybe another definition of takedown required? --Jackofclubs 17:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

que si

No French entry for this one yet. I know people who say bien sûr que si, or oh/ô que si, but I'm not sure if this is really an interjection or just two interjections next to each other. I'll leave you lot to think about it. Mglovesfun 20:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Seems good to me. —Stephen 13:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Potentially sum of parts ("but of course!"), but with my limited French I'm not sure. In any case I will try to cite it to pass the "is it real?" part of RFV if nothing else. Equinox ◑ 20:42, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It's definitely SOP; "que" can be used this way with any number of expressions, and obviously this is one of the main meanings of "si". —Ruakh_TALK 22:39, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

spoofulate

Equinox ◑ 12:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

cormie

I can find two on Google Groups (ignoring the ones that refer to a brand name for boats or something). Any more? Equinox ◑ 13:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

dragonsword

I'm only seeing a small handful of formulaic fantasy books where it's not clear that the word has either of these senses. Equinox ◑ 18:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 01:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Bonfire

I'm having difficulty verifying this. SemperBlotto 21:08, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

In Germany we have a similar tradition, called Funkenfeuer or Funken for short... There is a Wikipedia article on the subject: [[64]], and I can imagine that such an event could be formulated in exactly that way it is written under the description... PS: A second sense was added, due to the capitalization... --BigBadBen 20:34, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 01:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

quide

Citation page just looks like a typo. Nadando 00:10, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It is, or was, a trademark for piperacetazine, thus capitalised Quide (if we consider it worth keeping). Equinox ◑ 08:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

anarchyist

anarchyists

I'm seeing no evidence for the cited dictionary's existence. Not seeing any good cites either. If this fails, anarchyists should also go (if not, it should be formatted). -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:27, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Scuttle. I can't find any evidence for the existence of this dictionary either. Not listed in Library of Congress catalog. As for finding cites, Google Books and Google Scholar yield some apparent hits, but they all seem to be German language hits in which the construction is "...Anarchy ist...". -- WikiPedant 20:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Equinox ◑ 21:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding anarchyists (plural form) to this discussion. Goldenrowley 05:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete. This is the kind of thing that SB usually gets before we ever see it. "Lala Land", indeed. DCDuring TALK 16:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 01:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

ejay

"Aspiring deejays and ejays can get their start by broadcasting shows on the Web." But can we cite from BGC? Watch out for the trademark for certain sample sets (Ejay Rave etc.). Equinox ◑ 11:59, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

family

Moved here from RFD per consensus: see WT:RFD#family. Equinox ◑ 00:54, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

(Comment moved from RFD) Keep and expand definition, but delete these cites. Family has a meaning of having traditional values, being conservative, even old fashioned - for example "family values". The examples are clearly wrong, and are attributive uses of the noun.--Dmol 09:00, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I have inserted two senses with usexes that illustrate the additional meanings that would justify keeping the adjective PoS. I would argue that both have widespread use in the US. The value of the RfVed sense is to remind users that some meanings are limited to attributive use of senses that are the noun's. If there is agreement as to the widespread use and the suitability of the usage examples, this matter can be closed forthwith. DCDuring TALK 10:56, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

macrolanguage

A case of {{only in}}? -- Prince Kassad 08:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added two citations. If anyone has access to ISO 639-3:2007 itself, we can have three; or, we can stipulate to its existence, and count it despite its not actually appearing in the entry. (Alternatively — is either LOC's FAQ or SIL's "scope of denotation" document considered durably archived?) —Ruakh_TALK 14:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Yngling

Note: this section was formerly titled yngling.

Can't find much on this. Is the capitalisation correct? Is it a brand name? Equinox ◑ 15:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

It's not a brand name (see w:Yngling (keelboat)), and since the original editor included a {{see|Yngling}} at the top, I surmise that (s)he did think this sense existed in lowercase (though w:Yngling (keelboat) capitalizes it throughout, so (s)he may have been mistaken). Searches through b.g.c. seem mostly unproductive; google books:"a yngling" has exactly one relevant hit, and it's capitalized. (Plus, it's snippet view, which is a pain.) —Ruakh_TALK 20:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

O.K., it somehow hadn't occurred to me till now to try google books:yngling keelboat. It pulls up a fair number of relevant hits — all of them capitalized. So, moved to Yngling. —Ruakh_TALK 20:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Kathleen Mavourneen

Rfv-sense: Open-ended prison sentence. There's evidence this may be for some kind of undetermined period. Not specifically prison though. Alas, tis a fine tune - my grandmother sang me this. --Jackofclubs 19:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

There's not much I can find outside of dictionaries, both online and printed. The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, (2006) lists it with two meanings, a habitual criminal (1917) and an indefinite jail sentence (1970).
Theres an earlier example in A Dictionary of the Underworld (1961) which lists kath with a def of "an indeterminate prison sentence" from 1910, listing it as Australian and New Zealand slang and having an origin in the song.

So are we missing a definition for the criminal, and are we missing the definition I expected to see - that of a poetic name for any Irish girl. It should be noted that Movourneen is just the English version of the Irish for "my darling" mo mhuirnín. (mh is pronounce V in Irish). One example is "THE WHISTLIN' COLLEEN" which I could not find a date for but it was on google books as out of copyright. More recently is the Wolfe Tones song from the 1980s Irish Eyes, which has the line - My rose of Old Erin my Kathleen mo mhuirnín.--Dmol 21:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

baffie

Rfv-sense. Shoes --Jackofclubs 09:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit of a "mention", but D Dakers, Conserving the past - building for the future: Inverness 1987 has this: "In addition tae Ayrshire Scots, ma mither introduced exotic Fife words like baffies for slippers, an bocht for ill..." Equinox ◑ 14:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

sofeet

Long-time tagged, first-time listed. I find very few hits in this sense, and what hits I do find, are all what I would consider to be transliterations of Hebrew (deprecated template usage) סוֹפִית (sofít), rather than bona fide English uses. The more common English spelling is (deprecated template usage) sofit — though I don't know if even that one is really English, either. —Ruakh_TALK 14:05, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

chirp

"To insult". Equinox ◑ 22:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 01:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

defenestrate

Rfv-sense: Windows sense. I previously marked this "RFV passed", but Dominic has since pointed out that some of the cites were actually for "defenestration". Further, in trying to clean up the cites, I've discovered that they don't all still seem to exist — and Googling the text, I find different sources for them. Never mind that last part; that was due to a later editor's attempt to clean up the cites. Non-standard formats engender so much confusion … All told, this bears re-evaluation. —Ruakh_TALK 23:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

monkey script

Equinox ◑ 04:40, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 01:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

native language

Defn given as "A language spoken by a native people, such as a tribe, mainly as opposed to the language of the dominant culture of a colonizer, empire etc." Seems off the mark to me. -- WikiPedant 03:39, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added 2 less tendentious senses and converted rfv to rfv-sense. Does that help? DCDuring TALK 04:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

These all sound SoP to me

1. native in the sense of by birth/inherited/innate, as in native skills, native habits.
2. [not sure what “language of a community” is.]
3. native in the sense of of or relating to Aboriginal/Native peoples (I would mark it as also capitalized Native language). Definition needs rejigging anyway: why should “a tribe” be assumed to be dominated or colonized?

 —Michael Z. 2009-05-19 04:36 z

Delete. google books:"supplanted the native languages" has 29 hits, mostly all in this sense (at least, by my understanding of this sense); but I agree with Mzajac that these are all SOP (the more so because no one sense dominates: all SOP interpretations are available). —Ruakh_TALK 13:14, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Re: "no one sense dominates": Is this a quantitative issue? What if there were 2 dominant terms?

Re: "all SOP interpretations are available": Would the logic be that if any of the 18 possible combinations of the 3 nonspecialist senses of "native" and the 6 senses of language were not attestable, then we would need an entry? That would seem unworkable.

I keep hoping that there might be some rules that captured more of our individual subjective senses of what makes a multi-word entry "right". We have moved well beyond any ordinary sense of idiomaticity. It seems no longer to be a question of whether the meaning of a term can be inferred from the meanings of the components, but rather can easily be inferred by anyone without regard to prior knowledge or context. DCDuring TALK 15:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

What I mean is, there are a lot of fixed expressions that have more-specific meanings than you'd suspect from their parts. For example, "post" and "office" each have various meanings, and logically there are plenty of things a "post office" might be; but in fact, it means one specific thing, and any other sort of use is weird ("his new post comes with an office and a lab. the post lab is slightly cramped, but at least the post office has a gorgeous view"). This is subjective, in that "weird" and "attestable" are neither comprehensive nor mutually exclusive, but I hope that in most cases we can reach consensus via discussion. —Ruakh_TALK 15:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, post office needs an entry because it can refer to either a building or a public corporation (and also a kids' game, which we don't define).

But our CFI doesn't address some of these questions adequately, and even then I think there is a range where some judgment must be applied. But we've mostly coped okay. But, if we are to serve as a dictionary for language learners then the answers will probably be quite different than if we are only a dictionary for native speakers, and I suspect that we aren't accommodating these readers adequately. —Michael Z. 2009-05-19 16:57 z

Re: a building or a public corporation: I think that's true of a lot of "offices". —Ruakh_TALK 20:18, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe so, and I haven't compared other examples, but the difference is significant. Here in Canada, a post office (building) is often a counter at the back of a drugstore staffed by contract workers in uniform—no Canada Post employees in sight. A post office (building) may be no longer owned by the postal corporation, no longer serving as a postal outlet, converted into a private residence, or torn down. The post office (corporation) may have a billion dollar budget, and may be referred to as Canada Post or USPS. Each sense has a different set of synonyms. —Michael Z. 2009-05-19 20:28 z

Fair enough — but even if not, I'd still say (deprecated template usage) post office warranted an entry, for the reason I gave. We can have more than one reason to keep an entry. :-)   —Ruakh_TALK 20:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, certainly. But the more I discuss this, the more I confuse myself. Native language has two meanings, but both are plain applications of different senses of native/Native (adj.). Post office is not SoP in Canada, since “the post” is usually called mail here, and also we don't currently define an adjective sense of post. — This unsigned comment was added by Mzajac (talk • contribs) at 21:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC).

• Comment This should presumably by at RFD since its existance is easily verifiable. I preferred it as one sense personally, I think it just makes it more complicated to split it into these different possible sub-uses, but anyway, it's a common idiomatic collocation and should be kept. Ƿidsiþ 20:45, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

  Senses 1 and 3 are very different. Native in no. 3 is the name of an ethnic group used attributively, and arguably may or should be capitalized in formal writing. Cree is a Native language; Ukrainian is my native language. One sense would be inadequate. But since both are plain applications of adjectives, I think zero senses may satisfy our current CFI. —Michael Z. 2009-05-19 21:09 z

  Yeah, you're right about the senses. I still say keep. Ƿidsiþ 20:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Wordnet and Webster's New Millennium have this, but no other OneLook dictionaries. WNM has a computer sense. It is linked to here as a synonym by first language and mother tongue. It appears more common in the main senses than either of these in COCA. DCDuring TALK 14:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Six non-English entries link to it as a translation or defining term. But editors of 36 of our entries use the term without wikilinking it, perhaps suggesting that it seems SoP to them. DCDuring TALK 14:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Keep I've added cites for sense 3. I still think all three are SoP (although we don't distinctly define Native for sense 3, and now I see that my citation for 2 isn't great). But the subtle distinctions may not be obvious even to a native anglophone, so I vote keep. —Michael Z. 2009-05-20 21:23 z

See also my additions to native, adj. & n. —Michael Z. 2009-05-20 21:50 z

yearman

Rfv-sense: Someone who spend [sic] a year doing something. Compare with yearsman. Search reveals "Yearman" as proper noun, scannos, a possible combining form (other sense given in our entry), an apparent fictional-universe sense in works by J. V. Jones. DCDuring TALK 14:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 01:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

note#Etymology 1

Rfv-sense x 2: noun:

1. Use.
2. Business, need.

Has this been in use after 1500? It might belong under an Middle English L2 heading. OED might help. DCDuring TALK 14:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

VL

Discussion moved from RFD. --Hekaheka 22:10, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Translingual entry:

Quote from Wikipedia: Symbols are iterated to produce multiples of the decimal (1, 10, 100, 1000) values, with V, L, D substituted for a multiple of five, and the iteration continuing: I "1", II "2", III "3", V "5", VI "6", VII "7", etc., and the same for other bases: X "10", XX "20", XXX "30", L "50", LXXX "80"; CC "200", DCC "700", etc. At the fourth iteration, a subtractive principle may be employed, with the base placed before the higher base: IIII or IV "4", VIIII or IX "9", XXXX or XL "40", LXXXX or XC "90", CCCC or CD "400", DCCCC or CM "900". ... Note that the subtractive principle is not extended beyond the chart, and VL is not used for 45, which can only be forty (XL) and five (V), or XLV. --Hekaheka 04:23, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Since we try to be descriptive, what WP says doesn't really matter: this is an issue for RFV.—msh210℠ 18:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added a cite (Darling) which is mention rather than use, but only in the sense that it's mentioning a band (music band) name that uses "45" in it because of the "VL" connection; thus, although the book cited is mentioning, the band name is, sort of, using. Not sure whether that counts. I've added another good cite (Sonneck), though it's quoting another source. And I've linked to a third cite, which is in Latin, so I don't know what parts of it to quote as meaningful in the quotation — but it's a cite of this term. So we have two (onw of which is not quoted on the citations page) and possibly a third (Darling).—msh210℠ 18:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I've added one more cite. Like the Latin cite, I can't quote this one: this time, the language in question is Italian. This time, actually, I have a sneaking suspicion — not that I know any Italian — that it may be a mention. Not sure why I think so. These cites are all, by the way, on the cites page.—msh210℠ 03:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

album

Rfv-sense: "A CD containing between 3 and anything up to 30 tracks (songs or instrumentals).", as distinct from the more general "A group of audio recordings, on any media, intended for distribution as a group." (I'm not really insisting on three cites — dunno how you could cite this — just for confirmation that there really are speakers for whom this is a distinct sense. I mean, I do have a vague notion that some media are more "album-y" than others, but this seems a bit much, no?) —Ruakh_TALK 01:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

In many of our definitions, younger (I infer) contributors seem to find that our more inclusive definitions don't provide meanings they can immediately relate to. So they add something much more particular, less abstract. I wonder if shortening and using more vivid simple language would make the more general definitio seem better. Like: "Audio recordings, on any media (eg, CD, tape) distributed as a group", Simply excluding "CD" might make the other definitions seem less current. Can an album be on a DVD? Does adding video make a group of audio recordings not an album? To an older speaker (and I speak with more authority here), "album" might be restricted to phonograph records, [and not just vinyl!]). DCDuring TALK 09:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

It's plain wrong. A lot of EPs have three or more tracks, and they are not albums. (Incidentally, I see that we define "EP" only as a vinyl record. I was talking about CDs, and you can find plenty even if you insist on "EP" in the name, e.g. Aphex Twin's Come to Daddy EP, Mesh's Fragile EP.) Fixed that! Equinox ◑ 19:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

beat up

Rfv-senses

1. In some out-of-date dictionaries, "to alarm by a sudden attack"
2. Repeated verbal assault

The second definition isn't even a verb at all. Maybe tosh? --Jackofclubs 06:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

The first sense was in Websters 1913. I've marked it obsolete and removed the quotes. I will convert the other one into a verb to give it a chance. The whole entry could use a clean up. DCDuring TALK 09:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

fix a hole

I'm sure we've all jigged along to this Beatles song, but all the searches I get for ("fix/fixing/fixed a hole" heroin drug] are about fixing holes, or websites whicb say stuff like "Fixing a Hole is about heroin". Any decent attestations? --Jackofclubs 18:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

interpellation

4 senses. A neologism in French, now in English. Perhaps there is one attestable sense. DCDuring TALK 23:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

babes in the wood

Defined as "(obsolete, slang) Criminals in the stocks, or pillory." -- WikiPedant 05:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

google books:"babe|babes in the wood" pillory works (though one needs to weed out the mentions).—msh210℠ 16:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sleeping Beauty

Rfv-sense 3: A masturbation technique where one sits on their usual hand until it goes numb, so it feels like someone else's hand. --Jackofclubs 10:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, sense removed. —Ruakh_TALK 18:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

ablütofobi

since we don't have ablutophobia, why this? -- Prince Kassad 12:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

We lack ablutophobia because it's citeless, not because it's inherently bad. If it had cites, it'd be fine. So I think we can treat this discussion as a standard foreign-word RFV rather than one in which "since we don't have ablutophobia, why this?" is an argument that needs answering.—msh210℠ 22:41, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

In which case, cites don't find themselves but need to be found. -- Prince Kassad 04:46, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 20:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

array controller

Rfv-sense: Very particularistic sense, might be rendered obsolete or miss part of what ought be included. Has rfc tag, but may not be worth cleaning up. DCDuring TALK 01:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

clock out

Rfv-sense: to run out of time. Apparently my use of this is idiosyncratic and unattestable. I couldn't find it among hundreds of collocations at b.g.c. I have added 2 other senses. The electronics one should be looked at by an electronics engineer-type. DCDuring TALK 18:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

You might also try chess. I can't find a cite, but I seem to remember it being used in a chess sense for timed games. --EncycloPetey 21:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have heard it used as a euphemism for death, which might be an extension of the RFV sense. - [The]DaveRoss 22:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, DCD, I always read your "clocked out" as a transitive verb rather than an intransitive one: "I am hereby clocking out this term" (closing it because of elapsed time). Equinox ◑ 19:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Clocking out is not official terminology, though 30 days is considered to be the earliest at which something can be stricken.

I think it would be ergative, both transitive and intransitive, with the meanings relating in a predictable pattern. I thought that with the passage of time the RfV would "clock out" on its own (intransitively). Its time ran out. I didn't do it. It's not my fault. I was merely drawing attention to the fact, especially for entries where I had entered the RfV and thereby felt debarred from striking. DCDuring TALK 20:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I had interpreted this use as intransitive, just as you intended it, and it didn't strike me as being at all odd. Until you listed it here, it never occurred to me that I'd never heard this use anywhere else. —Ruakh_TALK 00:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

English: the language of easy invention. DCDuring TALK 01:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, what's a good substitute. "Expired"? "Out of time"? "Past 30 days"? "Past its attest-by date"? Is it useful enough to keep as wikijargon (in WT:GLOSS)? DCDuring TALK 01:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

finnoc

No language given, but not found either. --EncycloPetey 19:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it might be Scots, not sure about the overlap into English. Nadando 20:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

peas and rice

Plausible, but I can only find the one poor citation I've already added, even after a cursory look on Usenet. Equinox ◑ 21:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. I've heard that one a bit, but I don't know whether it's primarily a spoken term. I've more often heard cheese and rice. --EncycloPetey 21:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

dabiñe

Note: the heading of this section was previously "dabiñe, dabine". —Ruakh_TALK 17:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Does not seem to exist, no google hits, and I never heard this word.Matthias Buchmeier 13:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I have speedy-deleted dabine, since it was a self-identified misspelling. (Admittedly, it said that it was common Internet slang -slash- misspelling; but since the "common Internet slang" part is obviously wrong — I can't find any hits on Google that seem to be in this sense — I'm not worrying myself over that part.) —Ruakh_TALK 17:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 18:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

WorkCover

Tagged nearly two years ago by Keene. Might be considered an RfD. It seems like a proper noun for a specific government workmen's insurance scheme. I think it would need attributive use. There might also be a noun or different spellings.

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 01:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

militarian

An anon has questioned the "reality" of this seldom-edited word. --EncycloPetey 17:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Though there are many scannos for utilitarian and though no OneLook dictionary has it, the word seems real. I'm less sure about the noun meanings given. I could buy "military man/person". DCDuring TALK 15:23, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I have IMHO cited the adjective. It might be possible to cite an additional sense that is more specifically pejorative.

As for the noun, the original contributor must have been imagining a back-formation from militarianism or Militarianism. I'm not finding it. However, there is a sense of "a person in, connected to, or interested in the military" for which I have provided quotations. DCDuring TALK 16:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Cited, thanks. --EncycloPetey 15:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

But the four cites for the noun don't support the two senses very well. I will RfV-sense the two noun senses. DCDuring TALK 17:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Said senses RFV failed, removed. —Ruakh_TALK 18:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Playmo

Wikipedia article says they are sometimes called this, but I can't find any suitable citations except for one, and it's German, not English. Equinox ◑ 19:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 01:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

pretty

Rfv-sense An anon had deleted this and another sense on the grounds that they are merely ironic or sarcastic use of the word. One of the deleted senses is well supported in dictionaries. The other I'm not so sure about. I'm sure that we'll find quotes for all senses that could use illustration. DCDuring TALK 12:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this a usage note? "Pretty" (attractive) may be used in a derogatory fashion to describe something that is seen to be pretty (attractive) but not, as it should be, functional. (The current sense is wrong at least in that it wouldn't be used for anything that was ugly and unfunctional.) It reminds me of an RFD/RFV a while ago where somebody suggested that "good" had an extra sense simply because one might sneer, "Oh, she's such a good girl." Equinox ◑ 21:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if it is even a usage note, but I can't quite reconcile the Hemingway quote with the senses we have -- or even those in MWOnline. It may be a good example of why not every quote really fits under a single sense or usage note.

The sense in "Now this is a pretty mess" seems like it might have evolved from ironic use of the original straight senses. (This doesn't sound like a US usage to me, BTW.) Maybe another negative sense is emerging or has emerged. If it doesn't seem that way to anyone here, maybe not.

And don't forget that "bad" acquired an opposite meaning that it accepted by most dictionaries. And consider "goody-two-shoes" and goody-goody. DCDuring TALK 23:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The negative use of pretty isn't new, and could very well have been strengthened by it's use in the popular operetta The Mikado (Gilbert & Sullivan). In the second act is a trio piece that twice uses the phrase "Here's a pretty mess" to describe the difficult situation they're in, and ends with all three characters singing a protracted "Here's a pretty how-de-do" in unison. --EncycloPetey 02:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The question is whether there is a second negative sense. The opposite-to-normal-valence meanings of "bad", "goody-goody", and "goody two shoes" are all fairly old, "bad" being at least 80 years old. DCDuring TALK 02:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

troll

Rfv-sense: To tend a fire. OED? DCDuring TALK 14:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Not specifically. OED's troll v. I. 2. says, in part, “to roll, bowl, trundle; to turn over and over, or round and round”, which may be an action taken by someone tending a fire. —Michael Z. 2009-06-05 02:47 z

/b/tard

Any takers? If it's OK, we need a definition of /b/. SemperBlotto 21:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC) p.s. The slashes are causing havoc.

IFYPFY for dehavocification purposes.—msh210℠ 23:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Red link because the slash is interpreted as part of the URI. Note that "The word is known to have over 9000 users" is an in-joke; these people are generally amused by talking about things being "OVER 9000" (from an anime series in which a spaceship's power level dangerously exceeds this, I think). Equinox ◑ 21:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Useless trivia: "OVER 9000" is from an episode of DragonBall Z. You can get all you need from the first ten seconds of this. bd2412 T 02:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

snap

Rfv-sense: "Brisk, cold weather that passes quickly." (N.B. the example was added later.) —Ruakh_TALK 16:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

The example is cold snap. I've heard that very often, but never snap for weather outside of that phrase. Equinox ◑ 16:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's definitely what a (deprecated template usage) cold snap is in the UK - not really sure about (deprecated template usage) snap itself. (edit conflict!) SemperBlotto 16:13, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, in the U.S. as well. I am definitely not questioning "cold snap". —Ruakh_TALK 17:09, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

"A cold snap"; "a snap of cold"; "the air/breeze/wind had a snap to it"; "a snap in the air/wind/breeze". There seems to me some transfer of meaning among these common usages. I can't sort it out (yet?). Is it "the sensation of cold/dry on the skin/nose/throat" that unifies these? DCDuring TALK 18:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I understand the "snap" as being a spell, i.e. the period of weather, not its effects. Equinox ◑ 18:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I had been looking at COCA which makes certain kinds of searches (collocations, hyphenation) easier than Google. I could not find any kind of snap except cold and cool there. On b.g.c. there are "hot snap"s, so I expect that other weather-related senses are possible. I wonder whether it is only weather or if social atmosphere or musical mood can have a "snap". DCDuring TALK 20:22, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster Online, defines it as a "sudden spell of weather"... --BigBadBen 20:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

meanless

"Without a mathematical mean." All I could find was a 2004 book: "the average is used to get a meanless dataset". Equinox ◑ 16:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Statistics context makes no sense. Any real sample is finite and therefore has a mean. A probability distribution without a mean can exist in a mathematician's imagination. I don't understand the quote. DCDuring TALK 17:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

In your cite it seems to mean roughly "normalized, such that the mean is zero and the expressions can be written without a mean". In this one it also seems to mean "having a mean of zero", but I'm really not sure. By contrast, in this one it really does mean "having no mean whatsoever": if you set up the improper integral, you'll find that it diverges to infinity; see w:Power law distribution. (I suppose one could also say "having a mean of +∞", but "having no mean" is also a valid interpretation.) —Ruakh_TALK 17:28, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be be some sense that comes up in signal detection and/or encryption that may be the given sense, but confirming it and entering the formulas are both beyond my paygrade. To say "meanless" means "having a mean of zero" really bothers me, especially with a mathematics context tag. It seems so literary. DCDuring TALK 17:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

It shouldn't bother you. Mathematicians frequently speak of "no|without holonomy", "no|without homotopy", etc., meaning that the holonomy or homotopy is zero. Brevity, though the soul of inaccuracy in mathematics, still makes for easier reading.—msh210℠ 16:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps someone can extract something from these 4 from b.g.c. DCDuring TALK 18:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not certain about this, but I think that in all four of those, it means "meaningless". One says that L represents blah-blah-blah when it's at least 3, but that it's "meanless" otherwise; one says that you can use dual-rail logic (which encodes 0s and 1s in a higher-order stream with equal numbers of 0s and 1s — it's usually used to combat channel bias) to make Hamming-weights (numbers of 1s in strings of 0s and 1s) "meanless" to would-be decrypters; one describes various kinds of image analysis that are limited by certain assumptions or requirements, including one that's useless in situation foo and another that's "meanless" in situation bar; and the remaining one explains that they're not bothering to distinguish horizontal from vertical because said distinction is "meanless" when you're just dealing with numerical images. —Ruakh_TALK 18:30, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps: the number of "meanlesses" on Google Groups (Usenet) as errors for "meaningless" is very high indeed. Equinox ◑ 18:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Statisticians in writing would generally use more formal language, saying a distribution had an "undefined mean" (as with the Cauchy distribution or certain parameterizations of the F-distribution), but I've heard "meanless" used in sense orally (sorry, don't have time to find cites). --Bequw → ¢ • τ 22:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps try Scholar if you have the chance. There seemed to be some, but I couldn't get enough access to be sure. I looked through b.g.c. without much luck, but you might have better google-fu. DCDuring TALK 22:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

• The OED has two senses, one from the noun (ie "without the means") meaning "without agency or aid" (a citation mentions "meanless miracles" which ceased since Christ's ascension). The other from the verb, meaning "meaningless". Both marked obsolete, and the first rare as well. Ƿidsiþ 16:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

dead sleep

Rfv-sense The first sleep of the night in a biphasic sleep pattern. I would like this meaning verified. I hope that we can come up with a more plausible "ordinary" (SoP?) definition as well, because most usage has no hint of "biphasic sleep patters". DCDuring TALK 22:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

morning sleep

Rfv-sense The second sleep of the night in a biphasic sleep pattern. Companion to #dead sleep DCDuring TALK 23:12, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Spanish double l

Full disclosure: even if this can be cited, I think it's SOP, and obviously not common enough to be considered a set phrase. But seeing as it has somehow passed RFD twice, I guess the time has come for someone to put their money where their mouth is and cough up three cites. google books:"Spanish double l" has 7 hits, but none have this capitalization, and even if we ignore that, most aren't actually using "Spanish double L" as a term for the digraph. —Ruakh_TALK 00:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Delete English double SOP Spanish (adj. 2) + double (repeated, of a letter or number; undefined in Wiktionary) + l (n. 1). —Michael Z. 2009-06-05 02:42 z

tittle

RfV-sense for “[t]he dot, or diacritic replacing it, on the Latin letters (deprecated template usage) i and (deprecated template usage) j”; can the term (deprecated template usage) tittle really be extended to the diacritic that replaces the dot normally found atop the <i> and <j>? This sounds like a non-standard overextension to me… † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 11:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, OED says: "1. A small stroke or point in writing or printing. a. Orig. rendering L. apex ‘point, tip’, applied in classical L. to any minute point or part of a letter, also to the mark over a long vowel, as á, later also to a line indicating an abbreviation. More recently applied also to the Spanish tilde or circumflex over ñ, formerly to the cedilla under ç. By extension, any stroke or tick with a pen. b. The dot over the letter i; a punctuation mark; a diacritic point over a letter; any one of the Hebrew and Arabic vowel-points and accents." --Duncan 12:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Webster's third says that the term may be applied to any small stroke or diacritical, including a cedilla. Our definition is apparently not broad enough. --EncycloPetey 15:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

doomer

Cites, please; I’m especially sceptical of the second sense. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

This has been here for over three months, and that particularly dubitable second sense is still unattested; RfV-sense failed. The first, more reasonable sense, now has one citation of its use (and it is a use, despite the quotation marks). Furthermore, a third sense has been added, but I feel no need to question it. I’ve deleted that second sense. I’m OK with closing this RfV with the entry in its present state, FWIW. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

vintage

Rfv-sense

Adjective senses 3 and 4. Both try to demark specific time periods for the meaning covered by sense 2, but while I have found plenty of examples that don't fit the given time period restrictions, other than an unsourced Wikipedia article for vintage car, I can't find anything that gives those as the definition to be used. Possibly might be used by specific collector organizations, but no evidence of general use being restricted to those definitions. — Carolina wren discussió 01:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

OED, vintage, n.: “4. attrib., [. . .] c. transf. Denoting an old style or model of something, esp. a vehicle; vintage car, a motor car made between 1905 (or 1917) and 1930; cf. veteran car s.v. VETERAN n. 3.”

They've combined the general sense of old model and the technical sense of car model from particular years. A good approach.

I like our approach of separating the two, so one person might say vintage car meaning “car of 1915,” and another may say vintage car meaning “my old ’57.” The former is really a subsense of the latter, and in many cases it may be impossible to tell which sense is being used. But the problem with this is that we must list every attestable standard as a separate technical sense: cars, watches, etc. —Michael Z. 2009-05-31 02:54 z

After edit conflict

Yuk. That [the OED def.] doesn't seem very lexicographic. It seems more like something written by an aficianado, perhaps someone with a garage full of pre-1930 cars. When was that written? Assuming it ever reflected usage beyond the owners of pre-1930 cars, is it still generally used that way? In the US? UK? Hawaii? NYC? In another ten years, will this still be the definition? If we are going to have definitions like this with dates, we're going to have to flag the entries for periodic review to make sure they don't get out of date. DCDuring TALK 03:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The entry is marked Second Edition 1989. Whether we're happy with the OED's details or not, it's not bad support for keeping vintage adj. sense 3. EtymOnline says that cars have been called vintage since 1928, so I'm assuming it didn't always mean 1930, and perhaps it won't always.[65] —Michael Z. 2009-05-31 04:39 z

This is one case where I can't accept the OED definition at face value. For instance, The Vintage Car Club of Canada uses a definition of vintage that covers any car that is 25 or more years old. Perhaps there is a British collector organization that uses the 1919-1930 definition the OED gives, but we have conflicting use that can be well documented, so at best such a hyperdefined sense would need considerable context marking. Moreover, without primary cites to back up the sense, keeping the current sense 3 based on it being given in the OED would not only violate the attestation requirement of CFI, but be a copyright violation to boot. — Carolina wren discussió 01:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Certainly not copyright violation. The facts related in a dictionary are not copyrighted, including the definitions of words. Only the writing is, that is, the precise wording. Even so, all dictionaries necessarily borrow from others—there are only so many ways to irreducibly define some words. The OED doesn't label British usage, so one could presume that their definition of vintage (car) is restricted to British usage.

OED also has an interesting quotation under Edwardian: “1968 Woman's Own 28 Sept. 28/1 Can you tell me what is the difference between a veteran car and a vintage car? A veteran is a car built before 1905 and a vintage car is one manufactured between the beginning of 1919 and the end of 1930. The period in between is covered by the category ‘Edwardian car’.” —Michael Z. 2009-06-05 02:33 z

whackage

[Moved here from an earlier RFD.] Supposedly some kind of free-for-all video game. The word does appear on Usenet (though not to any extent in Google Books), but it does not seem to have this sense at all. Mostly it seems to mean whacking or snipping (removing posted content to make a reply smaller). Equinox ◑ 00:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Probably doesn't belong on Wiktionary, but should be listed on WT:RFV. 63.95.64.254 02:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Everything I was able to find meant something along the lines of "excessive whacking of things", couldn't find anything about a genre or type of game. Never heard it personally. - [The]DaveRoss 19:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 01:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

June 2009

demo'

I've seen (deprecated template usage) 'phone, (deprecated template usage) 'plane, and (deprecated template usage) 'bus, but never anything with a final apostrophe like this. Can anyone confirm/cite? Equinox ◑ 18:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. The plural "demo's" is not hard to cite using b.g.c., but (1) it may just be the grocer's apostrophe, and (2) even if not, it's not obvious to me that the singular would be "demo'" and not, say, "demo." or something. I don't think there's any way to cite "demo'" using any of the Google searches, though other corpora might be brought to bear; Wikisource, perhaps? —Ruakh_TALK 20:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW, final apostrophes do see use in (deprecated template usage) o' and in eye dialect — (deprecated template usage) don', (deprecated template usage) mo', (deprecated template usage) fo', etc. Those differ in that they're all just eliding a final consonant, but given the final o, I can kind of imagine that it might get borrowed over for (deprecated template usage) demo as well. —Ruakh_TALK 16:32, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

geliophobia

I see 2 possible uses on google books. Nadando 02:24, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

umlaut

User:Doremítzwr claims that umlaut has a plural umlaute (i.e., like the German plural Umlaute). Is this an acceptable British way of pluralizing umlaut, or is it wishful thinking? In the U.S. I have never seen anything like that being done. —Stephen 11:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

umlauts appears in BNC (1), COCA (5), and OED citations (4); whereas umlaute does not. Maybe we're looking at a potential justification for {{hyperforeign}}. DCDuring TALK 11:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

• He seems to have cited it pretty thoroughly, and while some seem obviously to be treating the word as German, other do not. So...QED. I would tag it rare. Ƿidsiþ 11:39, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd emphasize seems. In the unhelpful quotation dump are at most three citations that do cite the headword (uncapitalized) without marking it with parentheses (as a gloss), or in italics or quotes (as a foreign word), to wit 1874, 1945, and 1998. (The capitalization of a German noun would also seem to mark it as foreign.) I don't think any of the other quotations belong in the entry, especially as it is not a lemma.

• The absence of use in the 3 controlled corpora and the 867 raw b.g.c. hits for umlauts would suggest the need to indicate low frequency with a {{rare}} or {{uncommon}}. DCDuring TALK 12:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

OTOH, although the material should not reside at this entry, it illustrates the difficulties folks have with handling non-English words. In this case, the writers can be presumed knowledgeable. But they (or their typesetters) come to different conclusions about the right way of presenting a plural form of a non-English word to their readers. DCDuring TALK 16:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Most of these appear to be wholly unnaturalized usages, judging by italics, capitals, and the use of bold in one reference. At least a couple don't look like English usage to me at all.

We do need an unnaturalized or foreign usage label, indicating words that usually appear in italics for foreignness. —Michael Z. 2009-06-05 01:34 z

A number of the sources are linguistic sources. 1900 is interesting because, unusually, it is a non-German linguistic context. Perhaps this deserves to be labelled foreign, linguistics. —Michael Z. 2009-06-05 03:26 z

kuru

"A person online who is not actually there anymore." Like an IRC ghost? Never heard of it. Equinox ◑ 17:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 01:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

crotch

Rfv-sense: Verb: To hit someone in the crotch. Widespread? Regionally? DCDuring TALK 02:57, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there any doubt? A simple google search for 'been crotched', which must be verbal, yields 10.800 hits! — This comment was unsigned.

Are they durably archived sources that we can rely one and meet WT:CFI? Is the definition accurate? Is there more than one definition? DCDuring TALK 15:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

paṇḍit

An English word with two dot-below diacritics (paṇḍit)? Surely this is in another language. bd2412 T 06:40, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I am sceptical of that kind of marking being preserved in English too. Note that we do have (deprecated template usage) pandit. Equinox ◑ 20:03, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Different definition, though. bd2412 T 05:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it’s supposed to be used in the English-speaking community of India to mean a Hindu scholar. In Indian English, they preserve these retroflex consonants. I don’t think we have anyone here who represents the English-speakers of India and we don’t know much about their dialect. —Stephen 05:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

fresh

"Very clean, and trendy looking (of garments, clothes, shoes, accessories)." I have heard of "fresh" meaning "cool, trendy", I think, e.g. "fresh" hip-hop beats. But clothes, and particularly clean ones? Equinox ◑ 20:01, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 01:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

melt into

Excerpts from RFD discussion, some of which are here out of context of others' remarks ("sense 2" discussed there is the only extant sense now):

Move sense 2 to RFV; if it passes, then keep. I know of no other intransitive use of (deprecated template usage) into — the intransitive counterpart is always (deprecated template usage) in — I find it really hard to believe that are speakers for whom "the ice melted into" means "the ice melted", but if there are, then (deprecated template usage) melt into certainly warrants coverage. […] —Ruakh_TALK 00:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

[…] troubling to the RfD is "melt into" in a sense of "become". "In a moment, the brave soldier melted into quivering protoplasm." This would seem to possibly be a copula, albeit with a semantically limited range. "Brittle melted into gooey." DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 18:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Not a copula, since it requires a preposition. I don't see this as any different from "The company closed as a successful experiment." It is the preposition (deprecated template usage) into that carries the sense "producing, becoming", which is already given in that entry. --EncycloPetey 21:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

In the second example the putative preposition "into" was followed by an adjective, which is why I thought it was possible that it was a copula. One would have to infer a noun that was "understood" (a word from grammar classes long ago) or that "gooey" was functioning as noun. I'd be surprised if there were no scholarly work on the concept of "phrasal copulae". ;-)) DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 23:36, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

But there are plenty of examples of adjectives functioning substantively, and it's easy to fabricate examples: "The rich turned into the poor." "The happy bled into the sad." "Light dimmed into dark." In all of these situations, one quality is transforming or grading (deprecated template usage) into another. By definition, it's not a copula if there is a conjunctive word in addition to the putative copula. --EncycloPetey 23:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It is not as easy to fabricate examples with bare adjectives, which would seem to be the minimal requirement for a copula. I was careful enough to avoid any determiner before "gooey". I'm not trying to be difficult: I just want to make sure that I've pushed this as far as it can go or have somebody buy me a really good English grammar (either cgel or the previous best one) to shut me up or raise my quality of discourse. DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 00:32, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing about a copula that requires a bare adjective, or any adjective at all. A copula can work with any subject complement, whether adjective, noun, noun phrase, or any nominative compound construction. --EncycloPetey 04:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but the bare adjective test is a potential test for discriminating. A bare adjective cannot be a substantive, can it? A preposition cannot "take" a non-substantive, can it? DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 12:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

In fact, a bare adjective can be substantive: "Meek wins." And a preposition can take a non-substantive (sort of). However, the prepositional object becomes a substantive automatically, in every case I can conceive: "She wrote the book on clean." ... even when the object is an adjective. --EncycloPetey 19:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

If necessary RFV second sense, which seems more like a mistake than anything, or just delete along with everything else. […] DAVilla 04:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sense 1 removed. Sense 2 kept, sent to RFV.—msh210℠ 21:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

override

Noun: "A type of sound effects". Equinox ◑ 21:07, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

overdrive an amplifier, maybe? (overdriving, overdriven). —Michael Z. 2009-06-05 02:18 z

An override is a device that allows you to prioritize audio signals. For instance, you could pipe classical music, voice intercom, and weather alerts over a single wire, and the override assigns the lowest priority to the music, higher to voice, and highest to emergency alerts. If you’re listening to music, the override will cut the music out to allow a voice signal. —Stephen 16:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

alabaster

The noun form is fine.

But the adj form I'm having problems with.

The first sense of "made from alabaster".

The second sense of "white, pale, ghostly" is problematic for me--especially the addition of ghostly.

74.129.2.63 22:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I updated the definition. I believe that alabasterness isn't ghostliness, although it may contribute to that quality. —Michael Z. 2009-06-05 01:44 z

How do we know that the word doesn't mean "ghostly"? If we change the definition how do we know what is being challenged by the RfV?

The originally challenged senses should remain until this has had its 30 days. Any proposed new sense could be inserted, the RfV tag replaced with RfV-sense tags at the challenged senses.

Also, the citations now shown do not provide evidence that the term can be a "true" adjective. We would need cites of gradable or comparative use (which are available). The attestation of the adjectivity is not necessary for this RfV, is it? DCDuring TALK 15:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm unsure what constitutes a "true" adjective. I'll admit that I'm not a professional grammarian, author, or wordsmith. But I was paying attention in third grade English and back then we were taught an adjective is any word that modifies a noun. Now I'll admit that really noun can be an adjective, and it makes little sense to add an adjective section to every noun stating that the word also means "of or relating to" the noun. Igloo in the phrase an igloo salesman can only be an adjective (I wouldn't however say it is an "untrue" adjective. The adjective form isn't needed because it is a economic way to say a salesman of igloos.

When it comes to alabaster meaning "made from alabaster" I suppose that "alabaster box" it is evident that the box is made out of alabaster. In this sense it interchangeable with alabasterine. (Is that a "true adjective." But the tendency in English is to drop inflection. It has happened to alabaster/alabasterine -- a word I've only encountered in MW definition under alabaster listed as an acceptable alternative to the adjective alabaster. It is happening to leaden, so much that my educated guess is that leaden is used primarily to suggest lead (especially something that is weighty) such as a leaden foot. Something made of lead usually drops the inflection. (A Google search of lead bullets in quotation marks yields 88,000+ hits; while a similar search of leaden bullets yields less than 17,000).

It is also in the beginning stages with the word wooden. Wooden staircase yields 3 times the hits as wood staircases. In 150 years, it might be reversed. In 300 years, it might be that people will profess only seeing wooden as an acceptable but archaic alternative to the adjective form of the noun wood in dictionaries.

I added more quotations to the adjective form of alabaster. When I know the difference between "true" and "untrue" adjectives then I'll be able to intelligently address your concerns and might even be able to drum up some citations showing a "true adjective" form of the noun.

Forgive this long and rambling post. But I wanted to fully explain my POV on the subject. SonPraises 23:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

In "igloo salesman", "igloo" isn't an adjective, period, "untrue" or otherwise: it's a noun used attributively. If a man sometimes sells igloos, but usually other things, you can't call him an *"occasionally igloo salesman". If he's tall and sells igloos, you can't call him an *"igloo tall salesman". If he currently sells other things, but will start selling igloos next week, you can't say he'll *"become igloo soon". (None of these tests is perfect — not all adjectives pass all of them — but if a word doesn't pass any of them, then it's apparently not an adjective.) —Ruakh_TALK 02:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, then. I split this definition, since it was two things (but now the intended sense of ghostly is less clear). —Michael Z. 2009-06-06 14:40 z

I'll readily admit my inclusion of "ghostly" as a defining sense along with "white and pale" may have been overreaching. It very well could be that it is more of a connotation rather than a denotation. I added the adjective form when all of the literary examples proved to be adjectives--alabaster boxes, alabaster chambers, alabaster cities. Reading several uses of alabaster, it seemed to be used within phantasmic contexts such this century-old New York Times headline: "Ghostly Hands Seen After Writers Left: One Looking Like Alabaster Moved Objects" SonPraises 23:39, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

go by the board

Dated sense just added by an anon: "To estimate the velocity of a boat or ship in knots by casting overboard the knotted line to whose end is attached the lead and thereafter counting the knots in the line as it goes aft along the side boards of the vessel." It sounds authoritative, but I can't readily find any corroboration. Nothing in OED, Webster, or dictionary.com supports this sense and this site suggests otherwise. -- WikiPedant 04:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

wa alaikum assalam

See Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup#wa alaikum assalam
Seems to be transliterated Arabic, is this really "English"? I'm going to avoid verifying it myself as I know nothing about Arabic. Mglovesfun 11:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The Arabic is Template:Arab. As far as I’m concerned, the transliteration should be deleted or redirected to Template:Arab. —Stephen 13:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've heard this (and the greeting it responds to) spoken by people who then continue to speak in English. So I assume that it has entered the language. SemperBlotto 21:45, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

forecall

This seems very rare. No (deprecated template usage) forecalling on Google Books for example. If it's a keeper, it will need some explanatory glosses (rare, archaic?). Equinox ◑ 20:06, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

filekey

Only seeing one 1973 Books citation that seems to match this sense. On Usenet, it means a few different things but is mostly a specific filename. Equinox ◑ 20:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 01:39, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

nonkilling

Is this a protologism? The alternative spelling looks like an adjectival form. Why are all the translations capitalized but not the English version? SemperBlotto 06:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Not a protologism at all. Part of Buddhist ethics for centuries. Used in academic articles since the 80s, including works by Marvin Harris (Our Kind, 1990), Johan Galtung or Glenn D. Paige (2002). Entries in other reference works include:

• "Nonkilling: A New Paradigm" International Encyclopedia of Peace. Oxford University Press, New York (2009)
• "Nonkilling Political Science" Encyclopedia of Violence, Peace and Conflict, 2nd Edition. Elsevier, San Diego (2008)
• "Nonkilling Global Society" Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS). EOLSS Publishers, Oxford (2004)

See academic support of Nonkilling Research Committees.

The alternative spelling follows the same logic as that of nonviolence/non-violence, even though use without hiphen seems to be preferred.

Capitalized translations have been corrected. --Cgnk 14:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

References are not citations. We need to see how the words are used in context in the entry itself or on Citations:nonkilling. Each citation should be from a different work, preferably a different author. Google Books is a good way to get the material. For something that is under challenge we need three citations. See pirate#Noun for an example of two challenged senses, once cited, one uncited, the uncited one being likely to be deleted. DCDuring TALK 16:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Quotes showing the range of use of the noun would help. A quote from a well-known author, like Gandhi might be nice. Quotes with usages like "Nonkilling is ...." or "Nonkillings are...." clearly show noun usage in contrast to usage as above in the titles of the works where it could be adjective usage (though it probably isn't). DCDuring TALK 17:27, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments and guidance. Please take a look to see if it's OK. Never done a dictionary entry before. Thanks!--Cgnk 20:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It is not clear to me that the quotations for the "doctrine" sense support that meaning as opposed to the other one. It is also not clear that we have a true adjective as opposed to a noun used as an adjective ("attributively"). A true adjective could be used after a form of "to be" ("predicatively") and would be comparable ("more") or gradable {"very"). Plurals show true noun use. Such citations may not make for good illustrations of meaning, but are necessary for constructing a high-quality dictionary entry. This is especially necessary when we venture into an area where no dictionary has gone before. If the quotes don't contribute to the users, we might put some of them on the Citations page. DCDuring TALK 13:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This seems quite complicated. Can it be simplified? DCDuring TALK 14:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Cited all senses; closing. Equinox ◑ 01:40, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Freelander

Rfv-sense: (science fiction) A person or group seeking land off-earth, emigrating from earth to other bodies in the solar system. Terrestrial sense cited. DCDuring TALK 19:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

fail

Etymology 2, as an interjection. Is this really a separate sense? A separate part of speech? A spearate etymology? Lot's of words can be "shouted", but this does not make them interjections. (e.g. Bob!, Ice cream! or Spoon!) --EncycloPetey 17:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This is very bad. I doubt the etymology (a little-known video game where it is used as a verb) and the "usage notes" that equate fail to failure are hardly saying anything about fail. Equinox ◑ 23:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Bad behavior. Material was removed out of process. RfV tag was removed before this was resolved. I have inserted rfv sense at Ety 2 for the new material. This seems as fatuous as the first and may have same underlying authorship. DCDuring TALK 20:27, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Clocked out. Both senses of Etymology 2. DCDuring TALK 18:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

carrot

Rfv-sense: a particularly large cannabis joint. The people on Google Groups who "smoke carrots" seem to be referring to the orange vegetable. Maybe Camberwell carrot from Withnail and I could get some hits. --Jackofclubs 18:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

mouth

Somebody who needs to be fed: "Our new baby will be another mouth to feed." Isn't this (deprecated template usage) mouth to feed? Does (deprecated template usage) mouth alone ever mean this? Is it perhaps an attempt to be a little too proactive and document obvious figurative usages ("we could use another (deprecated template usage) pair of hands")? Equinox ◑ 23:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 01:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

hé

Not in DRAE, maybe obsolete spelling? Matthias Buchmeier 09:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

google books:"hé tú" and "he tú" suggest that both are "in mention", at least. From more "natural" searches, such as "hé hecho", I can't discern if either one has ever been in use. I wonder if this is one of those nigh-theoretical things; the imperative used to be (deprecated template usage) hé, then when the Academy took the accent off of (deprecated template usage) hé (yo), they officially took it off of (deprecated template usage) hé (tú) as well, but by that point the form was no longer in use. (Like if an English Academy decided to simplify "thou" conjugations by removing the "dost"/"doest" distinction in favor of common "dost" — it wouldn't really change anything.) But the distinction that our entries are making ((deprecated template usage) he is yo-indicative, (deprecated template usage) hé is tú-imperative) definitely requires support. —Ruakh_TALK 12:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Looking at google books:"hé tú", the first is an OCR error from the words "he said". The rest are separated by punctuation, as "yo he, tú has" ("I have, you have"). "he tú" is also separated by punctuation as "yo he, tú has". All of the instances under "hé hecho" that I looked at were either typos or misspellings. The spelling hé does exist, at least theoretically, as the tú-imperative, but I haven’t seen it in use before. —Stephen 21:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Weird, b.g.c. must be showing you something different from what it's showing me. At google books:"hé tú" I see a bunch of relevant mentions (including the one you link to below). (I mean, I also see Irish and Pinyin and other irrelevancies, but about a third of the hits I see are relevant mentions.) —Ruakh_TALK 19:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It’s difficult to find an example. I finally found a simple mention in Anuario de la Academia colombiana. —Stephen 21:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

zoöpathologies

zoopathologies

Equinox ◑ 12:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

+ An {{rfv}} for the undiacriticked spelling, (deprecated template usage) zoopathologies; nota the dearth of Google Books hits. Term seems uncountable. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

manageress

RfV-sense for:
(rare, honorific) A housewife.
Quotations? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This has been here for over three months. RfV failed. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

gunky

"(British) Having slimy filth in one's eye." Gunky eyes, yes, but sense 1 covers that. Can people and pets be gunky? Equinox ◑ 19:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 01:44, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Japan-only

"Available only in Japanese. Not yet fan-translated." Note that the word is not (deprecated template usage) Japanese-only. Equinox ◑ 19:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. I feel that this whole entry should go, actually. Equinox ◑ 01:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Jesusstick

Perhaps two words? Equinox ◑ 19:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 01:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

kozumatori

Really English? Equinox ◑ 20:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

• Use in English language sentence added from Sumo Fan Magazine. SemperBlotto 06:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

absement

Even the typo for (deprecated template usage) basement seems commoner than this. Equinox ◑ 00:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I see two cites for this at google scholar:absement integral|displacement -basement; some of the authors of one of the papers are some of the authors of the other.​—msh210℠ 00:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 01:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

egyptologist

egyptologists

Uncapitalized version appears to be extremely rare or just plain incorrect. —Michael Z. 2009-06-11 12:40 z

• keep. For information, Webster gives egyptologist and egyptology, with the mention usually capitalized. almost always capitalized would have been more accurate. An example of egyptologist: Auguste Edouard Mariette, French egyptologist, dug out Sphinx 12/16/42. (www.brainyhistory.com) I think that the absence of citations should not lead to the deletion of these pages, because it's very difficult to find citations in such cases (capitalization). I feel that Webster's authority and the citation I found (even if not durably archived) should be sufficient. The presence of a word in a dictionary is not considered a sufficient reason for including a word, because typos are possible, and do happen, even in reputable dictionaries, but the mention usually capitalized cannot be a typo or a mistake. Lmaltier 13:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Alas, our guidelines say that this should be attested or go, votes notwithstanding. There's a whole month for this, so I think the guideline is fair. —Michael Z. 2009-06-12 00:25 z

This is not what I understand. CFI are not criteria for deletion. Don't forget the first guideline in CFI, the major one: all words in all languages. Lmaltier 05:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

See above: “[t]hen the disputed sense will be removed or the disputed entry will be deleted with a note saying it failed RFV.” If it doesn't meet criteria for inclusion then it isn't included. “All words” implies only words that actually are in languages.

Happily, this one has been verified. Thanks. —Michael Z. 2009-06-12 12:35 z

egyptology

egyptologies

Uncapitalized version appears to be extremely rare or just plain incorrect. —Michael Z. 2009-06-11 13:14 z

What "authority" is saying any of these are incorrect. Why should we believe them? Isn't there a more constructive approach, like a "rare" or "uncommon" tag? I thought that Wiktionary was descriptive. Why are we wasting time on prescriptivism? DCDuring TALK 13:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? We are a descriptive dictionary, so I've requested that if someone thinks that this is worthy of inclusion they bother to find a quotation or two that we can use to describe this term and its usage. If this is a valid term, then citing it is not prescriptivism, and it is not a waste of time. —Michael Z. 2009-06-12 00:25 z

Already done. DCDuring TALK 00:58, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

It was a poor choice or target and a poor choice of remedy. DCDuring TALK 01:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The major need here was to reverse the erroneous move by a conversion script 4 years ago that moved Egyptology and Egyptologist to the lower case. DCDuring TALK 15:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

dawkins fleas

—Ruakh_TALK 19:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The famous polemecist w:Richard Dawkins has started calling his critics "fleas". "Dawkins' fleas" might be how an ally of his might refer to them in plural. However, I have not seen any actual evidence of use of the collocation and the references don't have it AFAICT. DCDuring TALK 20:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

While I've not found any durably archived references, I've heard the term on CBC radio (during an interview with one of the said 'fleas') and it is reasonably common online (2k hits.) - Amgine/^talk 01:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 01:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

cynischt

Although the Taalunie has this form as a ligit spelling, it is never used. Google does not give any real usage, only glossaries etc. If needed it would be formed as in English: "meest cynisch". This holds for all -isch adjectives. 66.26.84.143 04:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

trolley

Rfv-sense: (British) an abundance of trolls. DCDuring TALK 20:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Silly. Deleted. Equinox ◑ 01:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

introit

RfV-sense for three senses not supported by the OED:

1. A part of a psalm or other portion of the Scripture read by the priest at Mass immediately after ascending to the altar.
2. An anthem or psalm sung before the Communion service.
3. Any composition of vocal music appropriate to the opening of church services.

These being listed in the entry alongside the following, which is the closest one of these four senses to the third sense listed by the OED:

1. A psalm sung or chanted immediately before the collect, epistle, and gospel, and while the priest is entering within the rails of the altar.

It may be better to fuse these senses into fewer than we presently have, if verification efforts fail to yield clear distinctions along the lines laid out in the entry. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

nom

I cannot personally find evidence for the senses relating to nomination, and do not see them in other dictionaries. Dfeuer 05:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Try a search for nommed on Google Groups. Equinox ◑ 10:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

It does appear there, and in that sense, but it seems rather rare (compare hits for "nommed", "nom nom", and "exculpatory" in Google Groups. Perhaps I should mark it rare? I like the Variety article as evidence. Dfeuer 04:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm also not sure how to find evidence for nom as a noun, which is claimed in the current entry. Dfeuer 05:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Forget I said that. That was dumb. Dfeuer 05:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Viking

RfV for a sense recently added by an anon., viz.:

1. (slang, Swedish) A fighter; an aggressive and hardhearted person.

† ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This has been here for over three months. RfV failed. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

working-hour

This doesn't seem like a natural usage. COCA only has it once, as an adjective. Is it attestable as a noun? Under the new inclusionism this and working hour are probably idiomatic, if real. DCDuring TALK 17:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Judging by Google Books the non-hyphenated form looks real enough, but I wouldn't care to create and cite it as I'm sure it would be RFD-ed as SoP, and the hyphenated form seems to be used only as an attributive form of the non-hyphenated one. --Duncan 17:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

head

Rfv-sense: The front of a queue. Is this ever used without words like "of the queue" or "of the line". Ie, "You can come to the front", unambiguously meaning "of the queue" without saying so. DCDuring TALK 12:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Lisp uses head and tail to refer to the endmost items of a list or queue (data structure). I'm probably clutching at straws! Equinox ◑ 13:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

It's possible that there is a specialized sense needed for that even if the RfV's sense is arguably unnecessary. If so, we should keep this sense with its current wording to include both senses, if that does the computing sense justice. DCDuring TALK 14:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

So what if it isn't? You can't possibly be suggesting that (deprecated template usage) head of the line, (deprecated template usage) head of the queue, (deprecated template usage) head of the waiting line, (deprecated template usage) head of the sequence, etc. are all idioms that warrant their own entries? Or are you just saying that this sense should be merged into sense #4? —Ruakh_TALK 13:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

No, they don't seem idiomatic to me. I'd argue for merging senses. Perhaps substituting usage examples or having multiple usage examples that were not full sentences on the same line in an appropriate sense. A long entry like this could use all the help it can get to shorten it without omitting anything truly useful. If we had something like a "quick definitions" show/hide, I wouldn't be so persistent.

Maybe I should just try to come up with some more general approach to enhancing usabilty for long entries that doesn't violate too many of our prevailing norms. DCDuring TALK 14:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is used without "of the line" or "of the queue". I'm reminded of a TMBG song "Mrs. Train", which includes the line: "the line has a missing head" (because no one wants to be first in line). The word (deprecated template usage) line is still present, but not in an adjectival prepositional phrase modifying (deprecated template usage) head. --EncycloPetey 18:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Greenfinger

I apologise initially for my lack of wiktionary experience.

• Definition used here appears not to have enough backing to be justified.
• Meaning not conveyed in enough sources.
• Term as defined has not been in use for long enough.

Just generally not sure whether this definition meets criteria. Polargeo 16:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The 3 cites do not span a year. Do the two cites from the coiner/promoter of the term count as independent? DCDuring TALK 02:15, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This new cite is still just under a year as the word was first published less than a year ago. I think the majority of the coverage the word has had (associated with Bill Gates) until just recently is due to the wikipedia article on it that was transwikied here. So if it becomes a phrase that is widely used I think it will be largely from the success of the wikipedia article. Polargeo 08:22, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The great big warning tag should hold us for now. Someone didn't like the tag and removed it, twice, I think. If attestation can't be found now, the citations will be moved to the citations page, for later use. The RfV process gives an entry a minimum of a month from the posting of the RfV. DCDuring TALK 12:06, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Without

An area of an old town that is outside of the settlement's historic boundaries or town walls. Hard to find citations. DCDuring TALK 20:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Not in BNC. DCDuring TALK 20:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

This is used, in combination, as part of several city parish names for parts of an existing parish that has grown beyond the old city boundaries. But I don't think it exists by itself. SemperBlotto 21:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Do any specific examples of city or parish names it is paired with come to mind? Is it used with a space after a name, hyphenated, closed? Throughout UK? North? Midlands? Is it dated? Used in shop names? DCDuring TALK 23:00, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Example: Wokingham Without. Equinox ◑ 08:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. It is used. In that use doesn't seem to me to be a proper noun. Any more than "White" "River" or Junction" in w:White River Junction. It seems to be a capitalized post-positioned adjective derived in its application from the the phrase "beyond the walls" or "beyond the boundaries" or something similar. Except for its being unusual (outside the UK, anyway), I don't see a reason for it to appear as a capitalized entry. If the conjectural etymolgy seemed correct it might warrant a separate etymology at [[without]].

Could it the used alone? "On Sundays after Church, we like to stroll out to the Without?" It is then like the multi-local use of "the City" to indicate the local urban center. It is very hard to cite this, so someone familiar with its use should use their knowledge to find some citations if it is real. DCDuring TALK 13:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's more like a postfixed adjective, as you suggest. Equinox ◑ 15:19, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Unless we get some contrary evidence, that's what it will be. DCDuring TALK 15:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

bottle glorifier

This might be a wind-up or just SoP, but I prefer doing things, by the book, so here it is. Mglovesfun 21:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this a marketing/promotional? Crafts? A home-entertainment/hospitality? Restaurant? DCDuring TALK 23:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Cited from trade press. It turns out to be an alcoholic-beverage promotion device. The mystery suggests it would meet WT:CFI as idiom: It meets the what-the-hell-would-that-be test?. DCDuring TALK 23:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Suits me (but still, it's just bizarre). Mglovesfun 08:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

What do you find bizarre? The thing itself? The word? That someone should need to have a term for such a thing? The world economy creates things like this and needs names for them on a regular basis. DCDuring TALK 12:36, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Cited; striking. Equinox ◑ 01:54, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Amerigine

See Talk:amerigine#RFV — failed. —Ruakh_TALK 00:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

aĉ

I requested verification for this word because twice in the past month the entire senses included have been replaced by an anonymous "editor" and replaced with the single translation of "yuck". Verification is requested, therefore, to establish consensus and avoid an editing war.

I understand that the "definition" of aĉ as an interjection may leave much to be desired. The problem with this interjection is that there are so many different ways to translate the term, that an exhaustive list of words that could be rendered by aĉ would be fleeting.

Reto vortaro defines the word as "Malbone! Malagrable!" (Bad! Unpleasant!). While the Esperanto word for malagrabla does encompass the sense of nauseous in the literal sense, it is typically rendered and used as English speakers would use unpleasant or disagreeable.

Reta Vortaro gives the following example sentence for aĉ:

Mozilo ne plu funkcias bone pro la nura ĉeesto de tiu Fajrovulpo en la sama komputilo! aĉ!

translation:

Mozilla is no longer working well due to the mere presence of that Firefox on the same computer! aĉ.

I'm not certain what else I need to do to verify these senses, but I'm willing to jump through any reasonable hoops to do it

SonPraises 04:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

deliverhede

Nimbleness. Claimed to be from OED, c. 1897. No citation at BYU's base of OED citations for wildcard search of "deliverh*". No Google books hits. An error at old OED later corrected ? DCDuring TALK 22:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

-p

Humorous computing slang indicating a question (from Lisp syntax): "Hungry-p?" This is famous from Eric S Raymond's New Hacker's Dictionary, but (like a lot of his words) I have yet to see it used without a self-conscious explanation. Citations please! Equinox ◑ 16:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 01:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Polack

Added as a "Polish" word, this isn't correct for Polish spelling, as far as I know. --EncycloPetey 18:47, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the Polish spelling is Polak, the form Polack only appears AFAICT as a Germanized surname. --Duncan 19:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

This is by far the most common of the many spellings of the ethnic slur, AFAICT based on b.g.c. search of "dumb pol...". I will add the English. DCDuring TALK 19:54, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to whoever did it already. This is clearly widespread use. I would be willing to cite all of the five common spellings from b.g.c. alone. They are all in DARE, too. Most of the OneLook dictionaries don't have these. DCDuring TALK 19:59, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Of greater concern: Are there really three separate meanings, or just one? I discern only one. --EncycloPetey 20:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

The only issue is how to handle the apparent fact that it took on a derogatory meaning and lost its neutral meaning, at least in the US. I already have citations that demonstrate the Elizabethan neutral usage. The contributor's "definition" is a short essay not in our style at all, but the quotations speak for themselves. The way in which "Polack" is derogatory is different from some other ethnic slurs, because it is almost the same as the Poles' name for themselves in their own language. It is actually sometimes neutral, sometimes only seen to be intended negatively to be pejorative by the presence of a negative adjective, sometimes clearly pejorative all on its own. DCDuring TALK 21:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I would put that information under the Usage notes, and give it a context tag of {{context|label=now|_|derogatory}}. --EncycloPetey 21:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

up-

"Used to indicate emphasis", as distinct from sense 1 (increase). Which up- words are these? Equinox ◑ 14:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

For some verbs that collocate with "up" (maybe "link up"), the "up" seems to be there mostly for emphasis, since the verb alone carries the sense. If one formed the verb "uplink" and used it in those situations (not in the communications sense), that would do it. A lool at OneLook.com's wildcard search for "up*" suggests several mostly dated, archaic, and obsolete verbs like upbar, upheap, upcheer, upfill, upbouyance. Perhaps upkeep. I think that the "up-" is not easily considered as adding more than intensification. DCDuring TALK 16:08, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

vaina (Spanish)

Rfv-sense sense 3: case. Not in User:Hippietrail's dictionaries (as of 2007). --Jackofclubs 16:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it means case. Hippietrail's dictionaries must be small. Por ejemplo, una vaina de cartucho = cartridge case. Also, the reinforcing hem along the edge of a sail (tabling), or the edge of a flag that is folded over and hemmed in order to pass a rope through it, is called a casing, which is Spanish es una vaina. A vaina is a sheath, scabbard, case, husk, or pod. A synonym is funda, as in pillowcase (funda de almohada). There is also the "cuchillo provisto de vaina", or case knife. To put something into a case is envainar. Case is a very common translation of vaina, and vice versa. —Stephen 11:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've got the tiny Collins Spanish Dictionary Complete & unabridged, 8th edition, 2005, 84-253-3940-5, over 2000 pages; the miniscule Larousse Gran Diccionario Español-Inglés, 2nd edition, 2004, 970-22-0656-1, over 1600 pages; and a little Diccionario de la lengua española, 22nd edition, 2001, 84-239-6813-8, over 1500 pages. But yeah even though they must be some of the smaller Spanish dictionaries available, any dictionary can be incomplete (-: — hippietrail 13:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

ארי

Rfv-sense 2: Used as an honorific for an important man.

Was tagged by User:Ruakh but not listed here --Jackofclubs 16:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

scatman

RFV'd in 2007, to not avail. I can't find cites. --Jackofclubs 16:17, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Used as a title by at least two scat singers: Scatman Crothers and Scatman John. Does not seem attestable otherwise. Equinox ◑ 16:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 02:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

seeker

Rfv-sense 3: (Harry Potter, always capitalised) A field position in the game Quidditch.

Any mentions outside of HP? --Jackofclubs 16:18, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

It's also a position in non-fictional Quidditch, so perhaps we could find documentation of that game. Equinox ◑ 16:22, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

blazer

Rfv-sense 4: One who spreads rumors or reports or otherwise blazes matters abroad. --Jackofclubs 16:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

nouvelle illustration

French: An illustration movement born in France during the 1990’s. It has been influenced by comics as well as by techno design. --Jackofclubs 16:25, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This page has been created on the French Wikipedia, then deleted (the creator of the page supported this deletion, with the following reason: sandbox, but the pseudo of this contributor has been mentioned elsewhere in Wikipedia as the creator of this "movement"), then created again (by an anglophone, very clearly). Very probably bogus. Lmaltier 09:27, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

villain

Are these separate senses, or should they be combined?

1. A vile, wicked person.
2. An extremely depraved person, or one capable or guilty of great crimes.
3. A deliberate scoundrel.

--Hekaheka 21:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

They are the same, as far as I can tell. Also, the final sense (feudal rank): isn't that (deprecated template usage) villein? Equinox ◑ 21:21, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

For villain, Chambers gives villein as the (noun) "original" meaning, and adjectival senses of low-born, base and villainous. Pingku 22:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

A depraved person capable of crimes is not the same as the rest of that (a vile, wicked person, guilty of crimes, a deliberate scoundrel): he may have never done a bad deed in his life. That said, I don't know the "depraved person capable of crimes" sense of this word. Anyone else familiar with it?​—msh210℠ 22:27, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

philozoist

An antivivisectionist? Equinox ◑ 22:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 02:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Zephyr

[Psst, it is only I. The following comments are from the WT:RFD discussion, where the consensus was to move here to RFV.] Equinox ◑ 00:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

RfD of two senses:

1. A motor car made (some time ago) by Ford in the United Kingdom.

   Keep, we have Honda, Ford, Toyota, Fiat, Mini, Mini Cooper, Jag, VW, Vauxhall, Chevy, even 98 Oldsmobile. There's plenty of others. --Dmol 01:42, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

   "Otherstuff" doesn't apply - we have a very specific CFI for brand names. bd2412 T 22:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

2. A small town in India.

If we accept these, then præsumably we shall also have to accept many of the other senses catalogued by Wikipedia. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Move to RfV. DCDuring TALK 01:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, RfV. bd2412 T 22:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

RFV the first and delete the second along with any other "small town" definitions that aren't significant for reasons of etymology. 63.95.64.254 00:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What’s the current policy on terms like this automobile sense now? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:32, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

image

"Verb: (computing) To convert an idea to an image." I don't even know what this means. Equinox ◑ 04:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Only works if your computer has a conceptualization interface installed. —Michael Z. 2009-06-22 12:39 z

I don't see how this can be kept. Go ahead and remove it unless someone can cite it. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 02:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

arguendo

[ arguendo#Latin ]

The translation is given as "For the sake of argument", but, despite my minimal knowledge of Latin, I would think this should be translated as "gerund of <whatever the first-person singular form is>", and then, possibly, as "for the sake of argument" as a second translation; or is it (or was it) only used in Latin (not in English or in legal terminology) to mean "for the sake of argument"? — Paul G 14:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

We have four places to put a meaning that respects the Latin grammar:

1. A Latin section on the same page
2. The etymology of the English term
3. A sense (possibly dated) that exactly respected the Latin grammar but in English usage.
4. A modern sense artfully worded to respect the Latin sense.

I would reject the last because it allows to much weight for the dead hand of the past. The third requires (in principle) attestation, which might prove time-consuming and may not get done at all. The other two seem more economical to me while effectively communicating enough about the evolution of meaning.

One advantage of our multi-lingual nature is that we could have a Latin entry in the same page. There is some thought to put glosses on the entries for inflected forms like this one.

As I understand it, one could define its legal use with a non-gloss definition: Used to set off the facts presented in an argument on a point of law from facts in dispute in the case. This in no way depends on the Latin grammar. DCDuring TALK 15:15, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for running on about this without having looked at the actual tag location. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to think the problem through. DCDuring TALK 17:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've cleaned up the Latin section of the page. It is a form of a Latin gerund, and four forms of a Latin future passive participle.

With regard to the points above:

1. The Latin section on the same page now exists.
2. Including something in the etymology section of the English entry sounds good, but...
3. You'll have a hard time finding an English usage that parallels the Latin grammar, for two reasons. (a) Latin gerunds are typically restricted to the singular genitive and dative, with some appearances in the accusative, but never in the nominative. (b) The participle forms are the gerundive (future passive participle), which does not have a proper equivalent in English.
4. So a modern sense "artfully worded" isn't feasible. The translation would be awkward and couldn't properly capture the Latin meaning without lots of aditional explanatory notes about the Latin future passive participle (or gerund).

So, the idea of putting a gloss on the Latin entry is also impractical. The future passive participle does not translate well or simply into any language that I know of. --EncycloPetey 03:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

theatre

Rfv-sense I didn't see this posted or in archives. A NZ verb sense. DCDuring TALK 16:12, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

stork tea

Not seeing it. I'd even speedy, except that I see Web hits.​—msh210℠ 21:37, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

billhook

• Rfv-sense - A device used in offices for holding papers, such as bills, that are no longer needed.
• Rfv-sense - A device used in balers for hay or straw bales for knotting the string around a bale.

Neither of these senses in the OED. SemperBlotto 13:11, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I would love to know the name for the second thing. I own something of close to that description, that I imagined was used in a shipping room, but I don't have the owner's manual. DCDuring TALK 14:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps "bale needle". See here. Pingku 15:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

perfidy

Sense2 ("Specifically, in warfare, acts like using symbols like the Red Cross or white flag to attack the enemy; or placing military personnel or equipment in densely populated civilian areas, considered a war crime"). This just seems like an instance of sense1. Also, sense2 is not very clear since it provides only examples but no defn. -- WikiPedant 01:53, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It does seem to be used to refer to violations of treaties (arguably sense 1), but also to violations of some implicit unsigned treaty concerning the rules of battle, which usually favored the side leveling the charge of "perfidy". The meaning seems to be gradually coming to mean "trickery". It doesn't seem particularly military; political and diplomatic usage possibly like sense 2 abounds. Was Odysseus perfidious or clever? DCDuring TALK 03:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

All true, but political and diplomatic usage is also readily covered by sense1. I'm thinking sense2 should go, especially since it's not even written as a defn. (PS, I see Odysseus as too complicated a fellow to brand as perfidious. More like a cunning, gutsy, ruthless, yarn-spinning, and pretty capable rogue who was, in spite of it all, an inspiring and sometimes soulful leader who was ferociously loyal to his family and friends.) -- WikiPedant 19:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I was more focused on the apparent drift of meaning to include acts of deceit that do not necessarily involve disloyalty or broken promises. The challenged "definition" is, um, poorly worded and would almost certainly be rendered redundant by a definition, "deceit", such as Oxford Compact and Encarta have (and others at OneLook don't). Webster's 1828 shows a very particular delineation of the faithlessness/disloyalty sense. It seems to reflect a breach of agreement or certain kinds of social or political obligations. DCDuring TALK 19:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Cited, surprisingly to me. The modern law of war uses the concept rather specifically to mean "illegitimate deception in war". I would think that rewording, though radical, would not be objectionable to the contributor. I have also added the "deceit" sense. DCDuring TALK 20:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Pollock

Note: previous discussion at Talk:Polack and User talk:76.66.194.195. —Ruakh_TALK 11:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense:

1. {{alternative spelling of|[[Polack]]}}

(Has been questioned by an anon editing [[Polack#Alternative spellings]].)
—Ruakh_TALK 17:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Cited, IMHO. DCDuring TALK 18:13, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! —Ruakh_TALK 00:44, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Rfv-sense This is chalengeable as it appears to be a neologism rather than an acknowledged sense of the word pollock. Meaning it is not backed-up by any dictionary and/or encyclopedic sources. --Jazzeur 03:32, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The words Pollock and pollock are different, as Smith and smith are. The multiple spellings of "Polack" are shown for example in DARE, but we require only that a given sense be supported by 3 quotes from durably archived sources spanning a year. See WT:CFI. If this were a neologism, that does not mean it would be removed. If it meets the attestation standard, it stays. It might be made to have a neologism tag, but the criteria for that are not systematic, AFAICT. DCDuring TALK 15:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It actually seems that one could even attest the spelling pollock for the same meaning based on a Google books search for "dumb pollock", but the "See" links at the top of the page should be good enough. DCDuring TALK 15:11, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, we do delete misspellings, unless they're "common misspellings"; but that seems to be outside the scope of RFV. —Ruakh_TALK 13:48, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Should we have specific guidelines for deleting one of these? All, including Polack, are in origin eye-dialect of the Polish. They are something like the many spellings of (deprecated template usage) באָבקעס (bubkes). DCDuring TALK 14:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I think an RFD vote is sufficient. If the community decides it's a misspelling (as Jazzeur seems to think), and that it's not a common one (as I think is pretty clear), then it goes. Personally, I think it might be nice to have some sort of "Alternative spelling, or perhaps misspelling, of ____" template for cases like this, where it's attested, and adequately cited, and it's not necessarily clear whether to consider it a misspelling. —Ruakh_TALK 23:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oxford secret

[66] doesn't help imo.​—msh210℠ 18:32, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

bork

"To snub or disrespect", and "To thwack or fubar". (Thwack itself is already under RFV in this sense.) Equinox ◑ 14:24, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Just delete the second one. This sense of thwack & bork are defined circularly, and fubar ain't a verb, so the definition means nothing. —Michael Z. 2009-06-27 17:19 z

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 02:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

distribution

Rfv-sense: (finance)) The action of experienced investors selling an asset to inexperienced investors at a high price. Previously tagged, but not brought here. A little too theory- and value-laden to be a good dictionary definition. There is a more neutral sense to be inferred from attestation-worthy quotes, but perhaps someone can get cites for this one. DCDuring TALK 17:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Marmite

This should be attestable in attributive use. DCDuring TALK 13:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

A look on Google books suggests that marmite (ie, minuscule) can also be used to mean the yeast spread. Does that seem right? — Beobach972 02:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't surprise me. But I am fairly sure that the upper-case brand name preceded the lower case for the yeast stuff. The brand name is apparently derived from the container it was sold in which resembled the French (deprecated template usage) marmite. If "Marmite" can't be cited in attributive use, we can still have the lower-case entry and include the brand name in the etymology. DCDuring TALK 02:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a medically-useful substance called Marmite, but I'm not sure whether it's the yeast spread or not. It seems to be. Take a look:

• 1940: the Indian Council of Medical Research, The Indian Journal of Medical Research, pages 377–378

  In this group there were 3 cases which showed only extensive scrotal involvement that cleared up completely after Marmite was given for 3 weeks. [... In another case,] the dose of Marmite was not doubled as was done in the other cases, where the desired result was not obtained.

• 1963: Donald Stewart McLaren, Malnutrition and the eye, page 261

  Calcium, phosphorus, and nicotinic acid were not of value but Marmite gave slight improvement in all cases who received it.

(The 1963 one is also an interesting use of 'who'.) — Beobach972 15:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• 1917: Robert Hutchison, Food and the principles of dietetics, page 98

  Recently, extracts prepared from yeast have been introduced as substitutes for ordinary meat extracts. A good example of these is the preparation known as Marmite, which has the following composition [...]

• 1997, Bessie Head, Maru, page 81 or 87

  Moleka's kisses taste like Marmite sandwiches. Moleka's kisses taste like roast beef with spicy gravy.

• 2008: Elizabeth Hartley Winthrop, December, page 197

  "Do you like Marmite, Belle?" Isabelle pauses to inspect the brown stuff now on her knife. She has never had Marmite before, and it smells terrible [...]

— Beobach972 15:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think only the "Marmite sandwich" case fits the attributive use criterion, but I'm not sure. The broad sense of attributive might include this:

• Template:quote-news

—DCDuring 16:06, 1 July 2009

This is lowercase, but I thought I'd put it here for now.

• 1919 (?): Lawrence J. Weidmann, The Battle of Bourges, page 92

  Two girls were on the night stretch and three on each of the others, one making sandwiches, one acting as cashier, and the third, called the marmite girl, [...]

— Beobach972 19:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's another example of 'Marmite sandwiches', referred to both with article and without:

• 2007, Annette Laing, Don't Know Where, Don't Know When, Confusion Press, page 28

  Brandon, hungry, decided he would prefer something savory, and was offered a choice of sardines on toast or Marmite sandwich. [...] Brandon didn't know what a Marmite sandwich might be, but it sounded better than crunchy eyeball fish, [...]

Also, I'm sure someone could find examples of 'Marmite kiss[es]' in usenet. — Beobach972 19:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Meister

The English part - added like this as the only edit by the anon. --Duncan 17:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how it would be used. Like meister? Or like Mister, but only for Germanic types? Or just as a noun? In the absence of some clarification it might qualify for deletion under "no usable content". DCDuring TALK 18:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

homophile

Rfv-sense ×3. Entry was created with the RFV tags, but not logged here. They look dubious to me. —Michael Z. 2009-06-27 17:17 z

optical astronomy

Rfv-sense (informal) Astronomy using observations via telescopes that are sensitive in the range of visible light.​—msh210℠ 22:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That's the sense in RHU. Isn't that more likely than the other sense, even though less likely to be used precisely? DCDuring TALK 23:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry: what's RHU? I only tagged it and requested verification because a (admittedly cursory) look at bgc yielded lots of examples of the other sense and some ambiguous examples, but not one example of this sense.​—msh210℠ 16:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

RHU=Random House Unabridged, one of the list of "Dictionaries to be Taken Seriously" and also on OneLook via Dictionary.com.

Many hits for "optical astronomy" involve the "w:National Optical Astronomy Observatories". The scientists are much more aware of the details of what can be done outside the range of visible light but using the many ground-based reflecting and refracting optical telescopes. A goodly amount of the usage aimed at normal people just makes a simple distinction between "radio astronomy" and "optical astronomy". Sometimes they try to distinguish between visible-light and optical astronomy. This is the kind of thing that we need to do, especially since Wikipedia seems to occasionally drop the ball on normal-person semantics of technical terms.

I found some quotes that show some of the kind of use I mention above. It is tedious to separate the voluminous technical usage from the other in books. Newspapers are better. DCDuring TALK 17:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Delčevo

We've had a whole run of Macedonian towns and cities. I picked this one because it has non-standard (for English) diacriticals. --EncycloPetey 01:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• As an administrator you should be well aware that there are many entries here with such diacriticals. Some langauges have to use diacriticals, as it is their only way of writing words in the Roman alhpabet. Macedonian is transcribed by a standard system and, if you look at the English Wikipedia entries for Macedonian (and many other languages), towns, names etc, they all stand like that. There is no other way to write them.

As for the large number of the Macedonian towns and cities, I thought I may put them all here, since there are only 34 of them in total. The rest are rural places (i.e. villages and hamlets). If this understanding of mine however, is against the criteria of Wiktionary, feel free to delete the ones you deem "insignificant". --B. Jankuloski 02:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The question is twofold: (1) Whatever the Macedonian transcription, is this spelling demonstrably used as English? (2) The perennial question of place names. I wish I could tell you what our policy is on including place names, but we never seem to pin down what it is we allow, or how and where it should be entered. I'm seeking the opinion of the community in a general way, using this specific locale merely as a point of discussion for the wider issue. --EncycloPetey 02:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, that is what I assumed as well. I am just pointing out to the community that this transcription is the only way of reffering to Macedonian placenames in English, and that this is indeed ubiquitously used in all Wikipedia articles, as well as the Web in general. --B. Jankuloski 07:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

google books:"in|to|near|of|into|from Delčevo" is telling.​—msh210℠ 17:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Delčevo is used in English, and Delcevo too. Lmaltier 18:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC) It's true that Delcevo seems to be the usual spelling in English (1 hit for the above request, 58 hits for the same request using Delcevo), except in Wikipedia (4 pages mention Delcevo, 25 mention Delčevo). It's easy to find other uses of Delčevo on the Web, though. Lmaltier 19:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, but that is only because people do not bother writing it properly. Many non-Macedonians do not actually know what the proper spelling is, and that is mainly due to the fact that and Macedonians themselves either have Macedonian (Cyrillic) or English on their keyboards, and very rarely the approapriate keyboard with diacriticals, i.e. that they obviously don't bother telling anyone about the correct way. I may suggest inviting users and admins from mk Wiki to testify to that. In any case, have a look at w:Romanization of Macedonian, I think it might be of use. --B. Jankuloski 21:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • Delcevo is the usual spelling in books written in English. The most correct spelling of a word in a language is the spelling usually used in books written in this language. Therefore, Delcevo seems to be the correct spelling in English (but I agree that Delčevo cannot be considered as incorrect). Lmaltier 21:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
  • [e/c] As Lmaltier just wrote, we care about how a word is actually used in the language we're claiming it's in. By "used" we mean used in durably archived sources, not including Wikipedia. Please see WT:CFI.​—msh210℠ 21:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

calling name

Apparently created to be a tranlsation, but I've never heard this term in my years of working in onomastics. --EncycloPetey 14:05, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

google books:"his|her calling name" has sufficiently many hits ([67], [68], [69], [70], [71], and [72], and possibly Nepal, Jailbreak, [73], Mountains, and Spiritpath) in the sense of "name that one is called by, though it may be a nickname or otherwise unofficial"; perhaps that what the contributor meant?​—msh210℠ 17:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Edited inconsequentially.​—msh210℠ 21:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

An idiomatic definition that seems to encompass all the quotes is "nickname" not "given name" which, I thought, is more official (appearing on a birth certificate etc). Not a term I remember hearing or reading before, but easy to infer its meaning from context. DCDuring TALK 17:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, except that some of the above hits seem to use calling name to refer to an official name (i.e., not a nickname) by which one is familiarly known: Nepal, Jailbreak, Spiritpath, and possibly Mountains.​—msh210℠ 17:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC) Edited inconsequentially.​—msh210℠ 21:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I also noted more than a few hits for a sense referring to "a name that an animal is trained to respond to". (search "dog" "calling name"). We may end with three or more senses. DCDuring TALK 22:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Are those not all the same sense? A name one goes by (is called by).​—msh210℠ 22:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Would that include screen names (computer), stage names, aliases, pen names, affectionate names like "meathead" and "mon petit chou", and surnames, all of which one may be called by? The regrettable speciesist tendencies among normal users may prevent them from realizing that "one" applies to animals. And speciesist animal users might also have a problem. I suppose that if we have all the synonyms listed the human senses should be covered. I'd still be a little concerned that a user (say a translator) might not be discriminating in the choice of synonym to translate from. For a short entry like this, why not be nuanced ? DCDuring TALK 02:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

As both onomastics and biology are ong-time interests of mine, I think a nuanced entry in this case would be spiffy. --EncycloPetey 20:59, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

dark side

Rfv-sense: The definitions need to be reworked in light of some quotations. Two of the senses (one literal) seem to be there just to provide cover for the Star Wars sense. I don't think that "dark side" as in "There is a dark side to his personality." is idiomatic. (deprecated template usage) Dark + (deprecated template usage) side seems to cover it. Perhaps there is some idiomatic usage of some kind that the OneLook dictionaries have yet to notice, probably because it's still too new. DCDuring TALK 01:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Transwiki:HBYT

I'm in the wrong generation to know if this text message acronym meets our criteria or not? Goldenrowley 04:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• RFV failed. Deleted.Goldenrowley 02:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

afturbatapíka

Usage on blogs suggest that it's plausible (e.g. 'gleðikona verður afturbatapíka! enn gerast undur og stórmerki.' — 'prostitute becomes "convalescent virgin"! miracles and wonders still happen!'), and the only Google Books hit is a dictionary, which could be very useful — but that it's restricted content. — Beobach972 20:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

911

Rfv-sense: alt spelling of 9/11. COCA mostly has 9-11, not this spelling. Is this spelling in widespread use? It is so easily confused in the US with the emergency-call phone number, that I can't imagine any one using this spelling except by mistake. DCDuring TALK 18:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

will

= willy (penis)? I am sceptical. Equinox ◑ 08:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 02:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

equipment

equipment (3) = equipment (2), in “gaming, especially role-playing games”. As if “equipment” were gaming slang for the in-game entities which represent equipment. —Michael Z. 2009-07-03 13:00 z

I think the intended nuance is that there can be things in a game that are "equipment" in the broadest sense but cannot be "equipped" (donned by the player as clothing or accessory). Equinox ◑ 13:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Example? —Michael Z. 2009-07-05 19:40 z

For instance "dragonhide gloves" are equipment in World of Warcraft (not that I've ever played it), even though gloves would not usually be called "equipment" in real-world English. Conversely, World of Warcraft might well have things that would be equipment in English (perhaps a wheelbarrow or something, I dunno) that are not "equipment" in the role-playing sense because they can't be worn/applied to one's character. Equinox ◑ 10:18, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

liberal religion

Is this term as specific as the definition states? The entry was created based on a phrase "theologically liberal religion" added to another entry, which seems to argue that this phrase is sum of parts only. --EncycloPetey 16:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It certainly seems to mostly be a hypernym for more specific traditions (like Unitarianism or a liberal tradition within a religious denomination} that are demonstrably religious traditions. That it is a tradition itself is doubtful. Would interfaith meetings among members of various liberal religious tendencies and a common reading list among liberal intellectuals affiliated with various denominations mean there was a single tradition that constituted liberal religion?

Do we have to depend on that kind of quasi-encyclopedic knowledge to determine whether this is SoP? That seems tantamount to requiring zealous advocacy for such entries because of the time, effort, and/or prior knowledge required. We're going to need many more and more diverse contributors to reasonably include such terms in a balanced way.

The only OneLook reference that covers this term is Wikipedia. DCDuring TALK 16:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

shup

Top Cat. Interjection seems likely, but the verb? I don't think shupping etc. are going to meet CFI in the foreseeable future. Equinox ◑ 20:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Verb-ness and inflecting-ness are sometimes separate issues. google:"wouldn't shup" -"shup up" does pull up uses that we can't write off as interjections; but this could be one of those verb idioms, like (deprecated template usage) login and (deprecated template usage) try and X, that only exist in the plain form. That said, google:"wouldn't shup up" pulls up lots and lots of hits, presumably typos (of the anticipatory variety, where your mind is already ready for the next word, helped along in this case by the <u>/[ʌ] assonance). So, I can't tell if "shup" really exists, or is just a common typo. Is anyone familiar with this usage? —Ruakh_TALK 18:11, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

unicellular

Rfv-sense: noun "A single-celled organism". I've never seen this used as a substantive. The usual term as a noun is unicell. --EncycloPetey 02:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks plausible considering the plural: [74] Equinox ◑ 22:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

potchky

Rfv-sense: Noun, Verb could use checking as to sense. DCDuring TALK 03:30, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

microgenesis

I can't verify the meaning of this word. Will need formatting if OK. SemperBlotto 18:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how best to define it, but a b.g.c search returns many uses. --EncycloPetey 18:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

nest

"Template:computing A structure in a programming code, like blocks, functions, subroutines, etc." The verb is well known. For instance, if you have an inner loop that looks at every column in a grid and an outer loop that looks at every row, you can "nest" them, which means you put one inside the other (and thus consider every grid cell, every combination of row and column). I learned this term in the 1980s. But I've never heard of this being a noun, and I distrust anybody who talks about "a programming code" as though it were singular. Equinox ◑ 01:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be some use of this mainly as "loop nest". Conrad.Irwin 01:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

zanzy

The etymology is incredibly suspect. Does anyone know this word? Equinox ◑ 02:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The etymology is what other dictionaries have. I'm unfamiliar with the word, but it appears at [75] and [76].​—msh210℠ 16:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

jack

Rfv-sense: baseball slang interjection. DCDuring TALK 16:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Very hard to search for this using Google. (Do the BYU corpora help? I'm unfamiliar with them.) This page (equivalently, in case that's 404, this one) make it seem like a noun, and capitalized. Of course, that's not durably archived. I've found the following book hit so far, but POS is unclear:

• 1994, April Sinclair, Coffee Will Make You Black, 2000 Harper Perennial edition, ISBN 0380724596, page 27 [77]:

  I could hear my brothers clapping and yelling. "Home run, jack! Home run, jack!"

Make of it what you will.​—msh210℠ 16:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Other Web hits concur that it's a noun.​—msh210℠ 18:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

hepaticocholangiocholecystenterostomy

Based only on google and google search results, this appears to be a word made up to be one of the longest English words. That said, if this isn't actually used in the medical community, can we please make a note of that in the entry? — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 22:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

My search found one ad for a "dictionary", reprinted many times, and many dictionary mentions. The closest things to usage are discussions of medical and scientific terminology which criticize this term. DCDuring TALK 23:47, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 02:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

i-

Rfv-sense This definition seems dubious to me. The "i" prefix is just something companies put at the front of their products to seem techno-cool. 124.169.192.191 13:14, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Not companies. One company... Lmaltier 21:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

One company, especially (Apple products), but I've seen it elsewhere (iGoogle, iWireless, etc.) as a takeoff on Apple's "i-" thing. But it IS almost exclusively Apple that uses this prefix... I don't think that "i-" needs this definition. L☺g☺maniac chat? 13:08, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

My earlier comments on this are at WT:TR#i-. Equinox ◑ 13:38, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

crack up

Rfv-sense

comment: The losing-transmission usage does seem iffy. The term I've always heard was "you're breaking up". 70.171.228.228 21:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

malent

In some limited English use - maybe a combo of mull and lament. Or maybe a borrowed French or Latin word? Goldenrowley 02:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

direct digital marketing

Seems to be sum of parts, unless it has a specific business sense that I don't know about, and I'm no businessman that's for sure. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

This is probably minimally attestable (4-5 cites). More common in print (5+:1) is digital direct marketing. That term seems more readily comprehensible and more SoP (= "digital" + "direct marketing"). Thus we may be in the position of favoring the less comprehensible term with an entry. This is what I call the "misnomer principle", like w:Gresham's law ( = bad money drives out good).

Perhaps I will add a sense defining it as "digital direct marketing" and try citing it in that briefer, more general sense, more likely to accommodate the limited number of citations than the current wordy entry. DCDuring TALK 21:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Some additional citations using the term have been added to the page.Cb711

Please see WT:CFI for a description of what sort of citations suffice.​—msh210℠ 16:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, direct digital marketing is not synonymous with digital direct marketing. The difference is more than just preference on the order of the words. Digital direct marketing means executing direct marketing campaigns in a digital way. Direct digital marketing means executing digital marketing campaigns in a direct, addressable way. Direct digital marketing means the marketer can control the entire life of the message from the initial send and response to the next triggered campaign. Direct marketers have very little control over the consumer response, and it is highly unlikely that a direct marketing campaign is able to trigger another timely call-to-action. Cb711

Turing word

Equinox ◑ 21:09, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Google gets 139 hits for this, but I'd have to look quite hard to get three "usable" ones. It's not sum of parts if it does exist (IMO). So, good luck! Mglovesfun (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

application delivery network

Was Application Delivery Network before renaming.

Protologism? Commercial product? Capitalised? SemperBlotto 11:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I've done a bit of cleanup, based on the fact it might meet CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

nutrider

I haven't come across this before. I can see some usage on Usenet, but I am suspicious of two of the four senses as probably over-specific variants of sense 1. They are: "A fan of Brazilian jiu-jitsu"; "A fan of Bruce Lee and/or MMA (mixed martial arts)". Equinox ◑ 21:14, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

From what I could see, this seems to mean a zealous, argumentative online fan of someone or something. See Citations:nutrider. I'd be happy to wait for someone with more familiarity with this to confirm it (or not). DCDuring TALK 23:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Fibber McGee's closet

The current example sentence is not adequate because it only says something is like Fibber McGee's closet. Equinox ◑ 23:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

See Citations:Fibber McGee's closet. Some are similes, which shouldn't qualify. Others are metaphorical uses, which should. DCDuring TALK 00:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the research. I'd say that five or six of your eight should qualify. Equinox ◑ 12:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

fancy pants

Rfv-sense: circus ringmaster. Not in Onelook or accessible parts of online slang dictionaries. Didn't show up in search for support for comparatives and number. DCDuring TALK 18:47, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

zoobrick

"(Australian, slang) penis". Only appears in word lists. Equinox ◑ 19:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 02:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

respectability

"A respectable person". Equinox ◑ 00:01, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 02:12, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

waffle

Rfv-sense: Police slang. Any takers? --EncycloPetey 14:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added one cite. This is a hard one. Incidentally, based on the hits I found, we seem to be missing some senses; I added a few that I could figure out (people waffling their hands to indicate vacillation; a waffled surface), but there seem to be yet others, if anyone's up to it. —Ruakh_TALK 18:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

llama

A contestant who has left a game show with nothing. Equinox ◑ 18:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 02:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Marathon

Rfv-sense: As the older name of Snickers chocolate bar. Can we find sufficient citations as a trademark to warrant inclusion? --EncycloPetey 20:44, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I cannot do the searches right now but look on w:Snickers. Also I remember that they sponsored the w:London Marathon for a few years using the brand name 'Marathon' when I was a kid. This may be a search to follow up on. Polargeo 14:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This definitely exist as a brand name (as the article says). I could be {{rfd}} material however. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:38, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn;t a question of whether the word exists. It's a question of finding citations sufficient to meet CFI for brand names. If no one provides such citations, the entry will be deleted for failing RFV. --EncycloPetey 19:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

• RFV failed, content removed. -- Visviva 11:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation

I notice a {{rfv}} for the term Wikimedia Foundation un-usable as an entry for wiktionary, even marked as {{wjargon}}? This has been requested for deletion in Nov 2007 and there was a keep vote in Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation Lantrix 09:16, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The "keep" you mention is from November 2007, which was during the vote to limit inclusion of brand names and before the vote to exclude WMF jargon. This conversation can easily be reopened imho.​—msh210℠ 15:55, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

clocked out DCDuring TALK 12:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

beed

Equinox ◑ 15:49, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Yyster-bossie

ysterbos

What a strange word. I suppose the capitalisation is wrong (look at the citation), coming purely from the older English habit of capitalising Important Nouns. I also can't find any text with the word in. Equinox ◑ 15:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

There isn't actually a definition either, it just gives a meaningless red link. Seems to qualify under "no usable content given" if you ask me. Mglovesfun (talk)

AFAICT, it seems like it might be a scanno of an Afrikaans word. The plant in question seems to be from the genus wikispecies:Dodonaea, w:Dodonaea angustifolia, the sand olive. w:Carl Peter Thunberg gave his name to a lot of plants, especially in South Africa, but some seem to have been taken away. A google source gave sandolien and ysterhout as names for the plant, presumably Afrikaans. "bossie" might be an Afrikaanized word from an African language. DCDuring TALK 01:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

In Afrikaans yster = iron; hout = wood, this is yet another species called ironwood.

I can't find or guess what bossie might be for this. DCDuring TALK 01:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with Mglovesfun: the definition is a couple of species names. Assuming (I haven't checked) that those are real species, that's a valid definition, if one that can be worded better.​—msh210℠ 17:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

MG was reacting to the unexpanded species names. What's there now is what I've found. As it was, the snippet quote didn't give enough context to determine that "D." was Dodonaea. DCDuring TALK 17:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I've got this right now. If the multi-problematic original cite can be accepted as a citation of ysterbos, then ysterbos is cited. DCDuring TALK 18:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

green knowledge

1. Knowledge a person shares with the intent for it to be easily recycled/re-used in the future by others.

Is this right? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

The book The Making of Green Knowledge seems to use the term in the sense of 'body of knowledge about the environment'. Pingku 15:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder whether this is a sign of extending the "recycling" aspect of greenness and the word "green" to new realms. Are we missing a sense at green, or should something there be reworded? Does green now mean, among other things, "reusable", "extendable" as might apply to wikis or software objects as well as tangible objects? DCDuring TALK 15:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

This is what I'm talking about. Is there more? DCDuring TALK 15:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The opposite.  :-) ​—msh210℠ 17:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. A lot of mentions of "greenfield" software development (starting from scratch}, too. In any event, not yet, it seems. DCDuring TALK 19:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

get you

Not in COCA, which allows searches for punctuation. Does anyone have any suggestions for how to verify this? Is it in widespread use somewhere? Is it actually " 'get you " as in "forget you". DCDuring TALK 02:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have not heard it in the sense of "forget you!", but only as "look at you!", "get a load of you!" It means "well, aren’t you just the best!" —Stephen 05:27, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Totally agree - this is fine. (Try a Google book search for the phrase "Ooh get you" (to weed out all the other combinations of the words). SemperBlotto 07:14, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Is this UK? It does remind me of (deprecated template usage) get a load of. DCDuring TALK 11:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have one illustrative quote. If that captures it and it is in widespread use in the UK, we could declare victory. Is there use that is significantly different from the quote?

More importantly, isn't this just yet an colloquial imperative/hortative/precative? Could I not say "get her". Are all common colloquial imperatives entitled to their entry? DCDuring TALK 12:12, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you could say "get her". Remember the song If My Friends Could See Me Now? "Brother, get her! Draped on a bedspread made from three kinds of fur!" Equinox ◑ 19:35, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this has passed as an RfV. There is the CFI/RfV issue. Should this be a redirect to get#Verb or to a specific link point at the exact sense? Or should we bow to the inevitable and include this and all attestable exclamations as interjections? We have a large number of such terms that contributors seem to think merit an entry. Maybe we should take the persistence of these as a warrant for rationally including at least some of them.

"Get her" would be expected to have less justification as an interjection as it concerns a third party. What would be the emotion? Envy? It certainly has less of a role in conversational direction or as a kind of linguistic politeness. DCDuring TALK 14:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

הוא

Hebrew verb sense.​—msh210℠ 23:15, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Does Job 37:6^‎ count? The Even-Shoshan Dictionary lists (deprecated template usage) הֱוֵא (hevéi) as an imperative from (deprecated template usage) הָוָה (havá), with the same meaning as the actual imperative of (deprecated template usage) הָוָה, and gives Job 37:6 as the only citation. According to Wikipedia, modern secular scholarship puts authorship of Job at somewhat after the first exile, by which point I imagine Hebrew had received silent final em kria aleph from Aramaic, so it could have had the same pronunciation as well, so maybe we're just talking about an alternative spelling. (I can't think of too many examples of final tzeirei-hei -é in Hebrew — can you? — whereas in Aramaic tzeirei-hei-mappiq -éh is a very common ending and tzeirei-alef -é is an existent one, so to me this seems like a logical way to respell it — as does (deprecated template usage) הֱוֵי, which also exists, e.g. in Pirkei Avot, but which the Even-Shoshan Dictionary does consider to be just an alternative imperative of (deprecated template usage) הָוָה, rather than a separate word from such.) Given all that, Strong's could perhaps be excused for inferring an actual *(deprecated template usage) הָוָא. If we do count Job 37:6 as a citation for *(deprecated template usage) הָוָא, then this automatically passes under the "well-known work" ConFI, but a usage note is almost certainly warranted. Even if we don't, we'd need an entry here for Job's (deprecated template usage) הֱוֵא, so all we need is to rewrite some and add a usage note. —Ruakh_TALK 04:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Normally I'd take a scholar's word for it, but הָוָא?? Does ibn Ezra or Kimchi say anything? (If I remember to, I'll check it out.)​—msh210℠ 18:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

jerk#Translations

In my opinion, as an Italian speaking, the translatione "idiota" for "jerk" catches only in part the English meaning. "Idiota" is very generic, and not transmitting the sensation of something repelling. Maybe better "stronzo" (literally shit), but even it is not perfect. I don't think there is only a single word, but I am no sure (unsigned message). Mglovesfun (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Semper? Anyone else? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

abvolution

Sounds legitimate, but can anybody cite it? Equinox ◑ 02:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The term, in this text from 1813, is actually advolution. Mike Halterman 02:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

We are missing the term advolution, both a Webster's 1913 sense or some contemporary biological sense. But "advolution" is revolving towards and this says it is revolving away from. DCDuring TALK 18:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

rando

Equinox ◑ 04:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

English only, I'm guessing? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep. I'll change it to rfv-sense. Equinox ◑ 16:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

peeling grapes

Rfv-sense: Noun only; local US procrastination etc. Not implausible, but I haven't found it. DCDuring TALK 17:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

oh my days

I can't find usage of this as a unit. I can find "Oh! My days ....". I also don't find support for "my days" being a euphemism for "my God". But perhaps someone has a better intuition. DCDuring TALK 21:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Three relevant hits at google books:"oh my days i|he|it|she|they|we|you". All "snippets", though.​—msh210℠ 21:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added one and might dig up more later. The phrase is definitely real; I'm not certain about the euphemism for "my God" (though I believe I originally suggested that on here — somebody created the entry from my WT:REE request), but it's the impression I got from a few people who used to say it. Equinox ◑ 20:21, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd have thought there would be more sound similarity if it were directly from "oh my god". Could it be from Anglo-Norman, French, Italian, Portuguese? Or somehow from "in all my days", perhaps as an eggcorn? I can't find anything from any dictionary, except lots of uses of "in all my days" for an expression of surprise or shocked outrage/offense. DCDuring TALK 21:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

in the stands

Rfv-sense: Sole idiomatic sense: Template:sports Of a play which terminates because the object of play, usually a ball, exits the field of play and enters the grandstand. DCDuring TALK 23:26, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Am I missing an idiomatic sense? I can only see in + the + stands, why not in the kitchen or on the roof? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm interested in whether the term might be used if the ball for example exits a playing field not actually graced with stands. Clearly the definition would need some rewording. If it only means what the definition says, then it is as you say. Let it have its month here. DCDuring TALK 17:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

shaggy cut

Haircut originated in Japan. A picture would be worth three cites (to me, if not to CFI) to determine whether this really exists and is something other that a [[shaggy]] [[cut]]. DCDuring TALK 01:24, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Delete, shaggy + cut; not verifiable and doesn't meet CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If it actually refers to a specific hairstyle "the shaggy cut" as opposed to "a shaggy cut", it might be real. DCDuring TALK 17:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Moved to WT:RFD#shaggy cut, I can't cite it but I don't fancy just deleting it off the bat (which I could of course, as it's failed RFV). 14:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

funest

Etymology 2: "nonstandard" form of funnest (most fun). Should probably be "misspelling of". In either case, can we confirm that it's common enough to merit an entry, etc.? Equinox ◑ 01:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 02:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

duplifix

Equinox ◑ 03:56, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 02:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

ennealogy

This has been deleted about a million times (look at the history). The citations supplied this time are not very encouraging; one is in quotation marks and the other appears to be a theoretical counting game. Equinox ◑ 00:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The first second one, though in quotation marks, is a use, not a mention; and it doesn't define the word, so a reader might well want to look it up. The second first one, however, is pure mention. —Ruakh_TALK 01:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC) Updated 21:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC) to reflect reordering of quotations in entry.

I disagree. The first one is a mention as well. There, the word appears as an example of a word formed from a particular root, which is meta-knowledge of the word's physical structure or etymology. It is not used in any context other than that of its spelling/origin. --EncycloPetey 21:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have updated my comment after reordering the quotations in the entry. I agree that the now-first quotation is mention-only; but I maintain that the now-second quotation, the one using quotation marks, is a use. —Ruakh_TALK 21:25, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

pain au chocolats

How common is this? DCDuring TALK 14:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

dingle run

(uk) A run up a dingle and to engage in such an activity. not in b.g.c. in anything like this. DCDuring TALK 15:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

stun guitar

Mglovesfun (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

forest

Rfv-sense: Adjective, from the page itself <!-- isn't this another case of a noun used as modifier? --> <!-- Seems to be -- why is this listed as an adjective? -->

No idea who wrote that, although it should have been on the talk page, but they seem to be right, can we verify it as an adjective? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The first comment was by Hippietrail (talk • contribs) in forest?diff=51162 (March 2004); the reply was by Connel MacKenzie (talk • contribs) in forest?diff=146480 (February 2005). I agree with all three of you (July 2009). —Ruakh_TALK 18:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is gradable or comparable and therefore it is not an adjective. Maybe someone can show such use or even predicate use as an adjective.

Many, many entries have those comments. They are substantively helpful. I'm not sure that all the discussion rooms existed and talk page use was discouraged./

I have started a topic at WT:BP#Attributive use of nouns and translations thereof stimulated by this and the many similar cases. DCDuring TALK 18:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

This was listed as an adjective in 2003, before we had established the norm of not listing cases of noun as a modifier. --EncycloPetey 21:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

clocked out Also, a review of COCA finds no uses of forest modified by an adverb and no comparative or superlative use. DCDuring TALK 12:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

make for

Sense 3 added today by User:Eroica: To confirm, favour, strengthen (an opinion, theory, etc.), with a problematic quotation.

I suspect Eroica is a Wonderfool sock reactivated yesterday after almost 3 years of dormancy. -- WikiPedant 19:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Wonderfool is back on fr: as well, a "new" user that edited (correctly) one of my subpages. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

cyberskeleton

Equinox ◑ 09:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

one-finger salute

Verb sense. (A noun heading should be added.) G.B. search for -ed finds nothing. —Michael Z. 2009-07-25 16:50 z

There's even less usage than I thought of the verb. It may not be attestable in any form. DCDuring TALK 18:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Conflicting info from references stopped me in my tracks. DCDuring TALK 18:56, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

How so? Routledge's slang dictionary calls this a noun. —Michael Z. 2009-07-25 22:02 z

Trudeau salute

Same editor, I think. —Ruakh_TALK 03:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

This term is an authentic Canadianism (I'll add quotations later) and the behavior very much in character for the late w:Pierre Elliott Trudeau. But the only sensible POS is noun. -- WikiPedant 06:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it should be a noun, not a verb. Equinox ◑ 18:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

sackung

Not seeing much of this in English. Equinox ◑ 19:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

mistakes were made

Matching the definition given, above and beyond the mere sentence on its own. Equinox ◑ 00:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It approaches idiomacity, in that equivalent statements (e.g. "mistakes occurred", "errors were made") would seem not to convey quite the same sentiment. See, e.g.:

• 2009, Suzanne Brockmann, Into the Fire‎, p. 162:

"I'm assuming we're talking now about the Hollywood assignment," she said, "where . . . mistakes were made?"

Cheers! bd2412 T 19:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

retread

Rfv-sense: Digger slang. By same contributor as various other RFV-failed bits of supposed Digger slang. —Ruakh_TALK 16:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

It’s possible, I suppose. I know that a tread is current military slang for a lifer with the rank of sergeant or above. I don’t know WW II slang and haven’t heard retread used before. —Stephen 18:39, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Cited. But it might have wider application than just WW1/WW2 and/or "Diggers". Equinox ◑ 16:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

possie

Rfv-sense: Digger slang. By same contributor as various other RFV-failed bits of supposed Digger slang. —Ruakh_TALK 16:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Cited. Look okay? Equinox ◑ 15:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

tabby

Rfv-sense: Digger slang. By same contributor as various other RFV-failed bits of supposed Digger slang. —Ruakh_TALK 16:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

chocolate soldier

Digger slang. By same contributor as various other RFV-failed bits of supposed Digger slang. —Ruakh_TALK 16:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English (2006) has it: "a member of an Australian militia during World War 2 who did not serve in a theatre of war". Looks hard to cite in usage. Equinox ◑ 15:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

snarler

Digger slang. By same contributor as various other RFV-failed bits of supposed Digger slang. —Ruakh_TALK 16:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

crimenetly

US slang interjection. Never heard it. Might be yet another like "crikey". DCDuring TALK 15:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't have thought there was anything unusual about this. It's very small-town Midwestern, I would have said. Try it like this: "oh, cry-ma-NET-ly!" Slightly more common spelling appears to be criminetly. The most common spelling by far, though, seems to be criminently, which is weird because I've never heard the "ent" in it. -- Visviva 10:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

artsy

"(euphemism, criticism) untraditional and usually bad." Equinox ◑ 19:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

birther

Prove in quotes, please. Goldenrowley 02:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ruakh has deleted it. Equinox ◑ 22:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I did, but I think I was wrong to do so: the term doesn't seem to be a year old yet, but it gets enough relevant hits on Google News that I think it warrants the full RFV period. The entry's creator objected on my talk-page, and I've now undeleted it pending the normal month. (And given how long a lot of these remain open, it may have been around a year before anyone gets around to RFV-failing, it anyway. :-P ) —Ruakh_TALK 23:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Winnipeg handshake

I find exactly one attestation in print, none in Google Groups. —Michael Z. 2009-07-28 02:58 z

Is a photo of a conference poster a valid attestation?[78][79] It appears to be a print publication on durable media—the photo is proof of its existence, but I don't know if a single copy has been archived anywhere—it's not likely to be found in a library. —Michael Z. 2009-07-28 05:32 z

bundookery

I question the word bundookery which is listed as a form of bundook, as I Googled zero examples. Goldenrowley 03:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed. bundookery has been removed from bottom of bundook. Goldenrowley 04:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

ghetto snowflake

I nearly deleted this as a protologism, but maybe it exists. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

unring

"To reverse the irreversible"; "To perform an impossible act". Equinox ◑ 22:41, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Taliban

Rfv-sense. A Taliban militia. I'm not sure what was meant here. Perhaps a Taliban militiaman? In any event, in English this borrowing of a plural form from Pashto, is often used with a singular verb. I am not sure about the plural. Are there two: Talibans and Taliban? DCDuring TALK 14:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I too did not understand what was meant, and was going to rfv that. Apparently we're not alone, because some of the translations of this sense refer to both Taliban movement and to the militants of the movement (e.g. Russian). --Vahagn Petrosyan 15:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Talibans is seen, but uncommon. Since taliban is its own plural, it is often impossible to distinguish the singular group from a plural collective (and in some writing styles the former takes a plural verb anyway). —Michael Z. 2009-07-30 05:01 z

In US English at COCA one can find "Taliban are" and "Talibans are", as well as he is "a Taliban". "Talibans are" is decidedly less common. DCDuring TALK 11:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I imagine the idea is that there's an Afghan Taliban, an Iraqi Taliban, etc. —Ruakh_TALK 18:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Are those both proper noun Taliban?

Surprisingly I saw "a Taliban" referring to an individual in quotes from interviews of English-speaking Afghanis. Whatever is origins and other uses, it is used as a singular noun referring to and individual in English, occasionally with an "-s" to indicate a plural, usually invariant. DCDuring TALK 21:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

go off the boil

Rfv-sense: To lose interest (usage examples are about people). I added two senses that resemble those in other dictionaries, which don't have this sense. Labeled elsewhere as UK/Oz. DCDuring TALK 18:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Two cites added (1987 & 2009). And the initial, literal, def. Pingku 19:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

And the third, 1955. Pingku 20:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

They look pretty good. I wonder if we can reword to have fewer than four senses that span the meanings. DCDuring TALK 20:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Is rfved sense always about sex? DCDuring TALK 20:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The Brits perhaps are preoccupied with sex and the war. The US quote is about pudding... Pingku 20:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

A Thesaurus of Traditional English Metaphors (Peter Richard Wilkinson, 1993, Routledge) says of "go off the boil": Lose the sexual urge; lose the contractions and labour pains, of a woman in childbirth. Pingku 14:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

robber

I don't think that a robber is the same thing as a thief. A robber uses force against someone to steal. A thief uses stealth, not force. The difference is also pertinent to the translations. I replaced the French voleur by ravisseur because of same difference. Jcwf 01:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

In legal English you are certainly correct. I wonder how precise ordinary usage is. DCDuring TALK 02:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

From what I've gathered, thief and robber are semi-synonymous (i.e. interchangeable in speech) but thief would conjure up more of the ninja image while robber would imply the more forceful character. L☺g☺maniac chat? 23:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

One sense is not enough unless it is merely "one who robs". MWonline has 2 main senses and 5 subsenses for "rob", including a sense "steal", ie take by stealth. Other dictionaries have a similar range fo senses at rob. DCDuring TALK 02:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

google books:"the robbers broke in" gives plenty of instances of stealth. —Ruakh_TALK 03:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't need verification, just a rewritten definition (thief is one synonym, but not a good definition). Just one who robs or one who commits robbery would do, and the act can be defined under its name. Robbery can be armed or violent, and it can also be despoliation or depredation. —Michael Z. 2009-07-30 04:50 z

In French, ravisseur normally means kidnaper (in modern use). I change the translation to cambrioleur. Lmaltier 10:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

out the door

Rfv-sense: Irish idiom 2 senses. "exactly" or "the exact image". The Irish news quotes I found (at Citations:out the door) make it seem more like a general-purpose intensifier. Which is not inconsistent with the usage examples. DCDuring TALK 02:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

all over grumble

dated idiom. 3 mentions at google books no usage. DCDuring TALK 03:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

multi-addiction

Sounds very plausible, I'll try and verify this in the next hour. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Rare but attestable, just about merits an article IMO. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

ar-

I have never come across this one. SemperBlotto 15:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• As noted in w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ar-, other people have. ☺ Uncle G 19:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

C&A

Meaning as described is essentially a brand name; no citations on page. Does this meet the CFI for brand names? bd2412 T 16:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

WHATM

Equinox ◑ 20:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

outer space

Rfv-sense of the colour. Sounds like a paint-company catalogue item, not a usage I've ever heard. I've always wondered why Wikipedia indulges in assigning exact RGB values to such marketing terms. Do we have a policy on colours? Isn't providing a swatch over-specification for a dictionary? —Michael Z. 2009-08-01 15:25 z

How else could one most easily explain a colour? How is that different from including an illustration? I don't see any problem with illustrating a color by means of a swatch. How does your concern fit into the RfV page focus? --EncycloPetey 17:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem isn't having swatches generally but suggesting that they correspond so specifically to colours. If you look at w:List_of_colors, it's quite clear that several of the pinks (for example) could be regarded as "cherry-blossom pink" (depending on light levels, personal experience of the plant, etc.), but it suggests that only this one exact swatch counts. That's true in some standard sets of colours in computing, but not generally or in dictionary terms. Perhaps we need to flag them as just approximate examples? Equinox ◑ 18:42, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

A general appendix with explanation would help. We already have an Appendix:Colors, but it lacks explanatory text. We could then use a template that both displayed a swatch and linked to suitable explanatory text as needed. --EncycloPetey 14:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

My main problem with this is the lack of attestations for outer space as the name of a colour. I'd like to see it verified in real usage, not in a prescriptive paint-company catalogue or HTML specification, and preferably not with direct reference to such.

A secondary issue is that we state that outer space is represented by HTML colour #001041. What is that based on? Isn't this prescriptive too?

Yikes! I just followed the link to Appendix:Colors. Someone please tell me this is not a prescriptive fantasy without any basis in attested English usage. —Michael Z. 2009-08-02 17:40 z

Some of them look very suspect (timberwolf, antique brass...); I wonder whether they were just ripped from some colour chart for a particular computing environment. Equinox ◑ 23:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I see that some of them correspond to (non-standard) HTML color names, as supported by web browsers.[80] On the other hand, many are common names, or have a long history in the arts, or are standardized elsewhere, like school bus yellow. I see that many were created by User:Sally Ku, who has been inactive since February.

Anyone have a better suggestion than mass-RFVing any colour that looks suspicious? I don't think that's a bad idea actually, because it would sure be nice to add quotations which carry information about usage, context, and standardization of these colour names. But a mass RFV may be seen as provocative. —Michael Z. 2009-08-03 01:49 z

I support a mass RFV. Some of these really are bizarre nonsense, and the ones that aren't should be mostly trivial to cite, because colours are common terms. Equinox ◑ 00:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't favor unnecessary citation work. If we do it en masse and folks get bored, we just lose entries, perhaps some babies with the bathwater. Maybe each of us pick three, one easy-to-cite, one turkey, and one tweener, so we know what we're dealing with. (It would be interesting to test how much agreement we would have amongst ourselves by going through twenty or so and each categorizing/ranking them by our expectation of relative ease of citation.)

What constitutes a citation for these. Is inclusion in a catalog a valid citation? Would three catalogs from different manufacturers be good enough for inclusion? I think it would satisfy me. DCDuring TALK 00:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspect each manufacturer would consider their colour names and recipes proprietary, which is one reason they come up with silly names. I would consider such a catalogue a prescriptive reference, not really a use, or even a brand name. On the other hand, if you find the name in use by different manufacturers, then that argues that it isn't proprietary. Let's see what we get.

I'm game. I'll look up [N]navajo white, Indian red, and battleship grey/gray within the next day or two. —Michael Z. 2009-08-04 00:48 z

I'll try hunter green (ez?), hepatic (jaundice yellow?), and honeydew. I'm not sure that I could actually rank these. I might be able to pick a fraction I thought easiest to cite, but I quickly get into pure guessing (often as good as "informed" guessing).

I always thought it was hunter's green. Good selection. —Michael Z. 2009-08-04 05:17 z

I notice that there are many uses of specific color names in supply lists for craft projects. That seems to make it less likely to be manufacturer controlled, especially if the crafts are different (thread vs yarn vs fabric vs water paints vs oils vs acrylics vs exterior house paint vs interior paint). DCDuring TALK 01:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added Citations:battleship grey and Citations:Indian red, and improved the latter entry. Reading about Indian red makes me skeptical of the colour swatch's hue. I'd like to see, e.g., that the colour described and indicated for this painter's and printer's pigment follows a pertinent reference, and not some twice-removed HTML chart or something (I'll work on it).

Try to find both noun and adjective citations; the latter was much harder to find for Indian red.

Shall we announce a colour-attestation work bee at the Beer Parlour? —Michael Z. 2009-08-04 05:17 z

Navajo white (our navajo white is listed as #ffdead) is Benjamin Moore colour 947, still available, earliest mention I can find is 1975,[81] possibly 1968.[82] It's also Sherwin-Williams colour 6126 (#eadfc9).

w:Navajo white claims the colour comes from the Navajo flag—possible, but sounds dubious to me. The flag was apparently designed in 1968, with a background described as “tan”.[83]

The most prominent use of Navajo white is a variety of corn, first mentioned 1917.[84] There are also Navajo white pine, Navajo white wool, a movie character named Navajo White Eagle,[85] a mythological Navajo White Bead Woman or Navajo White Shell Woman, and Navajo white clay bodies.[86] —Michael Z. 2009-08-04 07:54 z

We've strayed far out of outer space. I'll start a heading at Wiktionary:Beer parlour#Attesting color names. Should we copy/move this to BP or just start anew there? DCDuring TALK 15:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

queerious

Rfv-sense on etymology 2: *queer + curious being curious about homosexuality. I found that in a coinage source, not a real dictionary. Goldenrowley 17:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The first sense appears to be wrong, too: everything on Google Books seems to be using it for the "queer" kind of "curious" (i.e. strange, weird) and not for "curious" (inquiring, interested). Equinox ◑ 19:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Well there's a dictionary that declares it coming fromthe word "query" and "curious" so I don't know how you think that could be wrong - I did add the first definition based on Google books and this dictionary but I think I'll add a word to qualify it as a query-full type of curiosity. Goldenrowley 21:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I was looking at actual books. Dictionaries can be wrong. Books are genuine usage. Can you find the three RFV citations for this "full of queries" sense? I can certainly find three for the "weird, bizarre" sense. Equinox ◑ 21:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you have hit the nail on the head on what it may really mean to the people using it. i am not sure how to go about it if it differs a bit from the dictionary thoughGoldenrowley 18:41, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

That suggests the dictionary is wrong. We should create our definitions based on actual attestable usage and not what a fallible secondary source says. I'm planning to come back to this one and cite "my" sense, but I don't know when. Equinox ◑ 23:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

kalopsia

"Believing that what one does not have is better than what one has." Equinox ◑ 18:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Nothing helpful on b.g.c. All the English citations I found there are for the primary sense in our entry. I found nothing matching the disputed sense, although I did find a Turkish use of the word! There were no citations at all for this word in the BYU-OED database. --EncycloPetey 14:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 14:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

be taken ill

Rfv-sense: To become hospitalized. I think this just means "to become sick", "to take ill", "to take sick". DCDuring TALK 19:52, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

mandoline

Rfv-sense: "To cut with a mandoline"; I'm not finding citations for this as a verb. --EncycloPetey 21:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

COCA had three uses that were coded as verbs, but they seem to have been coded erroneously. DCDuring TALK 21:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

RUR

Mglovesfun (talk) 11:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

kumbaya

Rfv-sense. I don't believe this word is ever used as a verb, in English, to express its allegedly literal meaning of "come by here". —scs 12:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I spent ten minutes looking for this and found nothing (except, of course, for the lyrics of the song, where I suppose it does have that meaning — is it then worth keeping as a "famous nonce"?). "Kumbaya, snow / bring me snow" looked promising in a Gudding poem, but on closer inspection the writer seems to be addressing a creature who could bring various things. (Blimey, Steve Summit. Didn't know you were on Wiktionary.) Equinox ◑ 23:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I always wondered how to spell this.

diputs

Just because one guy writes a word backwards doesn’t make it suitable to be in a dictionary. H. (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Delete: a nonce word, and not in any hugely significant work. Equinox ◑ 21:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The quotation provided from Google Books seems reasonable to me, and it’s an interesting usage. —Stephen 12:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

RFV. DAVilla 00:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Passed and sent to RFV.​—msh210℠ 21:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Preceding is from RFD. Continue discussion here.​—msh210℠ 21:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete, I can only cite this as a user name, never as a "word" with a specific meaning. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 18:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Mac OS

RFDed, kept, sent hither.​—msh210℠ 21:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Added 3, but I don't know if they meet the brand-names guideline. They refer to computer stuff generally, but don't specifically identify the type of product or refer to the company. —Michael Z. 2009-08-03 01:30 z

W3

Abbreviation of World Wide Web? The only attestation I could find was a definition, not a usage. —Michael Z. 2009-08-03 00:55 z

Not heard of it. There's a popular (but not very good) Web design portal called W3schools, where it probably means this — but I think they were mostly angling to sound like some official branch of W3C. Er, oh yeah, so W3C might be where the entry creator got the idea that W3 meant WWW generally. Equinox ◑ 01:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Right. Abbreviation is correct, see W3 and http://www.w3.org/WWW/ — Xavier, 23:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Can it be cited according to our criteria, though? Equinox ◑ 15:02, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I find one actual use.[87] —Michael Z. 2009-08-06 15:21 z

ghost twitter, ghost-tweeter

Attestable? I think not. Equinox ◑ 03:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Both pretty attestable, especially the first one which spells out the definition pretty well. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

moby

"Template:computing very large". Think this is one of ESR's words. There are a few books mentioning a "moby hack", but whether it means large is unclear. Equinox ◑ 00:05, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

ägha

Looking for evidence that spellings of agha, aga exist in English with umlaut, diaeresis, trema. OED and Websters Third only list the two spellngs without dots above the first a. — hippietrail 02:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't find a usable citation yet. It just seems to be a transliteration of the Arabic/Persian with the original diacritics in tact. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted, it seems to be okay in Swedish however, it appears on the Swedish Wikisource. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

auto enrollment

Shouldn't this be (deprecated template usage) autoenrollment or (deprecated template usage) auto-enrollment ? SemperBlotto 07:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

All three spellings are abundant in the net, and the term is used in many different senses currently not listed in our entry. Would require some research. --Hekaheka 13:24, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I hasten to add auto is normally seen as a prefix in this sense, so think this should be an "alternate spelling" of (deprecated template usage) autoenrollment or (deprecated template usage) auto-enrollment. However I do not come from the UK where this sense supposedly comes from. Goldenrowley 06:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

parole

Rfv-sense: "limited sense of freedom". If it is real, what does it mean? --Hekaheka 13:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• I can't understand it, delete or clean up. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:36, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Definition deleted, impossible to verify something that nobody can understand. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

blood in the water

Rfv-sense: Oz idiom "under pressure, in danger". I have added a noun PoS for "a situation attracting predators or adversaries." which I think is what was intended. DCDuring TALK 15:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a reference to the "Blood in the Water" water polo match between Hungary and the USSR, at the 1956 Melbourne Olympics? Pingku 17:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

50+ years, though. Some of the entry made it seem more like a shark-sympathetic contributor trying to avoid adding to their bad rap by saying "shark". Oz is one of the lands of the Great White, after all. DCDuring TALK 17:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm thinking specifically about the usage note about sports commentary. Not every person in Oz is a sports fanatic, but the incident would certainly be familiar to any Australian sports commentator worth his/her salt. The shark aspect would have contributed to the water polo headline (which WP says was a beat-up). I don't suggest this is conclusive, but it's a theory. Pingku 18:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. I did a brief news search (NewsBank, Australian papers) and found: (1) explicit references to the water polo match; (2) general sports references on the lines of the shark metaphor and "smelling" victory; and (3) apparent puns to do with teams such as the "Cronulla Sharks" and "Townsville Crocs", related to (2). The latter two had no necessary connection with water. Pingku 19:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Can you draw a conclusion or should we wait for a native Ocker? DCDuring TALK 20:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

As an Aussie (not particularly sporty, and not old enough to remember the Melbourne Olympics) I would conclude: (1) a reference to (and entry for) Blood in the Water (the water polo match) may be order; (2) the idiomatic term "blood in the water" is not solely Australian (I noticed a reference to Wall Street, for instance); and (3) the idiomatic definition should be revisited, from the general point of view of any competitive situation, and inclusive of the viewpoint of either the attacker or attacked. Pingku 21:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

By all means, go for it. DCDuring TALK 22:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. I've removed "Idiom" (section name) and made it "Noun" (and "Proper noun" for the bloody water polo match). Any comments? Pingku 18:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That would have been my expectation. blood in the water looks good without the challenged sense for general English. But perhaps some other Australian eyes should look at the Proper noun. Dmol? Hippietrail? I'm old enough but neither sporty nor Australian. DCDuring TALK 21:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

from here to ya-ya

A very long distance. DCDuring TALK 15:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

A jazz reference? "Legs (or gams) from here to ya-ya" appears to mean long ones. (Perhaps along the lines of "all the way up".) Pingku 17:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it seems like another version of a mid-20th century euphemism having little to do with distance. DCDuring TALK 18:08, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

bum rush

Claims to be different from bum's rush. Never heard this. DCDuring TALK 23:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. DCDuring TALK 23:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

NOAD has the transitive verb bum-rush, but no noun sense. —Michael Z. 2009-08-06 02:56 z

zombie

Sense just added by an anon: "A person under the influence of mood or behavior altering prescription drugs." -- WikiPedant 04:12, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Erowid says "zombie" is street slang for "PCP" (phencyclidine, angel dust) or "a heavy user of drugs". It does not appear to give any support for these claims. Pingku 18:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

yellowishly

The definition says "In a yellowish way". How can a way be yellowish? Does this make any sense?--Yair rand 06:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

From a book: "The sugar mill worker yellowishly tinges all that he touches merely by touching it." He tinges it in a yellowish way. Equinox ◑ 08:51, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as RFV goes: now cited. Equinox ◑ 14:58, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I changed "way" to "manner" which, I think, is a slightly more flexible term. -- WikiPedant 14:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

That quotation doesn't support the definition at all. From that quotation (alone), it looks like this means “with yellow”. Yellowish is the result, not the way or manner. —Michael Z. 2009-08-09 01:28 z

dirty

We have two computing senses apparently angling at the same thing. The first one (which looks good) is "Containing data which need to be written back to a larger memory"; the other, which I am RFVing here, is "Containing data which need to be overwritten." Equinox ◑ 08:46, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Neither is a very good definition. I suggest combining the two senses as "Containing data with a parity or checksum error, and thus needing to be rewritten." Dbfirs 15:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

The second definition (the one being RFV'd) may be a bad definition for the sense you describe; or, the sense you describe may be a separate one that needs to be added separately. Either way, the first definition (the one not being RFV'd) is something completely different; see e.g. google:"dirty checking". It can perhaps be improved, but it definitely can't be combined into the sense you describe. —Ruakh_TALK 17:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a parity or checksum error. For example, a wordprocessor document is "dirty" if it's been modified by the user since the last save (once indicated by an asterisk in the title bar in Windows, but that doesn't seem to be fashionable any more). Equinox ◑ 22:40, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

no brain

Top Cat. British for "a stupid person" (i.e. "he is a no brain", not "he has no brain"). Hyphen? Attestable outside the playground? Equinox ◑ 08:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Playgrounds are very respectable... But you can find examples outside playgrounds, e.g. Imao, he is such a joker, a blatent khan hater, he is a no brain, and needs to be band, or at least banished to the mma forum (www.eastsideboxing.com). Lmaltier 18:29, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Per WT:CFI, then? All I could find was an attributive sort of usage on rec.sport.golf: "start talking about what a no brain, classless guy he is". Equinox ◑ 10:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

twitroll

Quite possibly bollocks, but it seemed better to make an effort than to delete with checking. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:25, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

It's sort of attestable, but not with the meaning given here. It seems to be some sort of feature to allow quick posting to Twitter, but I don't think it would meet WT:CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

There might be two senses: twit+roll (like blogroll) and twit+troll (an Internet troll or troublemaker). Anyway, both protologisms: this should go, like most of the Twitter junk people keep adding. Equinox ◑ 10:01, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Appendix:Twitter? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't attest the meaning given, so I'm happy to delete this. The other hits seem to be more "mention" than "use", as they give no specific single meaning. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:03, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Gone. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

careerist

Rfd-redundant. Special sense for military careerist. DCDuring TALK 20:24, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, adds nothing that #1 doesn't already cover. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
• Bring to RFV for a search for citations where the context does not imply "military" but "military" is understood from the word careerist alone.​—msh210℠ 20:28, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Moving to WT:RFV#careerist, per request. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

And here it is; keep going. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

clocked out DCDuring TALK 19:53, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

parisome

French for warbler. Can anyone confirm/deny? Ƿidsiþ 09:49, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

The French Wiktionary has it, and w:fr:Parisome says yes as well, albeit as a redirect to the Latin name. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:31, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

google books:"parisome" has several hits, but they're all either:

• not visible
• not French (including one scanno)
• using it, capitalized, as a genus name

and some fall into more than one of these categories.

—Ruakh_TALK 22:01, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Avibase : the world bird data base has 12 answers in French for "parisome". --Szyx 12:18, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I should apologize now. Yes it seems very rare in French, most of the hits are from the French Wikipedia and its mirror sites. Some sort of long-running joke? I'm baffled to be honest. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

No long-running joke here. Confirmed also by Dictionnaire Universel d'Histoire Naturelle de 1847 (1847 universal dictionary of natural history). See the "parinées" entry. — Xavier, 12:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

etter

German section. Never heard of that one, doesn't really match up with German phonology either. -- Prince Kassad 11:26, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, very strange. I've also never heard of a tense called "present imperfect", LOL. Anyway, this can't be correct. The verb etteren might exist, though. – Krun 23:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

naat

Is this serious? If so a rephrase seems in order Jcwf 12:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

• Fixed - assuming you can trust Wikipedia. SemperBlotto 13:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks Blotto Jcwf 21:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Kept, cleaned up by SemperBlotto. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Shakespeare

Per WT:RFD#毛主席 I wanted us to verify this attirbutive use, otherwise simply putting "that it's commonly used for Williams Shakespeare isn't enough (IMO). RFV-sense, "Eloquent poetry". I think if this is verified, this sense at least isn't a proper noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I have added the noun sense and inserted one citation. The citation shows it being modified by an adjective and not directly referring to the Bard or his works. This is in contrast to uses such as "the early Shakespeare" or "The Alabama Shakespeare Festival branches out from pure Shakespeare this year to include Chekhov". The Noun sense is in widespread use and I would hope not be worth challenging. DCDuring TALK 19:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Statue of Liberty shower

Wiktionary:Tea room#Statue of Liberty basically explains it in my place. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:00, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Content merged with Statue of Liberty, not cited on its own. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Quebecer Bloc

Moved to WT:RFD#Quebecer Bloc

bloquist

This appears to be part of someone's language crusade. I'm glad to move it right to RFD. Cf. [88]. —Michael Z. 2009-08-09 22:14 z

My apologies. The correct English form is Bloquiste. —Michael Z. 2009-08-09 22:20 z

Peenu

The entry had been in bad shape, I have recently cleaned it up. Question still stands: is this a real English term, Filipino (as had been suggested once), or what?!? Does it deserve an entry? If nothing else, shouldn't it be moved to lowercase form? L☺g☺maniac chat? 22:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Obama

Rfv-sense: cool, etc. Could be. Might be lower case. Needs to be shown as or gradable or comparative/superlative. DCDuring TALK 23:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

"Clocked out DCDuring TALK 21:32, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Dennis the Menace

Needs attributive use. DCDuring TALK 23:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

bezjak

There are two senses I have flagged for RfV here.

The first sense, "A stupid person," has been repeatedly removed by an anonymous editor, who just emailed m:OTRS to complain that he was removing it because he finds it offensive and thinks it is vandalism, "Bezjak" being a surname. Considering it's a name, I am not sure if it is an attack/vandalism that got overlooked, or if it's actually legitimate. Citations would clear that up.

I am also doubtful that the Harry Potter sense passes WT:CFI#Fictional universes, so I have tagged that one as well. Dominic·t 00:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

We already have several harrypotterisms (even Category:Harry Potter), and it's absurd to remove them because they're globally-known words. That this is indeed the translation of the corresponding term from the Harry Potter book series, you can verify on the Croatian Wikipedia article w:hr:Bezjak (Harry Potter)

As for the "stupid person" sense see here (right column at the very bottom): the definitions are, among others, "homo rusticus" and "homo plumbeus" which should be sth like "peasent man" or "unrefined barbarian". At any case, the term is certainly a pejorative, with interesting etymology from the phrase bez jaja ("without eggs/balls") + agentive suffix -ak. It's kind of hard to distinguish the actually used meanings in the attestations; according to Hrvatski enciklopedijski rječnik one of the meanings is priglup čovjek "dumb person", so there you go. --Ivan Štambuk 01:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

We judge words based on their own merit, so Harry Potter words don't get included just because of the work they were in. The criterion calls for "three citations which are independent of reference to that universe" (which others in the category you point to undoubtedly satisfy). As for the first sense, you appear to be referencing other dictionaries rather than primary-source quotations. I don't disbelieve you at all, but since you speak the language, would it be possible to actually get the three citations to attest this sense? Dominic·t 02:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

aestus

=heat / fire. Any takers? Ƿidsiþ 09:34, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Not in English. It can mean that in Latin though (also tide, surge etc). SemperBlotto 09:40, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
  • Cleaned up a bit, further cleanup needed. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
    • Done, it was actually a cleanup issue AFAICT. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

commentard

Protologism? Needs a better definition if OK. SemperBlotto 13:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

returded

RfV tag since Aug 2007. Not cited. DCDuring TALK 14:55, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

retarth

Purported Canadian synonym for retard. No evidence found in usual sources, including Groups. DCDuring TALK 14:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

paganica

Nothing in the OED, or on -pedea. SemperBlotto 18:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

See golf. User name one 19:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Latin. One of four kinds of balls mentioned in Latin, filled with feathers, used in some kind of country game, possibly like field hockey. Mentioned in Martial. Fancied to be connected to the origins of golf. Probably attestable with this kind of non-specific definition, but not with the POV definition provided. DCDuring TALK 15:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Found three cites, though I had to shift the sense slightly to fit the cites. — Carolina wren discussió 05:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

cambuca

Nothing in the OED, or on -pedia. SemperBlotto 18:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

See golf. User name one 19:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Liberal Democrat

Needs attributive use (also Lib Dem). Compare Labour Party, Conservative Party, Green Party. Basically we need to decide what meets CFI and what doesn't. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

cock pump

Humorous, but I wouldn't be surprised if it existed. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:46, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

It is a sex toy, more frequently called penis pump. --Hekaheka 13:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

ceterum censeo

Rfv-sense: I don't think that this found in English running text except in quotes or italics. If it is, the citations would help determine its meaning in English use. DCDuring TALK 02:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

avant la lettre

Rfv-sense: I haven't found it in use in English except in quotes or italics. DCDuring TALK 02:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Despite the use of italics, according to this thread this is a common idiom in English. Wouldn't that deserve an entry in the Wiktionary?

BTW, in the etymology section, avant la lettre is translated into "before the letter" but lettre here has a meaning of "caption" (of an engraving), not a written letter that you would send to someone. Is letter another word for caption or is it a poor translation? — Xavier, 01:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

If it is as they say, then there should not be any problem finding citations somewhere in Google Books, Google Scholar, Google News or Usenet where it does not appear in quotes of italics in English running text. If it appears only in italics or quotes in English running text then the author is not presenting it as English. I ran out of patience after the first 5 Google English books hits had it in italics. I find it in no Online monolingual dictionaries I have access to. DCDuring TALK 02:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I have failed to find any such citations too. Does it imply the English section has to disappear? I would be quite surprised of such a conclusion considering the number of English books that make use of this term. What if the term is used in different contexts than in French?

Back to the etymology, can someone confirm that in English letter is/was also a term used for the caption in an engraving? See the exact definition here. — Xavier, 16:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

We usually give hard-to-search-for terms like this a longer time period to collect citations than the minimum of one month. But the ultimate conclusion under our current rules would be deletion of the English section. If the term is also not idiomatic in French, then it could be deleted altogether, leaving us in the position of not having the term at all, though it would be useful to have it. In a truly open Wiki it would be better to have explicit rules that accommodated this situation. In our more closed, "clubby" wiki, we often seem to rely on undocumented, unofficial "practice" that gives license to certain violations of the official rules, mainly WT:CFI and WT:ELE. There is usually some fig leaf of justification, but often one that would not withstand an intellectually honest challenge. DCDuring TALK 17:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this helpful explanation. My understanding is: we have no problem finding citations and "avant la lettre" seems a valid English idiom, albeit not widespread (750 answers on Google books -- English books only but some duplicate results). For this reason, I believe it meets the WT:CFI criteria (I didn't find anything about foreign terms). The only problem we have is to find written citations that do not make use of italics or quotes. Be it foreign or not, its usage in English is attested in my opinion.

If the English section was deleted, the reader would have to fall back to the French section (that would remain since it is a valid French idiom). But nothing proves that its meaning and use in French are exactly the same as in English (its usage may have drifted or broaden). Moreover, you might have adjective and noun forms in English that we do not have in French (this is a generic comment: if this does not apply to this particular entry, this may apply to others). Finally, the reader is looking for a term found in an English context and fails to find the corresponding entry, but nothing guides them to this French entry. It appeared to me that avant la lettre is also used in Dutch, how can the reader know which entry to consult? Here again, the meaning may be slightly different between French and Dutch.

For all these reasons, I think the English section must stay. As for the etymology, since I got no answers, what is the best way to tag the translation as dubious? — Xavier, 20:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Once something is in this process, the only thing that saves it is qualifying citations, unless we dispense with our rules altogether or amend them. Because this seems mostly to be used in academic writings, editorial standards have tended to put the expression in quotes or italics in the durably archived sources. We might have better luck on usenet or google news. DCDuring TALK 21:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you please indicate which part of WT:CFI rules out quotations that are in italics? I don't see it, and I wonder if there's some rule there that you and I interpret differently. —Ruakh_TALK 14:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, if you're going to be so picky as to go back to the source and fact-check me,... I must thank you for not letting my memory mistake give false authority to my assertins. I must have conflated a snippet of an RfV discussion, the use-mention distinction, and my understanding of the desirable presentation of foreign-language material in English text to reach a wrong conclusion. The conclusion I was coming to with respect to this entry seemed untenable, so I would be relieved to have been wrong. DCDuring TALK 17:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

In my understanding, an English header does not mean that the word is fully considered as an English word, only that it's a word used in English (really used, not only mentioned, of course). Italics often indicate that it's a mention rather than a use, but italics are often used for uses as well. I cannot imagine another criterion than this one ("used in ...") for allocating words to languages. autoroute might be another example: is it considered as a fully English word? Yet, it's present, and it's quite normal. Similarly, highway could warrant a French section (feminine or masculine noun?). Lmaltier 15:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Although Ruakh correctly pointed out above that I had misremembered WT:CFI about this, the bright line that could be drawn based on appearance with or without quotes or italics would be convenient. It would function analogously to the attributive-use test for certain proper noun entries.

Without that test, I am left with many questions. What is the correct interpretation of use-mention as it applies to foreign-language text embedded in English text? Certainly a block of text would be excluded. What about a proverb? A proper noun? A word in a non-Roman script? DCDuring TALK 17:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

In "The English word for route is road.", road and route are mentions, and this is clear from italics. In "Most French autoroutes are toll highways., or in He lives near Nantes, in France. or in J'ai commandé un Welsh rarebit." , autoroutes, Nantes and Welsh rarebit are used, not only mentioned, despite italics. This is what is meant by mention and use, I think. Lmaltier 19:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't think there's any perfect test for use vs. mention; some sentences are ambiguous or blurry between the two ("they call it happiness" can mean either "happiness is the word they use to refer to it" (mention) or "they consider it to be happiness" (use), with the latter being applicable even if "they" are speaking a different language). However, in general I think it's usually fairly clear whether a term is being used, with a distinct POS, playing a normal term-like role in a sentence, or whether it's simply being mentioned, referred to, implicitly being set off in quote marks and treated as a noun. —Ruakh_TALK 21:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I think you're trying to apply the wrong rule. A block of foreign-language text is sure to contain many words that are used rather than mentioned; and it's rare, but I have seen Hebrew terms actually used, in Hebrew script, in running English text. So the question isn't at what point it becomes "use" rather than "mention", but rather, at what point it becomes "English" rather than (in the case of avant la lettre) "French", or at least, at what point it becomes something we need an ==English== section for. And to that question, I really have no answer. Even if English-speakers use avant la lettre differently from French-speakers, does that mean it's an English expression now, or just a French expression with a special {{context|in English|lang=fr}} sense? And a special {{a|US}} or {{a|UK}} pronunciation? —Ruakh_TALK 00:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess I was trying to borrow "rules" that might apply by analogy.

I have looked at the Chicago Manual of Style (14th) ("MoS") on the use of italics for such words. They seem to recommend using them as long as the word is both foreign and unfamiliar. They recommend looking at dictionaries as part of the test, but are rather inconclusive: "More moderately, the decision might be based on a blend of considerations -- familiarity, inclusion in a dictionary, and sympathy with they reader." If a foreign-language term is only used in academic writings, the various style manuals in aggregate (MLA, APA, MoS, et al) might have helped us, but not if they are all as inconclusive as MoS.

This seems to force us back toward using citations as evidence of how individual authors and editors view the foreign words in question. If no citations can be found outside of quotes or italics then they seem to be saying that the reader needs to be warned that the words in question are both unfamiliar and foreign. DCDuring TALK 01:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I've never heard the expression before, but a Google search for "avant la lettre" +anachronistic seems to bring up enough usages. I've reduced the number of times "used" is used in our definition - hope this is OK. Dbfirs 20:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, God, that whole italicised-uses-don’t-count rule is a load of crap. Try Google Groups Search — Google groups can’t italicise text. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• Very common in English. You can't use any French phrase in English (not if you expect to be understood), but you can certainly use this one; it's a perfectly valid tool in English writing and speaking. Ƿidsiþ 09:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Tesco's

Needs attributive use citations. DCDuring TALK 12:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

An aside: perhaps compare "Marks and Spencers" for "Marks and Spencer". Equinox ◑ 23:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Clocked out. Any personal name can form such a possessive anyway by adding 's. The resulting form without a noun is commonly used elliptically to refer to an object associated with the named person or group. I don't think it could have had attributive use. Are there any examples where such a formation would be includable besides entries like Ma's and Joe's? DCDuring TALK 01:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Vader

Rfv-sense: "Template:star wars A Sith surname", under WT:CFI#Fictional_universes. (The other sense of Vader is probably okay.)​—msh210℠ 22:56, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

How is the other sense probably okay? It should be attested to the standard of a specific entity, if not a brand name. —Michael Z. 2009-08-13 23:41 z

I suspect it's attested to the standard of a fictional-universe word, and think that that's all that's necessary.​—msh210℠ 21:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It's not attested with any quotations at all. I doubt that it could meet the requirement at WT:CFI#Fictional_universes to be suitable for inclusion in the dictionary. I'm adding an RFD tag to this sense. —Michael Z. 2009-09-01 10:45 z

Move to RFD? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Why? We're seeking attestation.​—msh210℠ 21:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

See also #Star Wars stuff. —Michael Z. 2009-09-01 11:48 z

äga

Per ägha, if this isn't any more attestable than that, it shouldn't be here. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely no Google hits for this in English, but tonnes in Swedish, ergo deleted in English. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

aleptinemia

Neither in the OED nor listed by Dictionary.com; searching for definitions via Google yields only Wiktionary’s definition. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:16, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Google Scholar has a couple [89], and more papers can be found with a Google Web search — but not very many. Equinox ◑ 18:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Then it’s {{rare}} at best. Google Book Search has nothing. One of the other two predictable spellings, the digraphic one ((deprecated template usage) aleptinaemia), gets one Scholar hit, whilst the ligated one gets nothing anywhere. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

swim with sharks

Rfv-sense: "to take a huge risk". Isn't this usually used more specifically to refer to dangerous, predatory people? DCDuring TALK 20:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

edumarketing

Equinox ◑ 20:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't cite it, the best one I can find is this, which doesn't seem to be "reliable" to me. Edumarket and EduMarketing are a lot more common. As for the article's history, it was deleted on Wikipedia and transwikied here to "pass the problem on", so deletion seems the best option to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted, neologism and/or promotional material. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

douze

rfv-usage notes which if verified should count as an interjection, if not should be removed, they read as follows:
"Douze has recently been adopted by many Internet users as an expression of approval."

I've never heard of it, though I don't really use chatrooms. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I have heard this used all over London. Paul Smithson

twitterable

I can't tell from the cited article whether this is about the godawful ego-masturbating Web site or just about "twittering"/babbling/making a noise in general. However, it seems to have almost no usage. Equinox ◑ 00:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Baruch HaShem

Baruch translates as Blessed; Ha = the; and Shem = Name. HaShem being the common Hebrew substitute name for G-d. — This unsigned comment was added by 67.225.40.55 (talk) at 02:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC).

Right. So, what did you want verified? —Ruakh_TALK 03:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, is this English and are the caps okay? Mglovesfun (talk) 08:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether this is English is open for debate. My vote is "yes", since it's used in English contexts. The caps on "HaShem" are O.K.; in order of frequency, the second word is sometimes written "Hashem", sometimes "HaShem", sometimes "haShem". The caps on "Baruch" are wrong IMHO, just as the lemma form of "Thank G-d!" would be (deprecated template usage) thank G-d. —Ruakh_TALK 15:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

oober

Misspelling of uber or real? Mglovesfun (talk) 08:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems like its Middle English, going by G.B.S. I thought that this was quite pertinent. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:24, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

hole-whole merger

No hits on b.g.c; I think this name was made up on Wikipedia. Angr 20:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

redeconvolved

(from WT:RFD#redeconvolved) No google books hits, 8 general google hits (counting us). I'm not sure why you'd want to deconvolve something after you've already done so. RJFJR 17:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, someone or something might reconvolve it or it just might up and reconvolve itself. It is only through the triumph of engineering over theory that we don't have any significant usage of "reredeconvolve". DCDuring TALK 18:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete as protologism. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Keep. It gets enough Google Scholar hits to warrant a full RFV period. (For it to meet the CFI, attenstion-wise, only one of those hits needs to be from a peer-reviewed academic journal. I'm not positive, but it looks like two are. Plus, despite what you say, there's actually one Google Books hit — I'm not sure why you don't see it — for a total of probably three durably archived cites.) —Ruakh_TALK 22:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. When I saw the one entry I misread it as a near miss that google was offering for a related word. RJFJR 01:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Gone to RFV', see WT:RFV#redeconvolved. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

---

Carry on chaps. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

speleoart

Protologism? Most hits seem to be for (deprecated template usage) SpeleoArt - is this a commercial organization? SemperBlotto 06:43, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

have a green thumb

Shouldn't this be redirected to green thumb or green fingers? (Definition is for a noun and needs to be made into a verb if we keep it) SemperBlotto 14:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, the issue here is that that's the phrase that's used. Also, in French, the expression is avoir la main verte, so I'm trying to make an article that corresponds. Oreo Priest ^talk 14:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah both of these should either be deleted or redirects, so move to rfd. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Move to RfD or redirect to green thumb. Why not redirect avoir la main verte to main verte? DCDuring TALK 16:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

under glass

Rfv-sense: Under close inspection. Is this idiomatic anywhere among Anglophones or is it a literal mistranslation of an idiom in another language? DCDuring TALK 19:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Never heard it in UK. 78.32.74.25 12:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

clocked out DCDuring TALK 18:45, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

3W

En-abbreviation World Wide Web. I don't see it in use. —Michael Z. 2009-08-17 06:38 z

anorexigenic

Mglovesfun (talk) 15:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

 Done. Wasn't hard to find on b.g.c. I formatted it and added three cites from 1970–2008. Angr 19:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yup, striking Mglovesfun (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

crux

Rfv-sense: "The hardest point of a climb". --EncycloPetey 22:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Cited. This is actually extremely common among rock-climbing types. —Ruakh_TALK 02:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I used to have a good friend who was a serious climber, but we live in different parts of the state now. I was at a loss as to how to search for a suitable quote, since I've never heard that sense used before. Your work will be especially useful since (deprecated template usage) crux will be WOTD on the 21st. --EncycloPetey 05:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

No prob. I was also at a loss as to how to search for it, short of just rock climbing crux. Usually I try to get quotes from a few different searches, but this was too hard. (And if I didn't know a bunch of rock-climbers from college, I wouldn't have recognized the sense, so probably wouldn't have caught what "a climb" meant.) —Ruakh_TALK 19:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Winnie the Pooh

This, along with Christopher Robin, Eeyore, Owl, Piglet, and Tigger, all seem to be fictional characters. Does this belong on Wiktionary? --Yair rand 22:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Possibly. Some fictional characters have attributes that are well known, and their names become a kind of shorthand for those attributes. We ought to investigate to see whether these have come to be used that way, but it is certainly possible. --EncycloPetey 22:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I added the obvious attributive meanings for Eeyore and Tigger, but I'm not sure what they would be for the others, and for all of the ones except Christopher Robin, the words are so common it makes searching difficult. Dominic·t 06:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Nicely done. —Michael Z. 2009-08-19 08:39 z

Yes, very nice. However, we now clearly need unbounce. (;-) Robert Ullmann 08:53, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

マグル

A Harry Potter term. Needs citation per WT:CFI#Fictional universes. Dominic·t 08:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

As a Tbot entry, it can just be deleted if desired (from Nov07, not in jp.wikt). There isn't any evidence given that it is used out-of-universe. Of course, if someone would care to look? Robert Ullmann 08:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

blessing

Rfv-sense 'blessing of unicorns'. Nadando 16:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The cites that I can find are either quotes of Wikipedia or seem to go back to just one source. Since unicorn(s) are loners, should a collective noun exist? Dbfirs 12:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

quindicivirate

Seems to follow the correct Latin rules, but is it attestable in English? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

revenant

Rfv-sense: "someone who returns from a long absence". Ƿidsiþ 08:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Implausibly, it seems to include that sense mostly in the monolingual US "American English" dictionaries, MW, RHU, and AHD. "American English" context tag? DCDuring TALK 12:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, but I'd rather see some citations. Ƿidsiþ 22:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

There are two good quotes in the OED1, but neither is verifiable online. Hmm.... Do we have any good examples for how to format such cases? -- Visviva 10:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

ouidan

I can't find any confirmation of this. Etymology needs formatting properly if OK. SemperBlotto 16:34, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

"Citation" apparently correct. Capitalisation? [90] Pingku 20:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

elucidate

Sense2 = To disambiguate. (deprecated template usage) Disambiguate might be suitable to include in the list of synonyms here, but I don't see it as full-fledged separate sense for the term (deprecated template usage) elucidate. -- WikiPedant 00:53, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This raises the possibility of flummoxing users by making them look up troponym and all the better since they have to type it into the search box. I do believe that "disambiguating" is a means of "elucidating". DCDuring TALK 01:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

... but no more so than other synonyms? Explaining, setting out in detail, disambiguating, etc. are all ways in which one can elucidate, but they are not different senses of the word, just examples of clarifying. Dbfirs 12:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

keep one's pecker up

Formerly listed at WT:RFD#keep your pecker up

Since the main debate over this was whether it existed with an idiomatic meaning, I moved it here. Please verify it with citations and it can be kept. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:45, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Now has three quotes spanning over a century. More available. SemperBlotto 10:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me. DCDuring TALK 11:37, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

double positive

Formerly listed at WT:RFD#double positive

If this is a specific grammatical term it should be kept. If not, and it doesn't have another idiomatic meaning, it won't pass the RFV. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:06, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The quoted example is just a joke. The words themselves emphasise the positive. Only the tone and expression indicate irony. Dbfirs 11:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The quoted example is a good illustration of the use of (deprecated template usage) double negative in the sense given. "Yeah, right" is not a good exemplification of "double negative." There is a {{examples-right}} for the purpose of showing linguistic phenomena denoted by the headword. We do need two more citations. And we could use some examples of specific double negatives. It would be largely accidental if the citations could include good examples. DCDuring TALK 14:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I still think that there is no such thing as a "double positive", so I don't think we are likely to find examples, but I agree we could use some examples of a double negative. "Yeah, right" is not an example of either, just a repeated positive with the possibility of irony in some usages. Dbfirs 06:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The reality of double positive is not germane. The attestability of "double positive" is. Because almost all of the numerous citations are of the single anecdote, I am not sure that they are independent. Otherwise any nonce with the good fortune to appear in a thrice-told tale would thereby be attested. DCDuring TALK 14:54, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: "The reality of double positive is not germane": It's not germane to whether we keep the entry, but it's germane to whether we give examples of the phenomenon (using an {{examples-right}}–type approach). I think that's all Dbfirs (talk • contribs) meant. —Ruakh_TALK 15:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

True. Any thoughts about the "independence" of citations all of the same anecdote?

gone winchester

Was at WT:RFD#gone winchester for 5 months without a second opinion. Surely this is not a noun, but if it is specific military slang, no reason to think it wouldn't meet CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Cited. It will shortly be moved to go Winchester. DCDuring TALK 03:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

nel giro di

For Barmar or SemperBlotto, is this just sum of parts or is it a specific oft-used adverb? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly not an adverb... Lmaltier 19:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Rus.

RfV for nominal sense meaning “Abbreviation of Russian.” (i.e., a native of Russia). I can imagine uses like “He is a Rus. national.”, which as adjectival, but not “He is a Rus.” or whatever. Also, how would the plural be formed? Would it be invariable, would it double the last letter (as *(deprecated template usage) Russ.), would the period be retained or removed, &c.? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:41, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the nominal sense would always be "Russian language", probably never "a native of Russia/a person of Russian ethnicity". Language names are extremely often abbreviated in paper dictionaries, articles on historical linguistics, etc. Angr 21:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Noted, though that is use as a proper noun. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

RfV failed. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

retroussé

Although this is, rarely, found in English-language manuscripts it is invariably italicized to indicate it is a foreign language term, specifically French. - Amgine/^talk 18:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

• It's not rare, or invariably (or even usually) italicised. Retroussé noses are often spoken of. Ƿidsiþ 16:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

morphe

Is this morph or morphe? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

It's morph. Morphe is either a rare archaic spelling of morph (too rare to be recorded?), or a noun (alternative spelling of the archaic morphew. Is everyone happy if I change the entry accordingly, leaving the RFV for the rare form? Dbfirs 06:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

... btw ... the word that Barclay was talking about was the Greek word metamorphousthai, and its root morphē, not an English word at all. Dbfirs 12:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

dolce

Does the Spanish section on dolce deserve an entry or is this just a misspelling of dulce? Caladon 17:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Nope, deleted. Nadando 15:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

wittle

Do we take baby talk...what's next? Goldenrowley 06:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. It's obviously verifyable in print, but it's not a word in the standard dictionary sense. I've modified the entry slightly, but I'd be happy to delete it. On the other hand ... "all words in all languages" ... Dbfirs 06:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Whath nektht, you athk? f u cn rd ths msg u cn Gss. DCDuring TALK 11:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This would seem to be a question for RFD (or the BP): it's clearly attested. I think we should keep such attested babytalk. But even if the community disagrees with me and says to delete such, perhaps this one should be kept, since there's another sense.​—msh210℠ 20:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Keep: attestable, like (deprecated template usage) ickle. But I wish we had a standard template for "childish, hypocoristic" or what not. Equinox ◑ 20:04, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Context template:childish categorizes in category:Childish.​—msh210℠ 20:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Cited (but I dunno about wittler and wittlest; separate RFVs needed?). Equinox ◑ 18:58, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this is an RFD issue at this point, but I'd say strong keep on the basis that someone may in fact see the word in print and not know what it means. bd2412 T 03:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

yiff

"To talk, to chat in a chat room." Equinox ◑ 11:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

etes

English entry only. Looks like a protological attempt at back formation from etesian. — Carolina wren discussió 15:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

tenant

Rfv-sense: Legal one who rents their own property to others. Huh? DCDuring TALK 16:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

In the legal sense (e.g. ownership as tenants in common) a tenant can indeed let their property to others, but this usage would not normally be found, even in law. Since 1607 (Cowell) at least, a tenant has been "one that holds or possesses Lands or Tenements by any kind of Right, be it in Fee, for Life, Years, or at Will". I suggest that we delete sense 3 and slightly extend sense 4. Dbfirs 12:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I just want to give our legal types a chance to look at this too. I see it the same way. Though tenants may have the right to collect rent for the use of the property by others, it didn't seem to be a suitable definition. The tenant could also renounce his ownership interest, but one hardly be likely to define a tenant as a renouncer. DCDuring TALK 23:06, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Tenant in the general sense of "one who owns land by some title" is in the OED (all editions give it as sense 1 of tenancy), and also in Black's. Thus it can (or could, back when this sense was in general circulation) certainly refer to an owner who is renting land... However, that "tenant" would be used to refer exclusively to landlords strains credulity. Should be rephrased, I think. -- Visviva 12:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

remaining

Rfv-sense noun "action of the verb to remain". I don't think one can find evidence that this is a true noun. DCDuring TALK 00:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Remaining convinced of this proved impossible. This item's remaining here for a little while should serve as a reminder of how much grammar I still need to learn.

withdrawn. DCDuring TALK 02:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm inclined to agree with your original rfv-sense. This is not really a POS-worthy noun; it's just a regular old gerund, and dictionaries do not ordinarily include separate nominal entries for gerunds. -- WikiPedant 20:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It deserves some kind of noun section, however, going on the Google-Book-Search hits for the plural. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I guess we do not have a separate noun PoS if they don't have a plural or a meaning distinguishable from the verb-derived gerund meaning. Reminiscent of not having adjective PoS for attributive use of noun unless it is gradable or comparable. Does that even need a rfv-sense?

I have always disliked these "action of the verb" definitions. Whatever their value in getting a lot of basic entries into Wiktionary, they seem to have outlived their usefulness, even in cases where the -ing form would warrant a noun PoS. DCDuring TALK 20:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It does have a plural (see Google Books), but generally in a sense that seems to mean "remnant" and might be obsolete. Equinox ◑ 22:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I share DC's dislike for these "action of the verb" definitions -- both because they are unremarkable garden-variety gerunds and because the potential number of such needless defns is very large. I suspect almost all gerunds are in principle capable of being pluralized (although some, like (deprecated template usage) leavings, have a syntactic life of their own). It is a judgment call which gerunds have sufficient usage and sufficiently noteworthy wrinkles of meaning to merit being recorded in entries, but, like DC, I think most of these entries have outlived their usefulness. -- WikiPedant 23:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I support their inclusion because otherwise we have no way to include the plurals, which are often perfectly valid (and attestable) words. As I mentioned in a previous RFV or RFD discussion, one cannot automatically assume that every -ing can take an -s (my example at the time was defragmentings, which DCD thought he might defend, but I could think of worse ones). I do get a slightly bad taste in my mouth when adding them, though, I admit. Equinox ◑ 23:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Just think of all the phrasal verb gerunds we could define that way, perhaps with a bot! But I am more sure that the definitions so worded have outlived their usefulness that I am that the entries have. I am not sure how much noun-like behavior a gerund needs before it is worth an entry as a noun. Forming a plural, preferably in an English work, I had always thought was sufficient. Merely serving as a subject of a verb or an object of a verb or a preposition doesn't seem sufficient, nor does being modified by a possessive. Being modified by an adjective or a determiner or an article might be somewhat more stringent, but not prohibitive tests adequate for our purposes. But this is just a naive proposal from an amateur. Perhaps the professionals have thoughts on this. DCDuring TALK 23:41, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Boy. I wish I could think of a way to express the nausea I feel at uses of "remainings" without being unduly presciptive. It seems almost misleading to have it appear without some kind of tag. It appears once in OED (17th century), not at all in COCA, once as an error in BNC, not in Time corpus. Many of the occurrences seem to be in academic writings by what look to be non-natives and sometimes in quotes or italics. I don't doubt that it is attestable. Many of the uses just look like mistakes. DCDuring TALK 00:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

{{rare}}/{{uncommon}}? You could also just explain this in a usage note. It is not prescriptive to say that most native speakers will use an alternative word, if the literature suggests this. Dominic·t 07:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I may need a little inspiration. And also to settle how gerunds are presented. DCDuring TALK 10:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Looking at uses of "remains" suggests that "remain" is sometimes used to mean "remnant" (itself derived from an Anglo-Norman participle), in which use it seems a true noun. Plural use of this as gerund (ie, instance of the "activity" of remaining) is rare.

I also am having trouble finding clear evidence of use as an adjective. For a present participle-like adjective that comes down to graded or comparative use.

If the noun is attestable as I read it, do we need some kind of definition as gerund for contrast or a usage note linking to gerund? DCDuring TALK 10:36, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any clearly gerundial use at all -- all cases of "remainings" seem to be equivalent to one or more of "remainder", "remains", or "remnants". So the only way I would see to mention it would be in a usage note mentioning that this word is not used as a gerund -- but that seems like overkill. -- Visviva 10:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I take it you mean a gerundial sense of the plural. "My steadfastly remaining alert to postings" is a clear example of gerundial use, I think, and shows why my would analyse this as a verb. It is modified by an adverb, not an adjective, and takes the predicate "alert". The ways in which it is noun-like are:

1. that it can function as the subject of a verb or as a complement where one might expect a noun. Some types of clauses and infinitives share this, but are not called nouns.
2. it can be modified by a possessive "my" "DCDuring's". But it cannot be modified by determiners as nouns are.

It seems almost misleading to call an ordinary gerund a noun. Consequently, it seems as if we are better off to put a caution in the usage notes for the Noun (if there is one) or for the Verb/participle than to include a sense line for a gerund under Noun. Frankly, it seems more user friendly to include 3 usage examples under every present participle: progressive, adjectival, gerundive, though that violates our standard practice.

I would agree with this. What I meant to say, I think, is that I couldn't see any usage that was clearly in the nature of a gerundial noun per CGEL. However, I have now found some interesting examples. -- Visviva 11:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, remaining isn't a true adjective: *"very remaining". If we can all tentatively agree, then I would like to take advantage of the attention to make this an illustration of how we might present this more fully than the bare participle entries that we have. DCDuring TALK 19:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

To give folks something to agree to or disagree with, I have added usage examples for the use of the participle to make a progressive form of the verb, as a gerund, and as a participial adjective. I hope that helps users understand why we don't need adjective and noun PoSs to accommodate most usage of "-ing" forms like this. DCDuring TALK 18:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a good model. -- Visviva 11:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

There is an interesting pattern of use found chiefly in archaic and theological writings, with a dash of 19th-century usage among that period's cognoscenti of constipation. It appears to be an uncountable gerundial noun, meeting 3 of the 4 CGEL criteria for nounishness (viz. taking "of", "the", and adjectives). Have added three cites accordingly. -- Visviva 11:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

scrouge

Sense 1: example sentence isn't actually using the word. Sense 2: er, Scrooge? Equinox ◑ 23:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The first sense is in several dictionaries, including the OED, often marked as now a US regionalism. I would also guess that it should be marked dated, if not obsolete. I get that cited soon when I have some time.

"Scrouge" also seems to be a semi-common alternative spelling for the Dickens character, and several sources also state that the first sense was where Dickens got the name "Scrooge" from.[91][92] I am not sure if we will be able to find citations for that spelling being used in the way it is defined here, though. Dominic·t 09:14, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Scrunch is more common in the UK (I don't think we would understand scrouge, though it seems to have been common in the past). There are lots of similar words like scrinch, scringe etc. The example is not of the heading word. Dbfirs 10:04, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems like both sense are for other words, so it looks to me like we'll be deleting both of those anyway, Mglovesfun (talk) 11:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

hourslong

I appreciate the citations, but is this a recent spelling of hours long or just a scanno/typo? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are asking. The word seems like standard English to me, just like monthslong, yearslong, and so on. The words "hours" and "long" have been combined to form an adjective. It might be a typo if the two words were being used in their normal way without a space, like "Such-and0such was two hourslong," but the citations show they aren't being used that way. It would be better if the citations spanned more than a year, but it's clear that this word can be easily attested. Dominic·t 05:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, retracted. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Relent (transitive)

I can't recall any usage I have heard of relent as a transitive verb. Is this an obsolete sense, or have I missed something obvious? Dbfirs 21:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

... (later) ... Sorry, I've found it defined in some dictionaries now, but they all say obsolete, so was I correct in marking it obsolete, or can anyone find any current transitive usages? Dbfirs 21:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

... (and even later) I've added an example that I would consider non-standard in modern UK usage, but is it standard in the USA? Dbfirs 22:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

faire le grand saut

The French idiom: Rfv-sense on "snuff it"... does that literally "to snuff" something out, or "to die"?... If the latter it should say so rather than use euphemisms for idioms. Goldenrowley 06:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It means "to die". It also means "to make a very important decision to change one's life". It may also mean both (to commit suicide). Try to google "faire le grand saut" + "mourir" to find examples. Lmaltier 16:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

RFV sense failed (of "to snuff it"). Per your suggestion above I added it means to "to die"). Goldenrowley 04:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

oograh

Appears to have google hits as a name, but not as an English term, though I admit I was not particularly thorough. - Amgine/^talk 04:01, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Decided to delete; the anon is clearly yanking my chain. - Amgine/^talk 04:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

ex-stepfather

And other similar. An ex-X. SemperBlotto 16:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Did you maybe mean this for RFD? google books:"ex-stepfather" pulls up a few hundred hits. —Ruakh_TALK 17:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you can put ex- in front of thousands of nouns, right? I mean how do "ex-mechanic" and "ex-footballer" do on Google Books? Rfd seems reasonable here. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:42, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, should be at RFD; now that it's here, though, I say to delete.​—msh210℠ 17:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, let's make this an ex-entry. bd2412 T 00:23, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Verily, if I had the capacity, I’d delete this. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Delete if/when moved to RFD. Equinox ◑ 18:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

surface coating

Rfv-sense: IMO, what look like 2 spurious specializations of the real definition: "coating on a surface". You can probably see where I'm going with this. DCDuring TALK 17:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree. All three senses just say that a surface coating is a surface coating. Dbfirs 11:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Move to rfd per both of you. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:39, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

My thought is to give this its month here in case we're missing something, then let the remaining sense go to RfD or be summarily deleted. We might be missing some way the term is used in some specific context, where they might make a distinction, say, between a paint and a coating and/or between a coating applied by a spray which only covers some surfaces and a bath which covers almost everything that is topologically "outside". If no one comes up with support but there actually is such a term, then that won't be the first instance of us not yet having "all¹ words² in³ all⁴ languages⁵". If we can't keep a broad enough population of users to include terms that have entered the lexicon in specialized contexts, then we should stop pretending. DCDuring TALK 14:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

As an employee of a Home Depot paint department, I must say that this actually is a set phrase, which is used to mean specific coatings. However, one could ask whether it means anything that an industry only concerned with certain coatings only refers to those specific coatings in this phrase. In any case, I abstain from putting forth a point of view on the entry's survival. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 03:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

obnounce

Equinox ◑ 10:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

gate crash

The following is from WT:RFD#gate crash

This has a space in. The verb does not. Only two matches on Google Groups, both of which I'd regard as errors, and probably none in Books. Equinox ◑ 12:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

It looks attestable, though not common. Same with gate-crash. How about converting to alternative spelling and marking as "uncommon"" They are likely to be re-entered if deleted, being college-student-y. Keep and/or Move to/treat as RfV. DCDuring TALK 13:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Hummm, I'd go for "misspelling" rather than "alternative spelling", and since we only deal in "common misspellings" then one that's "uncommon" (as you suggest) would not make the cut. It seemed to me not at all common enough to be sincerely called an alternative. Equinox ◑ 02:18, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't see that we have a standard by which it can be called a misspelling. Is it a misspelling if no other dictionary has it as a spelling? We usually interpret it that if another dictionary has it, it must be at least an alternative, believing that other dictionaries are more selective/limited than we are. I've wondered out loud for some time what are standards were for alternative vs. common mis- vs. uncommon mis-spellings were. I don't know that it is worthwhile to bother counting any spellings differing only in space and hyphen as misspellings. We may need them all to get users to the entries they need. "uncommon" seems like a non-prescriptive way of warning people in the absence of a clear accepted standard of what constitutes a misspelling. DCDuring TALK 03:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I suppose so. The rules are awful about this, though. I've long thought that somebody who wanted to make trouble without actually breaking any rule could just add a hundred thousand unacceptable and clearly accidental misspellings by finding the measly three "citations" of each on Usenet. Equinox ◑ 03:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It wouldn't be so bad if we had a lot of these. As long as they directed users to the right place and were marked as uncommon or something similar. DCDuring TALK 10:31, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Now on WT:RFV, continue the discussion here. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

achiel

Looks very suspect. No google hits or anything. -- Prince Kassad 16:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Following the only interwiki, it 'seems' to be Luo for one (the subject pronoun, one can't take anything for granted). Mglovesfun (talk) 17:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Hm, my Luo dictionary knows achiel but translates it as the cardinal number one. -- Prince Kassad 18:13, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

waiting

Rfv-sense: (obsolete) Watching, hence, an ogling. Is this modern English or Middle English? What does OED have to say? DCDuring TALK 17:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The OED has the sense "Watching, observation. Obs." Nothing about ogling, though. -- WikiPedant 19:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Do they give a cite with a date or an author? DCDuring TALK 20:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, three quotations, all well before Shakespeare: 1377, c1430, and 1526. I've emailed more info to you, but don't want to post their full citations, since it feels too much like a (moral, if not legal) copyright violation. -- WikiPedant 20:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

fail

Rfv-sense just added by an anon. = To be unskilled. Sounds bogus to me. -- WikiPedant 18:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

progasm

It's in the Jargon File (which is in the PD), but I'm not seeing sufficient use (on cursory examination).​—msh210℠ 22:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

The Jargon File is full of shit, honestly. It's just a list of words that Eric Raymond and his friends used for a little while. It always distresses me to see people cite it as though it's some kind of respectable dictionary of words anyone actually uses. Equinox ◑ 21:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I've searched, but while there are certainly plenty of mentions with reference to the Jargon File, I don't see any real independent uses. This will probably fail. Dominic·t 06:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

la belle indifference

Plausible. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

428 Google hits for "la belle indifference" in English, although I'm too lazy to cite it myself, for me it passes easily. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Three citations added, so passed. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Nazism

Definition entry for Nazism (Noun): "(Colloquial) Showing a bureaucratic nature, ugliness, etc." (Adjective) Or "(colloquial) Any attitude or ideology that exhibits a bureaucratic nature, ugliness, etc." (Noun version). I find this usage to be nonsense and that it should be deleted. Reasoning found on Nazism talk page, but basically: Nazism is an authoritarian ideology led by a Fuhrer, there is no colloboration between departments in an organization and it is never used or defined this way. --71.187.105.219 22:08, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Added one newsgroup citation. We need two more; something from books would be nice. Equinox ◑ 22:15, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Needs a clean-up at the very least; bureaucratic seems intuitively wrong. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:17, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Goog "What are you? Some kind of Nazi?" - sense implied. - Amgine/^talk 02:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

And just for fun, nazi + bureaucracy, nazi + bureaucrat, nazism + bureaucracy. It appears a *lot* of people associate over-powerful bureaucracies with nazism. Dunno about the ugly part. - Amgine/^talk 02:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that we can rely on implication. That might be good for languages without a big corpus of writings. I have heard some collocations of "nazi" (grammar nazi, gyno-nazi come to mind), but can't recall any of "nazism". DCDuring TALK 02:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

How about any of the 3400+ hits at GB nazism + bureaucracy?

• States and collective action: the European experience By Pierre Birnbaum: "For Pollack, 'Under a totalitarian form of state capitalism the state is the power instrument of a new ruling group, which has resulted from the mergers of the most powerful vested interests, the top ranking personnel in industrial and business management, the higher strata of the state bureaucracy (including the military), and the leading figures of the victorious party's bureaucracy.' Pollack does, it is true, use the notion of totalitarianism in his analysis of Nazism..."
• Stalinism and Nazism: dictatorships in comparison By Ian Kershaw, Moshé Lewin: "And though various regimes (Mussolini, Franco, and post-war Eastern European Communist) have been termed totalitarian, the exemplary cases were Stalinism and Nazism. They were believed to share three characteristics. (1) A revolutionary idology... (2) A party... (3) A bureacracy—a single, centralised, hierarchical state maximised routinised top-down dictatorial control over society. Party and Bureaucracy together generated 'total' power."
• Good and evil after Auschwitz: ethical implications for today, Part 804 By Jack Bemporad, John Pawlikowski, Joseph Sievers: "The wrestling of Nazi bureaucrats with the question of who was finally a Jew is a classic example of the way in which Nazism, with ups and downs, tried to accommodate reality to its predetermined ethical framework."

- Amgine/^talk 05:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

These are all specific references to the Nazi regime in Germany—none of them uses the term in the sense defined above. 3400 hits has nothing to do with it if not even 3 of them support the definition. —Michael Z. 2009-09-01 10:32 z

However, the "some kind of Nazi" references were dismissed because they do not reference Naziism (although how that's possible is beyond me.) So, either a bureaucrat inherently implies bureaucracy, a Nazi inherently implies Naziism, or there is no way to relate that definition to its use and we are removing descriptive senses. Or perhaps I should explain it in small words (it's a literary reference, suggesting I'm frustrated by what appears to be obtuseness, or even overt bureaucracy): Naziism was characterized by its bureaucracy, thus any obstructionist or impersonal bureaucracy is perceived as Naziism or is pejoratively described as Naziism. (Often used ironically, for the slightest provocation, in part to indicate how Naziism has been demonized to excess.) - Amgine/^talk 03:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I won't argue that we're not a bunch of language nazis here.

Sure, arguably the phenomenon of Nazism is characterized by bureaucracy, among other things. Perhaps communism, democracy, and any other ideology espoused by any large governments has been too. This is an encyclopedic question—you're making a statement about the thing (concept).

In lexicography (dictionary-making), we are asking a different question. Does the term “Nazism” mean “exhibiting bureaucracy”. I'd say no. Grammar nazism is being a grammar nazi (3, in the colloquial sense of being authoritative). It is not directly connected to Nazism (1, the 1930s–40s German ideology). Certainly, historians' quotations which say the Nazis depended on their bureaucracy don't prove that people today use nazism to mean bureaucracy. —Michael Z. 2009-09-04 06:17 z

If Wiktionary contains solely current usage, that might be a relevant argument. But it does not. - Amgine/^talk 19:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

But Wiktionary does restrict itself to real usage, current or otherwise, and you've yet to show that anyone in the past used this word this way, either. I don't think it's reasonable to latch onto Michael's one word "today" and pretend that it invalidates his entire argument. —Ruakh_TALK 19:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdenting) Wait, what? the Nazi regime (like other totalitarian regimes) was characterized by its bureaucracy (three citations above.) That is, it is an inextricable element of the Nazi rule. The Nazi regime was the Nazi regime due to its adherence to Nazism. While it might be argued that Nazism might not always lead to a totalitarian government characterized by its bureaucracy, it is unalterably true that it did. Nazism did exhibit bureaucracy. Pejorative comparisons equating bureaucrats with Nazis are based solely on this fact.

On the other hand, I'm through with this topic. - Amgine/^talk 23:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

two-spirit

Native American mixed gender. Someone has deposited a vast amount of research not well formatted. I think that the substantial cleanup effort requires that the definitions be correct and attestable before the translation-table clean up begins. DCDuring TALK 12:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, unfortunately, having been involved in published research on this topic, it's essentially undefinable in English which assumes dichotomous sex and gender. I would propose, but solely based on research among 'aboriginal north american peoples' (itself a disputed concept) three primary definitions in common parlance:

1. Non-heterosexual people, sexual minorities, especially of Aboriginal North American ethnicity.
2. Non-western gender identified; a person whose dichotomous genetic sex is not the same as the person's gender role or presentation. Especially a person of Aboriginal North American ethnicity.
3. (deprecated template usage) Any queer person, especially one embracing a "Native American"-influenced spirituality.

- Amgine/^talk 03:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

gunsel

"A small man carrying a large gun"? Is this the same as the hoodlum sense? Equinox ◑ 20:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Never heard of it. Sounds like someone's idea of a joke. I look forward to the sooner of the arrival of the verification or September 29. DCDuring TALK 22:25, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

PanTheism

Who uses this intercapped spelling of (deprecated template usage) pantheism? Equinox ◑ 21:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I have seen it used, but I can't put my finger on exactly where. It is unfortunately close to impossible to search for variations in internal capitalization with Google (although the hyphenated version with both terms capped is easy enough to come across: [93], [94], [95], [96]; and even a version with a small "p" and capital "T": [97]). There are also instances of "PanDeism", easy to find in Google Groups, which is a closely related word: [98], [99], [100], [101]. Cheers! bd2412 T 00:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

chimo

An editor changed all the "hello" and "goodbye" stuff to "friend", claiming that the former are are a "common misconception". Is this just etymological prescriptivism, or is there basis to it? Which senses are/were actually in English use? —Ruakh_TALK 03:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

rainbow

"Special, enigmatic". Equinox ◑ 00:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

carbon literacy

Not cleaned up or cited since insertion by single contribution user in mid 2008. Needs cites to determine actual meaning-in-use. To support all three senses means 9 cites. Will almost certainly need merger of senses. DCDuring TALK 02:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

bouquinism

bouquin is in French, but bouquinism in English? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• I was just going to delete it - three dodgy Google hits. SemperBlotto 18:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
  • The word bouquiniste for book-seller does exist in French, but I would not be sure concerning bouquinisme, which is much rarer. It's probably a joke, the word is not even correctly written (bouqinism). 86.69.154.232 10:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Hence deleted, Mglovesfun (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009

Star Wars stuff

These need to be attested as English and German words per WT:CFI#Fictional universes. They also need out-of-universe definitions, and the Star Wars restricted-use label should be removed. —Michael Z. 2009-09-01 11:29 z

See also #Vader, WT:RFDO#Template:Star Wars. —Michael Z. 2009-09-01 11:45 z

Good to see the citations being added below. We'd prefer to see attributive or generic uses, rather than specific mentions of characters. See for example the distinction in Citations:Princess Leia, and Han Solo. —Michael Z. 2009-09-02 13:34 z

droid

I think the definition is wrong; it's an intelligent robot period, not just from the Star Wars universe. Lucas may have coined the term (as an abbreviation for android, which is definition #2), but it has come to mean the thing wherever encountered.

• 2005, John L. Kundert-Gibbs, Dariush Derakhshani, Maya Secrets of the Pros, p. 96:

  For a quick venture into ambient occlusion, we'll render a CGI robot droid in several passes and composite them back together in Photoshop to show the flexibility of ambient occlusion as well as rendering in layers for different lighting passes.

• 1995, J. D. Robb, Glory in Death, p. 39:

  The bartender was a droid, as most were, but she doubted this one had been programmed to listen cheerfully to customers' hard luck stories.

• 1985, R. A. Montgomery, War with the Evil Power Master, p. 92:

  The droid nods in agreement and begins to arm the ship's defensive weapons.

• 1981, Paul Friedman, Computer programs in BASIC, p. 37:

  Each droid can move one square at a time. The computer and you each "own" a droid, but each of you can control the other's droid if you so desire.

Cheers! bd2412 T 03:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Jabba the Hutt

Easily attestable; here's one:

• 2009, Theresa Rebeck, Three Girls and Their Brother‎, page 267

  "I think she looks like Jabba the Hutt. I've been calling her Jabba the Hutt in my head. Don't you think she looks like Jabba the Hutt, or some science project, some science project gone hideously awry, in that green dress?"

Not really. This is simply a direct reference to the character in the movie. “She looks like Scarlett O'Hara” wouldn't show that that characters name is part of the English language either. Please see WT:CFI#Names of specific entities for an explanation. —Michael Z. 2009-09-03 01:25 z

I disagree. The comparison here depends on a particular attribute rather than a general physical resemblance. It thus assumed that the reader is aware of the Star Wars character and ties a specific physical attribute to that character above all others. The comparison is not made for lack of legs, vertically-slitted pupils, or the presence of a lengthy tail. Only the obesity of the character is intended, as there is a single attribute associated here with the charatcer. It's the same as calling someone "like Florence Nightingale", whose name implies an attribute of compassion and service to those in need of medical aid. --EncycloPetey 04:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Then perhaps the excerpt is missing important context, because I don't see any physical attribute of comparison mentioned here—not Jabba the Hutt's size, his ugliness, his obesity, or his lack of neck, for example. In fact it exactly depends on the unspecified, general mention of resemblence alone (unless I missed the Star Wars movie where Jabba wears a green dress...). —Michael Z. 2009-09-03 13:31 z

Yes, Jabba the Hutt is partly green, but I don't see him described as green (e.g. in w:Jabba the Hutt or in Wookieepedia). Wearing a green dress doesn't make someone akin to Jabba in any way, and something else or something more is implied—if the “she” in the citation were a thin, pretty woman, then this would make no sense. The author implies only general unattractive appearance, and hedges her bets by throwing in the science project comparison. —Michael Z. 2009-09-03 14:34 z

As I recollect, we haven't been accepting quotes where the challenged Proper noun was used in a simile. The cite above uses the word "like" twice. The other use looks more like a mention. DCDuring TALK 23:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't recollect any such restriction. CFI certainly says nothing, as it only gives one positive reason for inclusion. It doesn't restrict the use of other rationale. --EncycloPetey 00:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think accepting similes is going to have good consequences. DCDuring TALK 03:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I've now added attributive use quotes for "Jabba the Hutt torso", "Jabba the Hutt voice", and "Jabba the Hutt moment". And.... ooH! I find a cite for (deprecated template usage) non-Jabba-esque. --EncycloPetey 04:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

That's looking a lot better. Some of the quotations might be using some a fictional character's specific nickname, which arguably wouldn't qualify as an English-language use, but I think this and a few of the other entries are looking more like keep than delete to me now. —Michael Z. 2009-09-08 05:31 z

Jedi

Easily attestable; here's one:

• 2008, Gary Berntsen, Ralph Pezzullo, The Walk-In‎, page 222

  Lescher launched into another assault, "The president and I still can't fathom how you could let a man like Freed disappear and then present his findings at the eleventh hour like he's some kind of Jedi warrior back from—"

Aren't citations for "Jedi master" and "Jedi mind trick" necessarily also supportive of the word, Jedi? bd2412 T 15:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily—English Jedi mind trick jocularly describes “magically” persuading someone: if it is an English term with a life outside of Star Wars, then that implies that it is probably used by people who are not Jedis. Another way to look at it, by example: English coup d'état doesn't make état an English word. —Michael Z. 2009-09-08 16:32 z

I don't see how the example is comparable, since "Jedi" does not originate in any language other than English. Otherwise, the same could be said of the phrase "Jedi warrior" in the citation above, and Jedi would be excluded from inclusion simply because it can be used as an adjective. bd2412 T 16:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The question is whether Jedi is a word in English according to our criteria, no matter where it originated. If Jedi mind trick is idiomatic, then Jedi would have to be attested separately. It's possible for either one or both of these (or neither) to meet our criteria, so it would save a bunch of haggling if both were attested independently. —Michael Z. 2009-09-08 17:49 z

Jedi Master

Easily attestable; here's one:

• 2007, D. J. MacHale, The Lost City of Faar‎, page 3

  It's like he's some kind of Jedi master who only drips out information on a need-to-know basis. Well, I need to know bad. — This comment was unsigned.

Do we call this attributive use? Jedi master and Jedi Master are each three cites short. DCDuring TALK 02:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Now each two short. DCDuring TALK 13:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a specific entity or proper noun, so this doesn't depend on attributive uses, although we should have at least three solid examples which are independent of Star Wars (as in, scan the reference to ensure it doesn't explain the term or refer to Star Wars at all). I wouldn't separate the capitalizations, though—they are just variants of the same term. —Michael Z. 2009-09-08 16:36 z

Jedi mind trick

Easily attestable; here's one:

• 2005, Lou Schuler, Alwyn Cosgrove , The New Rules of Lifting: Six Basic Moves for Maximum Muscle‎, page 205

  I've met personal trainers who were phenominally good at figuring out their clients' starting wieghts […] Maybe it's some kind of Jedi mind trick. But unless you have one of those trainers, you have to figure it out on your own. — This comment was unsigned.

Entry needs three more cites than it has. DCDuring TALK 02:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it needs two more cites. It already has one, and only three are required. --EncycloPetey 04:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

There were none in the entry when I made the remark. I don't understand why this page is ever used as a quote repository. It is one of the bulkiest pages we have. It does not need to be cited; the entries do. DCDuring TALK 23:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Now has three cites. --EncycloPetey 05:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

sith lord

Bad caps: the Sith are a race, and as a title this is usually written Sith Lord. Equinox ◑ 23:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Whichever form, but please capitalize by attested usage, not Star Warsy facts like this representing a race. —Michael Z. 2009-09-08 17:52 z

stormtrooper

I don't think "stormtrooper" is particularly a Star Wars word, at least any more than, say, "hyperspace" or "blaster". bd2412 T 01:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

In the challenged sense it looks like it is. DCDuring TALK 01:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm - "Imperial Stormtrooper", on the other hand...

• 2002, Christopher Brookmyre, Country of the Blind, p. 87:

  The young policeman had given up on playing the Imperial Stormtrooper and had sat down, loosening the strap on his semi-automatic so that it lay across his lap under the dismal tabloid.

• 2003, Paul McAuley, Whole Wide World, p. 66:

  The security guards in Imperial Stormtrooper body armour, better armed than any police, were not much impressed by my warrant card...

• 1999, Arthur Charles Clarke, Michael P. Kube-McDowell, The Trigger, p. 431:

  ... the young man with the short black hair and what looked like an Imperial stormtrooper’s utility belt under his black-and-red flannel shirt.

• 1997, Gerrie Lim, Inside the outsider: a decade of shooting the pop culture breeeze, p. 31:

  There'll be a little bit of the Imperial Stormtrooper thing with the boombox, along with a little bit of casual fingerpicking.

Cheers! bd2412 T 04:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

stormtrooper Imperial Stormtrooper and Imperial stormtrooper entries are all 3 cites short. DCDuring TALK 02:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

The above three cites suffice for Imperial Stormtrooper, which I would submit is the only one of the three to actually originate in Star Wars. bd2412 T 04:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Tatooine planet

This may be of interest : w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tatooine planet

It appears to be a term coined by one of the discoverers of a triple-sun planet, and not used by other people. 76.66.196.139 08:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Wookiee

This one should be easy. Here's a starter:

• 2009, Janet Evanovich, Plum Spooky‎, p. 98:

  I backed it out to the dirt road, and the door to the double-wide opened and a big guy, more Wookiee than human being, filled the doorway.

Cheers! bd2412 T 01:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

This should wrap it up:

• 2007, Lisa Lawrence, Strip Poker‎, p. 231:

  I'm not supposed to have these kinds of tools, and you should go blame Steve, a tall, bearded shoe-repair and key- cutting guy who looks like a Wookiee and who taught me this stuff at his shop in Stanmore.

• 1989, Gene DeWeese, Black Suits from Outer Space, p. 107:

  So I pretty much repeated what Kathy and I'd told Hostetler, only I said the thing looked more like a Wookiee than a bear, and by that time Dad was home, and he wanted to hear about it.

• 1985, Stephen King, Peter Straub, The Talisman‎, p. 341:

  What's this guy trying to disappear behind you, a Wookiee?

Cheers more! bd2412 T 02:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

We haven't been accepting similes, I don't think. If so, 2009, 2007, and 1989 wouldn't qualify. If not, I've been rejecting many citations unnecessarily. DCDuring TALK 23:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added the 1985 and 2009 quotes as well as another attributive use I found to the entry. --EncycloPetey 05:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The 1989 quote is not a simile. "Joe looks like a Wookiee" is a simile because it is suggesting that Joe, a human being, has some Wookiee-like characteristics (large and hairy, most likely). A "thing" (i.e. a beast briefly glimpsed in the woods) said to look like a Wookiee or a bear probably does in fact look like a Wookiee, and it is no more a simile to say that it looks like a Wookiee than to say that it looks like a bear. bd2412 T 05:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

DCD, why wouldn't we accept similies? This isn't a proper noun. --EncycloPetey 01:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yoda

Easily attestable; here's one:

• 2006, Briton Hadden, Henry Robinson Luce, Time‎

  It wasn't uncommon to see therapists gazing at him between presentations as though he were Yoda.

As with Jabba the Hutt above, this is a mention of the specific (fictional) person, not an example of Yoda becoming a word in the language. Doesn't help for inclusion. —Michael Z. 2009-09-03 01:25 z

You have questioned the fictional character sense in the entry. I provided a quotation outside the Star Wars universe, so it meets the request you posted. The quote assumes that the reader is familiar with the connotation of the character and his attributes, so it does qualify. --EncycloPetey 04:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is with the definition. The Star Wars content may be better in the etymology with the actual definition covering the meaning it has in the three attributive-use cites once there are enough to infer the meaning. DCDuring TALK 10:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

EP, I have asked for verification, based on our CFI. Please don't assume that I would want anything else. I don't see any evidence in the content of this quotation, or in, say, an overwhelming volume of similar quotations, indicating that this is any more than a pop-culture reference aimed at readers who have seen a Star Wars movie. It's possible that this quotation might support a body of cites, but alone it doesn't look helpful to me.

DCD, yes I think some of these definitions may change based on the attestations found, as in how I amended Han Solo. —Michael Z. 2009-09-03 13:44 z

• 2008, Cecelia Ahern, There's No Place Like Here, p. 41:

  I expected Mr. Burton to be a wise old man with a head of wild gray hair, a monocle in one eye, a waistcoat with a pocket watch attached by a chain, a brain exploding with knowledge after years of extensive research into the human mind. I expected Yoda of the Western world, cloaked in wisdom, who spoke in riddles and tried to convince me that the Force in me was strong.

• bd2412 T 03:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that EP's example doesn't cut the mustard. By that token, we should have an entry for Marilyn Monroe because there are equally plenty of texts that refer to Monroe and expect the reader to know who she is. Equinox ◑ 20:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

It would be interesting to cite a Marilyn Monroe. It might be possible if there are enough accessible works from 1955 to 1975. Please take a look at Citations:Yoda. Two seem like use of noun in attributive position. The other is an out of context use as a noun that uses him as an exemplar of wisdom. DCDuring TALK 23:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

“Yoda doll” and “Yoda mask” are direct pop-culture references to the character, and probably don't belong here at all. The other's look not bad, assuming the context doesn't explain who Yoda is. The mouse example may be using the name in a different sense than the others, for something small and old, rather than a sage. —Michael Z. 2009-09-08 17:57 z

We now have citations for Yoda that appear to be a common noun meaning "wise overseer" (the Yoda of the operation) and "long-lived dwarf" (the Yoda of rodents). --EncycloPetey 22:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

ideo locator

Really? The Weekly World News seems to think so, but there must be better sources in the world. Equinox ◑ 18:36, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Yoshi

Rfv-sense:"A green dinosaur character from some Nintendo games, agile and long-tongued, often companion to Mario. Created by Shigefumi Hino and introduced in Super Mario World". All of the citations directly refer to the character itself. --Yair rand 20:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

How can they not refer to the character, since that's the definition? Equinox ◑ 20:52, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, what I meant was that all of the cites refer to the character within the Nintendo games, as opposed to any use independant of reference to the video games. --Yair rand 22:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete definition #2 as per Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Fictional universes, unless some outside-universe citations can be found. Korodzik 04:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 17:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

fast food outplacement

Does this actually mean anything? If so, shouldn't it be (deprecated template usage) fast-food outplacement? SemperBlotto 21:14, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

To me this looks like an RfD candidate, (deprecated template usage) fast-food + (deprecated template usage) outplacement, if those are attestable senses of "fast food". DCDuring TALK 02:24, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

See cited sense of fast food. DCDuring TALK 02:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

WT

Considering that this is essentially only used on Wikimedia projects, I doubt it can be attested for the purposes of an entry in the actual dictionary (as opposed to the glossary). Dominic·t 04:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

-zygous

Rfv-sense: "Having a specified zygotic constitution". I've almost never seen this term applied to a zygote itself. Mature diploid organisms, cells, nuclei, etc. can all be homozygous or heterozygous for a specific genetic locus. --EncycloPetey 04:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

front

Rfv-sense: "To act in a haughty manner, especially as a pretence." Maybe I've been staring at this page for too long, but I don't get it. Ƿidsiþ 12:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't this like the hip-hop sense? Listen to some Dr. Dre or Snoop Dogg and I think this might be in there. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a featured word of the "chorus" in the (ick) Britney Spears song Womanizer: "Boy, don't try to front, I, I know just, just what you are, are, are." Translated (and piratical stuttering removed), it means: "Don't put on airs, pretending you're something you're not, because I see through your pretense." --EncycloPetey 04:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've been waiting a long time to cite Britney Spears in an entry. Although I guess she probably didn't write it herself. Ƿidsiþ 05:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

center of excellence

Seems a bit encyclopedic, but still I think it meets CFI if it's a genuine field-specific business term. Otherwise it's more of a center of excellence, isn't it? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

ahead of time

[[ahead of]] + [[time]] = early. DCDuring TALK 16:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I assume you are asking if it's a SOP? (This should maybe go to RfD instead.) This seems somewhat idiomatic to me, since, taken literally, "ahead of" + "time" sounds like it should mean the same thing as what we mean when we say "before time." I'm not quite sure, though; I'd lean towards keeping it. Dominic·t 07:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, it should be at RfD if anywhere. It might be one that we keep on Pawley's we call it X, they call it Y principle. I think I'll take it to TR. DCDuring TALK 10:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

bavaroise

I think, this should be bavarois. IS this a misspelling? bavarois has only one definition of a pudding - maybe a bavarois is different than a bavaroise, or the user was mistaken. Etymology is claimed to be German, but bavaroise#French is not German, it is a French word. --Rising Sun 19:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Well I think (tbc) that Bavarie is the French for the German region Bavaria), but that's a bit like saying Naples is an Italian word because it's a place in Italy. I guess we are disputing the English senses, here, not the French as well. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Bavière actually, I'll correct it. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

In English these could be expected to refer to be the names of prepared foods. A quick review of bgc leads me to suspect that both bavaroise and bavarois would warrant an entry. I will leave it those who could eat such things the pleasure of citing them. DCDuring TALK 20:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

phoneshot

Seems reasonable, but no proper hits on Google books. Is it a protologism? SemperBlotto 21:55, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Transwiki:Wampumannaz

I did find and add one reference that makes me think its a compound word, but the reference is not really defining it, and I found nothing substantial (outside of Wiktionary derivatives). Goldenrowley 04:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted RFV failed. Goldenrowley 04:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Daivajna

Reference is to a Sanskrit dictionary. Definitions also seem to be of a Sanskrit nature. Obviously the Sanskrit entry should be (only) at its proper written form, not a transliteration. Any evidence that this is used in English? With any/all of these meanings? -- Visviva 02:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Move to दैवज्ञ as suggested by the article itself. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Transwiki:Nae Nowts

Google books makes mee think nae... nae... Goldenrowley 03:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted RFV failed. Goldenrowley 04:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

acronimologo

This word should exist in Italian, but I don't believe it does. --Rising Sun 11:44, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've added a quote - but it's from a .pdf and I don't know how to wikilink to it properly. SemperBlotto 07:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

email

Rfv-etymology/senses related to émail. I can find no attestations of such use in English texts on BGC. The only specific hit in English (1883 report) is actually an OCR error for 'small'. (here) Can anyone else find this usage? - Amgine/^talk 18:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I added this in response to a request somewhere. It's in the OED without an accent (cites from 1877 to 1957).

As of June 2009, the OED accepts email (sense 1) without the hyphen. Should we remove the non-standard tag? I still use the hyphen! Dbfirs 19:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

... Sorry, I was looking at an old version of the page. The tag has already been removed. Dbfirs 19:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

redamancy

Only hits on b.g.c are to Elisha Coles' dictionary of difficult words, and to two other sources that cover dictionary words. (Plus a scanno for redundancy.) One source indicates that this and its evil twin (deprecated template usage) redamation can be found in the OED, but I don't have ready access to that and some others here do. For all I know the OED could be citing Coles' as well. Good luck finding it. If you do, could you verify the etymology an IP poster provided. — Carolina wren discussió 22:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Your access is better than you think, at least to the 1st edition. Try here, page numbered 293 (= page 307 of the PDF). Click "Read online" if you don't want to deal with a monstrous file.

Anyway, this is in the OED1 and OED2. However, the only cite is a definition in Glossographia, a 17th-century dictionary by w:Thomas Blount (lexicographer). Absent actual evidence of use, it would not appear to meet our criteria for inclusion, even if it (apparently?) meets the OED's. "Redamation" has only one cite, so it might also face an uphill climb. -- Visviva 07:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

For your linky convenience: [102]. :-) (I know, layout needs some work.) -- Visviva 09:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

management-cybernetics

Every attributive use I can find lacks the hyphen. Equinox ◑ 22:43, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

well done

Means "well cooked" in general but "overcooked" when talking about steak? Seems subjective and debatable. Equinox ◑ 19:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Is the "well cooked" sense UK? I am only familiar with this with respect to meat, mostly red meats. I have added the sense that I know, but without a regional tag, and also the postpositioned adjective because of its archaic grammar (position). DCDuring TALK 20:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

1958 (George W Hodges, Swamp Angel): "When both 'possum and potatoes were well done, they were ready for the table." I doubt any typical BrE text would talk about possums, so it's probably not British-only. Equinox ◑ 19:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Only rare people think that well done means overcooked. Shouldn't we combine all these senses into one line?

A bgc search for "well done" +cook brings up dozens of usages from around the world.

I suggest we combine senses 2, 3 & 4 into one line reading (cooking) Thoroughly cooked; cooked through to the centre center, sometimes to the point of overcooking. Dbfirs 16:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to see if there is any clear support for the two challenged senses, such as what Equinox has found. If not, then we can consider combining them, though I would challenge any definition that included "overcooked" without support. In the end any element of a definition should be supportable by three quotes, IMO. The best way to minimize the need for attestation is to generalize the sense, eliminating unsupportable elements altogether. When I express this demanding standard, I wonder how we will ever get enough contributors to attest to what ought to be attested to. DCDuring TALK 18:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think they are separate senses. Perhaps the overcooking overtone is just an example of meiosis?

1829 (Louis Eustache Ude, The French Cook): "White beans must be well done before you dress them ..." and "Let the onions be well done."

1902 (Lida Seely, Mrs. Seely's cook book: a manual of French and American cookery ...): "Boil rice, well done, in a rice boiler"

Will these suffice? I would have suggested a dated tag for non-meat cooking, but the expression is still in use where I live. Dbfirs 19:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

They look good to me. If the application to food in general is, say, {{dated|_|now mostly|_|UK}} for the non-meat usage, then that is what would warrant an additional sense, I think.

I had a touch of meiosis once, but a quick visit to the field surgery and I was right as rain. DCDuring TALK 20:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

prancing

Present participles can always be used as adjectives. I there need for a separate section? H. (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

cited, IMO. It meets our standard for inclusion as an adjective (gradable, superlative) though there is no change of meaning from the participle and it seems uncommon and dated. No other OneLook dictionary presents it as an adjective. Until we change our presentation of such terms generally it would seem that we would want a separate section. DCDuring TALK 15:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Note also that not all present participles in English can be used as adjectives. Examples of such participles include (deprecated template usage) being, (deprecated template usage) having, and (deprecated template usage) becoming (at least not with any meaning obviously connected to the verb senses). The present participles of phrasal verbs also cannot be used as adjectives. --EncycloPetey 00:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

ownshack

Supposedly "an idiot, normally female", from Irish óinseach. Equinox ◑ 19:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't cite this is any language. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

IFOL

Internet slang: "in fits of laughter". Equinox ◑ 19:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

blag

"Template:internet slang To brag on one’s blog." Equinox ◑ 19:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

• XKCD 148, 181, 124, 442, and especially 239, oh and....

  Wait, you were probably asking that seriously, weren't you? - Amgine/^talk 04:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't stand xkcd. Yes, I wondered whether this (deprecated template usage) blag meets CFI or not. Equinox ◑ 20:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

• blog-blag-brag An interesting etym for the phrase, follow the link.
• How to blag your way into homosexuality?: completely strange usage, follows no historical pattern I've ever heard.
• a blag: a blog brag: Title and example of a classic blag.
• Brag Blog Entry: an ironic outline of a classic blag.
• Fender's BLAG: again, a premeditated blag.

I should probably have looked for durably archived examples, but this seemed sillier/more descriptive. - Amgine/^talk 03:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't have too much luck with finding attestation. Lots of scannos for blog, some possible other meanings, including a UK slang term. DCDuring TALK 03:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 17:13, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

præfaceth

Meseemeth this form of ye verb æxisteth not. Equinox ◑ 01:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed the OED doesn't seem to have a citation for "praefaceth" and but one 17th century citation for any form of "praeface". In contrast, they have 274 citations of forms of "preface", including 2 of "prefaceth" in the 17th century. The spelling seems to have been used for the noun during the revival of interest in the classics starting in the 17th century and to have little modern use. It would be an odd spelling in any other context since the English word (deprecated template usage) preface derives from the Old French (deprecated template usage) preface, which derived from ML. (deprecated template usage) prefatio. One must go back closer to classical Latin to find the prae- spelling. DCDuring TALK 02:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 17:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Amerimanga

Plausible. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks attestable; I'll do it later if nobody else has. Note I have moved it to the capitalised version, which seems commoner. Equinox ◑ 12:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Cited. Equinox ◑ 02:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Struck out. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

catechistly

We only have catechist as a noun, so something's not right here. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. There's no evidence whatsoever on the Web, and I don't buy it being a neologism. Equinox ◑ 01:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

phœnomenon

phœnomena

These spellings are etymologically inconsistent; let’s see if they’re actually used. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems they are valid archaic spellings. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, it seems they it exists (not that they’re valid by dint thereof). The following can explain why I doubted it, however:

1. ¹¹⁄₃₀ of the first hits for "phœnomenon" are scannos for (deprecated template usage) phænomenon: [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109], [110], [111], [112], [113] — many more are inaccessible, in another language, or are in some other way erroneous.
2. ⁴⁄₃₀ of the first hits for "phœnomena" are scannos for (deprecated template usage) phænomena: [114], [115], [116], [117] — the caveat attached to *(deprecated template usage) phœnomena also applies here; moreover, I didn’t find any undoubtedly verifiable instances of *(deprecated template usage) phœnomena in the first thirty hits, so I maintain my request for the verification of the plural form.

Heaven only knows why this error occurs (at least in the singular); still less explicable would be if only the singular saw such use, and the plural were unattestable. Quotations with links to visible scans of the source texts’ pages, please. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've cited phœnomenon, can someone copyedit that for me, please? Mglovesfun (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I’ve done what I can; please check them to make sure what I’ve done is correct. (I didn’t know how to present the one that looks like it was written in 1785.) No offence, but these citations are of a very poor quality; they need page numbers, links, &c. — see WT:QUOTE. Please fix in them what I cannot.

I’ve written usage notes for (deprecated template usage) phenomenon that explain the situation with these spellings and with the term’s plural use. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 14:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

verlopen

RfV-sense for the “to commit suicide” sense of this Dutch verb, per Mallerd. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 20:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

idontno/find it['d pp be i/def-line?luks awkwed..--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 10:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

ikr

Internet slang: "I know, right". Equinox ◑ 01:13, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

oojie-boojie

A baby noise. Equinox ◑ 01:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Google gets 31 hits for this' about half of those are not English and this sense isn't even the most common one - oojie-boojie to mean "nonsense, rubbish" seems more common, but even that just seems like a made-up-on-the-spot sort of word. No durable cites of any kind in any language. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 17:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

net-tario

Ding dong, the link in the entry is dead. And I can't find it anywhere else. Equinox ◑ 01:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The existence of nettario in Italian doesn't help, but I too am stuck on zero cites. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 17:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

normopraxis

This phrase (more commonly normo-praxis) does not seem to be English, only two uses I could find. It does appear in Spanish, Portuguese, and French use, but extremely rarely. I can't find a solid attest to meaning, but probably "best practice, good practice" of health care. - Amgine/^talk 01:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, zero English hits on Google Books. FWIW, this is an etymological hybrid of (deprecated template usage) [etyl] Latin (deprecated template usage) nōrma + (deprecated template usage) [etyl] Ancient Greek (deprecated template usage) , so that and the fact that there exist perfectly suitable alternatives in (deprecated template usage) orthopraxy and (deprecated template usage) orthopraxis (both deriving from (deprecated template usage) [etyl] Ancient Greek (deprecated template usage) + (deprecated template usage) ), probably explain why this term is virtually unused in English. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 03:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

intermud

Appropriate capitalisation? Trademark or proper noun? User also created I2, IMC3, IMUD2, IMC3, Intermud-3, I3. Equinox ◑ 04:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

groak

Can anyone an instance of actual use of this word? (not just in lists of words, etc) DGRJI 04:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Zero, it seems to only appear in online dictionaries, which makes me think it's a joke. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I see someone found a usage, but Google Scholar also gets zero for this. 702 hits, all of them refer to people called Groak or Groák. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

If even the God Google doesn't know this word... It clearly is a joke, in my opinion. --Actarus ^{(Prince d'Euphor)} 09:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, WordNet is more than your average online dictionary; on the other hand, the entry seems to not be very well proofread, so who knows. There is another cite besides the one I added, but it is partially hidden by snippet view: "Stop groaking at me with your goo-goo […] " [118]. The next word in the sentence is apparently not "eyes", nor anything else I can readily think of. Likewise, the word itself is obscured here, but it seems unlikely to be a scanno: " […] fused into the sea, and the fish groaked at the window like curious hungry urchins." [119] That would make three bona-fide uses, if these could be satisfactorily verified. -- Visviva 10:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Books and Scholar also get nothing for groaks, groaked and groaking. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

zodiac

Rfv-sense: of the 13 constellations of the ecliptic. Do astronomers use this sense, or do they normally use the 12-constellation sense (despite knowing about the extra constellation) that the rest of the population is familiar with? --EncycloPetey 05:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

B.g.c turns up hundreds of hits for the search: Ophiuchus thirteen zodiac. A slight majority of the references appear to be for astrology uses, with the rest being aimed at amateur astronomers or false positives. — Carolina wren discussió 05:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Several of the hits are actually astronomy-related sites using it as a way of "disproving" astrology, in fact. I imagine scientists don't have much need to reference the ecliptic and the constellations at the same time, but when they do, they'd mention the 13th. Also, what does "B.g.c" mean? 69.182.67.82 07:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

b.g.c is books.google.com --Dmol 07:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I see. The constellation was also known as "Serpentarius" back in the day, if that aids in the search. 69.182.67.82 17:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else? I think it's been verified. (I'm the above IP) 69.177.201.49 01:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

giant tortoise

Is this an official name or just a [[giant]] [[tortoise]]. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it is an "official" name (like African elephant), so I've tidied the entry a bit (but it needs more). Dbfirs 20:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for edit conflict. Feel free to merge or delete the two senses now there. DCDuring TALK 20:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for improving the entry. (I should have said like miniature poodle rather than African elephant). Dbfirs 21:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks good to me, struck out. Mglovesfun (talk) 06:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

deshopper

Looks like a protologism that didn't catch on. Equinox ◑ 00:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

69 Google hits for this, only one of them actually uses it in a sentence rather than just a definition. And that's not a durably archived source, so yet again, I'm stuck on zero. Mglovesfun (talk) 06:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Added 3. They weren't very hard to find (Google Scholar + news archives turned up plenty), but usage does seem to be restricted to British market research and occasional UK news stories. -- Visviva 07:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, done. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

klawchi

Even if this is used in English, I'd be surprised if the plural really is klawchiyya. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

fangoriously

The sense "Done with fangs." - none of the citations really attest it.

Furthermore! All citations seem to be references to the Strong Bad e-mail (complete with the word "gelatinous"); furthermore, one citation seems to note the word as simply one in a nonsensical stream-of-consciousness, and the other citation comes from a dead URL. All in all, a very doubtful word.

(Also a note: the [Homestar Runner Wiki] notes that there is a horror magazine, Fangoria, and the word in the original Strong Bad e-mail might have been coined as a reference to it. )

Korodzik 19:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

For the reasons given, this definitely needs better citations if we are to keep it; and I doubt that they are to be found. Equinox ◑ 19:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

2/3 citations given are not durably archived. The Yale Herald citation, if in print and retained at a Yale University library, may be considered such. DCDuring TALK 18:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I just added another citation from the academic Journal of Childrens Literature. I believe this is published by the Childrens Literature Assembly and Yale University. (That specific article is in turn cited by one in The Lion and the Unicorn, from John Hopkins University.) However the context only indicates the word to be "horrifying". Leki 18:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This is still a rather useless citation, since it only quotes the original Strong Bad Email, so it just mentions the word rather than using it. Korodzik 06:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey Korodzik. I removed the RFD tag (it seems you opened both nominations under the same terms) to avoid duplicate discussions and confusion. Once the RFV is over, feel free to add the RFD tag back. Leki 18:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well has this been cited or not? I'd say no, so fail but I don't feel sure enough to delete it myself. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 17:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

philerast

I doubt that this spelling is attestable. There is one citation c. 1920s, however, so the same publisher might have used this in other works. DCDuring TALK 23:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Plato’s Symposium is a well-known work, so this term is verified according to the second criterion for inclusion, as I noted when I created the entry. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 00:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

But not necessarily any individual translation/type-setting. DCDuring TALK 01:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

How else could it apply? Anglophones read The Republic, not Template:polytonic. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 01:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Doremítzwr is not without precedent in making this claim, as others have claimed "well known work" status from translations of well known works (see the rfv discussion of this entry). Quite frankly, until that particular unit of CFI is clarified, I think his argument stands. However, I also tend to think that any translation of a well known work should not automatically qualify as a well known work itself, especially regarding something like this. In any case, I do not think this issue is likely to be resolved here. A conclusive BP discussion (and likely a vote as well) on "well known work" vs. "translation of a well known work" is required to settle this. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that this point of typography attestation is an extra remove from the well-known work. It is a particular typesetting of a particular translation. Would any content of the translator's foreword to some edition of Plato be thereby automatically included as from a well-known work. That seems simply preposterous. DCDuring TALK 02:12, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, well, “Would any content of the translator's foreword to some edition of Plato be thereby automatically included as from a well-known work[?]” doesn’t apply, since the quotation in question is part of the Symposium proper. I used Hobbes’ Leviathan, and only the Leviathan, to attest (deprecated template usage) adhære, and I would have to flatly deny that such a thing is preposterous. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:37, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It is a quite analogous situation. The decisions of a book designer or typographer are as far removed from from what made the work well-known as the words of the foreword or the text on the book jacket. This is making a mockery of the concept of a well-known work. Please provide adequate citation for this headword. DCDuring TALK 10:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Another issue which this raises is that of orthographical normalization. In Latin, entries do not have macrons in the entry title. No matter how many times you might find a work quoting a word with a macron in it, it doesn't count for inclusion. Similarly, for Ancient Greek, there are multiple characters for theta (θ and ϑ), among others. Words are only spelled with the first theta, simply because that is the only allowed theta for Ancient Greek words. If we decide that st is not meaningfully different than st, we could decide to simply exclude it in entry titles altogether. Certainly, this is tricky business, but it's something perhaps worth thinking about. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 11:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That sounds like a good way to go, unless someone can show a difference between some ligatured word and the corresponding unligatured one. Hard redirect: we do it for apostrophes and other things.​—msh210℠ 18:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• This entry should if anything be a hard redirect. You can't verify a typesetting artifact, I mean any number of books use (or used to use) the character under discussion, but we don't consider it a separate English letter (unlike æ for instance). It's just a caprice of printers and in my opinion is not an ‘alternative’ spelling at all, just alternative Unicode codepoints used to render the same spelling. Ƿidsiþ 17:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'd go with a redirect too - last time I checked, Plato didn't write in 20th Century English, did he? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I too would be fine with a hard redirect, just so long as the ligated spelling remains listed in the Alternative spellings section of (deprecated template usage) philerast. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know if it is a real representation of the word. I'd like to know if it counts as a word. I'd like to know if typographical variants are worth spending screenspace on. I'd like to know whether these things are in any way attestable in a way compatible with our existing system. I had thought that this was an open-and-shut case of unverifiability. I hadn't realized that it is also fairly open-and-shut on WT:CFI (not a word, just a word representation).

If this one is accepted without attestation or a decision that it is worth including, then it may well be argued that it is a precedent for unattested deviant typography at every headword that contains "ae", "ff", "st", "oe", "ue", "ss", or any of the other character pairs and triplets type designers have spent time on. DCDuring TALK 23:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It is no such precedent; this term is verified. Vertically speaking (which is what matters), retaining it takes no additional screen space. It seems reasonable to treat these like we do the conjugated forms of idioms — shown in the entry but hard-redirected from the actual page back to the lemma. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The term may be verified, but we don't have a policy of "all words in all font and orthographic styles". This is an orthographic variant, and not a different form or different spelling. This should be a hard redirect, or preferrably deleted. --EncycloPetey 04:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not even an orthographic variant, it's a typographic variant. We definitely shouldn't be using such ligatures to create separate entries; I certainly hope that fish and flat turn out to be red links when I hit "Show preview", and if not, I certainly hope that they're redirects and not separate entries. Angr 10:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it seems like everyone except for Doremítzwr is down with not treating this as a separate word. If so, we really ought to write up a policy, and define which orthographic/typographic variants are considered illegal (I know, I know, this sounds so evil, as if such a list should go on the same shelf as a banned books list or something). We should figure out exactly which Unicode characters we don't accept, and if it applies to all languages, or just English. There are a lot of languages which use the Latin script, and some variants might be meaningless in some languages, but meaningless in others. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 11:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

No, as I said, I’m fine with hard-redirection, just not with deletion. There is at least one very important reason why we should not ban certain Unicode characters: On the Internet, efficient users are wont to copy-and-paste words whencesoever into search engines such as ours; such words may contain typographical ligatures such as (deprecated template usage) and (deprecated template usage) . If we don’t have the redirects in place, their searches will not return hits; the fact that, in many of the fonts that support them, these typographical ligatures look virtually identical with their unligated equivalent digraphs and trigraphs means that a user is quite likely not to think of going through the search term substituting them with their permitted character combinations. Of course, this is only an issue if the term exists in use with that ligated spelling, so to avoid clouds of redirects (which you’ve warned against in the past), even those hard-redirect entries would need to be attested. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it definitely matters which language we're talking about! I don't think we should be using "æ" for Latin or Modern English, but we should certainly use it for Norwegian, Danish, and Old English. Likewise, despite the Modern Irish penchant for dotless lowercase i's in signage (see for example File:Gaeltacht Donegal cropped.jpg), we shouldn't use "ı" for Irish, though of course we should use it for Turkish and Azeri. Angr 12:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry; let me know if I understood you properly: Do you propose that we delete or hard-redirect English entries spelt with (deprecated template usage) æ or (deprecated template usage) œ? You mention Danish; note that there are a number of (deprecated template usage) præ–initial terms in English that are homographic with Danish terms. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

And so we come back to the reason why hard redirects are seldom feasible on Wiktionary... I'm inclined to think that we cannot hard-redirect any ligatures that are potentially significant in some language. On the other hand, are there any languages where the st, fi, ffi, &c. ligatures are distinct from the separate letters? If not, I would favor hard-redirecting those (especially given Adobe's penchant for adding the fi, ffi, etc. ligatures to PDF files).-- Visviva 02:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

AFAIK, none of the ligatures I have listed in “Useful symbols yet to be added to MediaWiki:Edittools” > “Latin / Roman” signify any different semantic meaning from their digraphic or trigraphic equivalents (I may be wrong about the four (deprecated template usage) [etyl]  ligatures). This is certainly not the case for the English ligatures (deprecated template usage) Æ, (deprecated template usage) Œ, (deprecated template usage) æ, and (deprecated template usage) œ: They are largely etymological in function, usually deriving from the (deprecated template usage) [etyl] Latin diphthongs (deprecated template usage) ae, (deprecated template usage) oe and/or the (deprecated template usage) [etyl] Ancient Greek diphthongs (deprecated template usage) , (deprecated template usage) ; terms of a different derivation — such as those from (deprecated template usage) [etyl]  roots and Latinate or Græcian ones such as (deprecated template usage) aetheogam and each of the (deprecated template usage) aer–prefixed words — cannot properly be spelt with those ligatures. (Also note the occasional borrowing such as (deprecated template usage) Æsir (from (deprecated template usage) [etyl] Old Norse) that cannot properly be spelt without ligation.)

As for how we deal with the typographical ligatures, indeed “given Adobe’s penchant for adding the fi, ffi, etc. ligatures to PDF files”, I think the proposal I wrote in reply to Atelaes above (timestamped 16:37, 11 September 2009) is simple and perfectly workable. As long as our requirements of attestation apply to them just like any other term, there shouldn’t be any problem. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I think a far better solution would be to teach the equivalencies to the MW software. It already auto-redirects A --> a, when appropriate. Why can't we teach it to auto-redirect st --> st? I would think that this would be a million times easier and more sustainable than creating a billion redirects for every typographic variant. Of course, when legal characters in one language conflict with this in another, we can use {{see}} (e.g. if "st" is allowed in some language, and that language contains the word "philerast", we could have a {{see|philerast}} at the top). -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 13:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I doubt that any of these ligatures (Template:unicode) are “legal” characters in any language, given their inclusion in the “Alphabetic Presentation Forms” Unicode subset. Is teaching such equivalencies possible? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

chek#English

Is this really English? Needs verification. 124.214.131.55 07:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Sizes.com references a 1966 UN compilation of obscure units, gives this unit with the spelling check. Wouldn't be surprising if it is in Hong Kong English, with one or both spellings, but likely not more broadly used. — Carolina wren discussió 07:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

[120] It is legally defined, in English, for the jurisdiction of Hong Kong. 76.66.196.139 07:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

call bullshit

Moved to WT:RFD#call bullshit

Transwiki:Kensington Princesses

I don't see any idiomatic references (I checked Google books). It seems to be just "sum of parts". Goldenrowley 02:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted by Goldenrowley. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

boomerang kid

Heading changed from: boomerang kids.

A more plausibly citable entry from a new editor who has added several protologisms from a particular recent book that coined them. --EncycloPetey 04:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Cited, but I almost wonder if this is SOP: (deprecated template usage) boomerang has the same sense in “boomerang child”, “boomerang generation”, etc. —Ruakh_TALK 14:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

abnodate

Appears to be a dictionary word only. It's in a lot of dictionaries, starting with Blount's Glossographia and continuing through the 1913 Webster's and the OED2... but actual usage is nowhere to be found AFAICT. -- Visviva 13:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I found one supporting quotation, though I’m unsure whether it counts as durably archived. This term will probably fail RfV, but I still reckon it should stay, given its persisting presence in lexicographical works for over 350 years. (I argue that point at length on my talk page.) What a great word; it’d be such a shame to see it go. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite certain that the quotations represent misuse of the word assuming, of course, that the definition is right. They are not about the process of removing knots from trees but of removing branches. I don't see why anyone would remove the knots (assuming, of course, that "knot" is correctly defined in the entry for it) from a trunk of a tree in the forest. The job would require a drill. --Hekaheka 19:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Allow me an argumentum ad etymologiam, if I may. (deprecated template usage) Abnodate derives from the (deprecated template usage) [etyl] Latin noun (deprecated template usage) nōdus, which doesn’t just mean (deprecated template usage) knot (be it one in wood or in a rope); it also means (deprecated template usage) knob, (deprecated template usage) bond, (deprecated template usage) obligation, and (deprecated template usage) sticking point (though these latter three senses are abstract, whilst the former three are concrete, and therefore more likely to apply to the case of abnodating trees). It would be best not to think of knots as such, but of nōdī. Judging from the context in which our two quotations from our single citation appear, I’d say that the uses are consistent with the word’s etymological sense. I’ve seen this process before — the machine processes entire tree trunks, removing all protruding offshoots, smoothing the trunk, more or less, into a cylinder, devoid of lumps, knobs, buds, and knotty extrusions. The recorded uses and the etymology are in accord; if you can think of a better way to express that shared sense in our definition, please suggest one. (The OED’s aren’t necessarily perfect; for example, it defines (deprecated template usage) mactate simply as “to kill or slay”, thus neglecting the central sense that the killing be made in sacrifice.) † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It may very well be that the ancient Romans meant many things with nodus, but that's off the point I made. I'm pointing out that it is unlikely that the quotations and the current definition would describe same kind of activity. The quotations are from an unprofessional English translation of an article written by Russian experts in forestry, presumably originally in Russian. --Hekaheka 22:12, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how the author found the term. Is there a subculture of forest-product engineers who use Latinate terms colloquially, but not in writing? DCDuring TALK 23:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven’t the foggiest; I had to scour the whole of the interwebs to find that one — I ran into an extraordinary number of websites trying to upload spyware to my computer; thank Gawd for AVG is all I’ll say… † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 07:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

My guess would be that it appears in one or more Russian–English dictionaries, which in turn copied it from one of the various authoritative English dictionaries that have copied it from other dictionaries, in what appears to be an unbroken chain going back to the 17th century. -- Visviva 02:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we do our bit to be kind to translators and readers and spike this one? In US logging the term seems to be delimb#Verb. DCDuring TALK 03:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I assume you mean (deprecated template usage) spike in its journalistic sense. (deprecated template usage) Delimb is not listed in any other dictionary according to OneLook; moreover, our sole citation therefor uses it in talking about the amputation of the limbs of statues, not of trees (G.B.S. shows that it is also used in speaking of trees, but it is not a specific term for the pruning of trees’ knots). (deprecated template usage) Abnodate, OTOH, is specifically defined as “to prune or cut away knots from Trees” (that’s the Glossographia’s definition, and that’s what it’s continued to mean since 1656), and this is the meaning carried in the word’s etymology, deriving as it does from the (deprecated template usage) [etyl] Latin noun (deprecated template usage) nōdus; furthermore, its derivations, abnodation, abnodated, and abnodating also exclusively carry that restricted meaning. We wouldn’t be “do[ing] our bit to be kind to translators and readers” by “spik[ing] this one”, since it’s a term that has been accepted as a legitimate word (albeit a seldom-used one) for over 350 years. Whereas (deprecated template usage) delimb is only listed here (AFAICT), (deprecated template usage) abnodate, though rare, can be found in Webster’s and the OED — both highly respected lexicographical authorities; the content of those dictionaries (especially Webster’s), because of that authority, is frequently replicated elsewhere, thereby making it globally-accessible (e.g., vide Dictionary.com). Consequently, authors and translators are fine to use the term, given the ease with which a reader can find a definition for it. Conversely, (deprecated template usage) delimb is defined nowhere and may, I believe, be frowned upon just like (deprecated template usage) debone, (deprecated template usage) deskin, &c. are. (The term’s semantic transparency, admittedly, makes it unlikely that a reader will need to look it up (though it follows from that argument that it is unlikely that it need be defined); it is perhaps precisely because of this semantic transparency that it and many other (deprecated template usage) de–prefixed terms are/would be frowned upon, since for many readers such usage may (rightly or wrongly) imply lazy writing or an impoverished vocabulary.) Please seriously consider the arguments I make in my most recent post here (timestamped 21:33, 10 September 2009). Regards, † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

One can frown all one likes when a linguistically impoverished logger or wood-harvesting equipment engineer or salesman uses the term. I wouldn't recommend correcting them, however. DCDuring TALK 21:57, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

How drôle. Do you care to respond without avoiding properly addressing what I wrote? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This RfV concerns abnodate, which appears unattestable. I'll do my bit for it by using it at the next opportunity. Feel free to propose a change to CFI and to RfV "delimb". DCDuring TALK 23:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. I see no need to RfV (deprecated template usage) delimb — it is clearly attestable and seems correctly defined as it is. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 11:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Look, Doremítzwr, in the nicest possible way, the kind of archaic pseudo-English that you speak isn't the English that 99% of English speakers speak. Equinox ◑ 23:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Equinox, but I don’t see how your point is relevant. (Also, what is there that’s archaic in what I’ve written in this discussion? I’d say that my post timestamped 07:17, 12 September 2009 is the very opposite of archaic…) † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 11:10, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

abnodation

Adding this for the same reasons as above. B.g.c. again turns up no use, but it does turn up this little snippet, in which Murray, editor of the first volumes of the OED, asks the members of the Philological Society to send in any "bona fide uses". Say what you will about the Philological Society, they were some learned motherf***ersgentlemen. If this was the best they could do, then this term ain't rare, and it ain't obsolete -- it just plain ain't. -- Visviva 05:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

doppelganger

"A person who has the same name as another"; "A crooked male erection". Both of these look dubious to me (especially the latter...) Korodzik 18:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

MWOnline has the first sense so it should be possible to cite it. Unsurprisingly the second doesn't seem to be in any OneLook dictionaries or even Urban Dictionary. DCDuring TALK 21:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

aspie

Sense 2: "Name given to people who have another autistic spectrum disorder such as high-functioning autism" — i.e. those who do not have Asperger's. I think this would be (deprecated template usage) autie. Equinox ◑ 23:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, the word was used in the October 2009 issue of Wired magazine to indicate someone with autism or Aspergers. Wired has several articles that use the word, although I haven't checked the word meanings for those. Does that qualify as verification? EvanKroske 18:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Act of Congress

Is this a US idiom? Countable? SemperBlotto 07:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is. It is countable, though I'm not sure I've ever heard it in the plural in the idiomatic sense. I've cleaned it up a bit. I would go so far as to assert widespread use in the US, but it should be fairly easy to cite from fiction where there should be fewer literal uses. DCDuring TALK 11:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The definition still seems a bit off to me. It's not the act of Congress that is particularly slow or difficult, but the thing that takes an act of Congress. I would think the colloquial meaning is closer to "an extraordinary measure relative to one's (usually simple) goal." But this is just from introspection. -- Visviva 11:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I finally noticed that. Take a look. The relative scale notion may be inherent in the colloquial use.

There might be another sense, though I am not so sure that it is idiomatic, of a law as an unstoppable force, especially a deus ex machina.

Cited and moved to act of Congress in accord with citations. DCDuring TALK 11:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks spiffy to me. Should we mention the literal sense in some way? -- Visviva 17:03, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I added an "etymology" and a pedia link to w:Act of Congress. Do you think we need to distinguish it from act of congress, which euphemism or bowdlerization is missing? {;-) DCDuring TALK 18:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

youse

Rfv-synonyms:

all o' ya'z, yiz guys (Philadelphia)

—Ruakh_TALK 13:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't really have a home for characteristic regional pronunciations of typical non-idiomatic phrases, do we? The eye-dialect often may not be attestable and would be highly variable. Should we have "Appendix:English pronunciation Philadelphia" and similar? I'm not be sure how a normal user would find it without something like soundex search, but it seems relevant for us. It seems a big mistake to have a large number of regional pronunciations unhidden under the L3/4 Pronunciation header even if there is a valid corresponding entry for a word or phrase. DCDuring TALK 15:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The phrases all yaz and yiz guys are attested in Google Books. This would lead me to list yaz and yiz as alternate forms of youse, with citations demonstrating actual usage. These are attested spellings in written work, which may convey regional pronunciation, but they are not pronunciations in the sense we use the term. —Michael Z. 2009-09-12 16:47 z

I didn't mean the sequence of letters. I meant the pronunciation that they are evidently intended to represent. I believe we could use some Appendices on geographic and possibly other variations. all yuz and all yaz seem idiomatic because of the funny grammar (or ellipted "of", depending on how you analyze it) and worth entries if attestable. "yiz guys" doesn't seem CFI-idiomatic.

depanelisation

Not seeing this anywhere. Equinox ◑ 19:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Huh, I don't know what happened there. I got no results in my initial searches, but I can now see two Google Groups matches. So maybe we could just about pass it. Equinox ◑ 19:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

patriotism

Rfv-sense: Concern for the common good of one's political community. Not clear that the citations support that sense nor that other citations supporting the sense exist. DCDuring TALK 00:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

floo powder

Moved from WT:RFD#floo powder

"Harry Potter stuff". --Yair rand 05:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, I have given it a better definition, but I don't think the entry is a keeper. Equinox ◑ 17:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Sound like an WT:RFV case to me; if it's cited outside of the fictional universe, blah blah blah. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

curry

moved from WT:RFD#curry

Adjective. Attributive use of noun, I think, though def. is not exact match. DCDuring TALK 00:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• The use of the word curry in the West Indies is different from that in the Indian subcontinent. It always comes before the noun (e.g. curry goat) and seems to be used as an adjective. The dish seems to use different spices (I am not an expert, only having eaten curry goat once (and survived)). SemperBlotto 08:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

That raises the question of a split in the etymology. DCDuring TALK 10:33, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

---

Moved on 11:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC), please look for sources that show this to be an adjective, and not simply a noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought this would be okay, but using the formula "[meat] is curry" using the most common meats I could think of on Google Books gets zero hits. So I guess anyone who wants tro try has 14 days to do so; at least nobody can says that 'nobody even tried to verify it'. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

On Google Scholar, also zero. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:12, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Failed, removed. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Leucas

Qualifying attributive use needed. DCDuring TALK 15:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

grape juice

Rfv-sense: fermented grape juice, ie, wine. I'm not familiar with such a sense. I am familiar with "juice of the grape" in this sense, say, in drunken rants reported in fiction. In what contexts would this occur? DCDuring TALK 23:24, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, it shows up most commonly in Protestant churches, where "grape juice" can mean the wine of the eucharist, or where "wine" can mean the grape juice being served. --EncycloPetey 23:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense as the possible context, but isn't it a case of the liturgy using the word "wine" to refer to grape juice rather than the other way around? The Christian-flavored titles I looked at at b.g.c. (~10) seemed to be using the words as I would have expected rather than as this entry says. DCDuring TALK 00:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I've heard it both ways. --EncycloPetey 00:32, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

lizard

Rfv-sense: "lizard skin". I can only find this sense used attributively, as in "lizard shoes", "lizard boots", "lizard belt"; I cannot find it used on its own to mean a lizard skin. --EncycloPetey 03:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

So, then, are you RFV-ing the lack of a {{context|in attributive use}} sense-label? If so, I think we can dispense with the full-month wait period, and just add the label. :-)   —Ruakh_TALK 02:24, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

That's sounds like a workable solution that I can kick myself for not having thought of. --EncycloPetey 04:18, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems okay, so striking out. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Transwiki:Jersey Slore

Used on the internet and music, but from citable sources? Goldenrowley 04:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC) RFV failed deleted. Goldenrowley 00:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Arctic

There are mixed adjectives and nouns in translations, need to separate. --Anatoli 04:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

{{ttbc}}'d, thanks. —Ruakh_TALK 02:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

evadite

Rfv-sense on both English senses. I found it used once in Google books English, but not in this sense, and it was in italics? Perhaps used more in French. Goldenrowley 01:27, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I've never come across it in French (not good in Scrabble for example). Mglovesfun (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

creepypasta

​—msh210℠ 17:17, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

It exists. Encyclopædia Dramatica has a huge article on the subject, to which I link with the caveat that ED is a troll site with frequently offensive content: http://www.encyclopedia dramatica.com/Creepypasta † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:56, 15 September 2009 (UTC) It turns out that the spam filter prevents me from linking to the article; just delete the space between “encyclopedia” and “dramatica” in the URL I posted.

However, the only CFI-friendly attestation seems to be [121], and it's a very poor one because somebody is mentioning his unfamiliarity with the word. Equinox ◑ 18:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted; striking. Perhaps it will be citable in a few years, depending on whether it catches on widely (or whether CFI rules change). Equinox ◑ 17:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

nationism

Not in any other OneLook reference. No attestation quote in OED (don't know about definition). DCDuring TALK 02:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This term appears to have been coined at least three times with three distinct meanings -- is there a word for words like this? -- but AFAICT this meaning is not among them. By far the most common sense involves Fishman's 1968 distinction of ethnicity-centered nationalism from government-centered nationism, a distinction which is still used widely in sociolinguistics. Will see what I can do about some cites. -- Visviva 04:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

zΩ

Is this unit used anywhere? I can't find any uses. -- Prince Kassad 06:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

These are components of the International System of Units, the official nomenclature of units (and their abbreviations) that has been adopted by the entire world, save the U.S. and a handful of fairly small countries. It seems absurd to me that we would not report on words and symbols for which the entire world had agreed on a meaning, especially since the inclusion of those that are used would leave a patchwork grid full of holes if we exclude the ones that we know to exist, but for which citations can not be found. bd2412 T 15:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be a Beer Parlor matter. We don't actually make any special exception in WT:CFI for such terms. Other examples are taxonomic names, chemical names, which we include and don't challenge as a matter of practice. But this practice is sanctioned only by a consensus. The consensus of accepting international standards bodies decisions was brought into question in the area of ISO codes, though not in the area of inclusion as a headword. Perhaps the CFI relevance of international standards bodies is worth a discussion there.

Otherwise I would think that RfV applies. DCDuring TALK 16:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion underway at Wiktionary:Beer parlour#SI units and abbreviations. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

ZΩ

Is this unit used anywhere? I can't find any uses. -- Prince Kassad 06:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

See comment for zΩ above. bd2412 T 15:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

herm

Rfv-sense "Derogative term for a female body with both male and female sex-organs and the sexual attraction there of." Nadando 18:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a slang for 'hermaphrodite'. Altenmann 21:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, herm.=hermaphrodite is botanical/zoological abbreviation [122]. Does this require a separate page, herm., or this meaning can be added to 'herm? I am not well-skilled in wiktionary; please add this meaning appropriately. Altenmann 21:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe past discussions leaned towards dropping the dot, since the dot is likely to be dropped in some contexts anyway and it would be silly to have separate full entries at abbr. and abbr. -- Visviva 12:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

yippie

"An expression of excitement." I think they meant (deprecated template usage) yippee; or is this used too? (It seems to me that yippee is always stressed on the second syllable, while yippie from its spelling must be stressed on the first.) Equinox ◑ 19:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

When used ironically (usually muttered or spoken quietly, not yelled), it is stressed on the first syllable, so I supposed the spelling would change from yippee to yippie. "Hey, guess what you guys! We get to work overtime this weekend!" "Yippie. Lucky us." —Stephen 20:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted; striking. Equinox ◑ 17:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

excoriation

The meaning "Stripping of possession; spoliation." seems reasonable, but it is not given in dictionary.com. neither for "excoriation", nor "excoriate" (nor in "excoriate"). If it is a technical, e.g., legal, or otherwise uncommon meaning, then perhaps a reference would be good to have.Altenmann 21:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Shown as obsolete at “excoriation”, in Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, Springfield, Mass.: G. & C. Merriam, 1913, →OCLC.. So noted and referenced in entry. DCDuring TALK 19:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

gain-buy

Meaning "redeem". See gainbuy which has one citation (only one visible on b.g.c.). No cites for either term in OED. Many spurious hits like "...to gain, buy ...". I could not find one valid one for "gain buy" or "gain-buy" in the first hundred of ~400 at b.g.c. A Partridge dictionary had it as one of a small number of words derived from the Old English "gean". It may be that it was spelled differently in Middle English and Early Modern English. More citations for gainbuy would be welcome, too. DCDuring TALK 21:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought I had found a nice batch of inflected forms (gainbuying, gainbought, etc.), but all proved to be from the same modernization of Misyn's translation of two works by Richard Rolle, the "Hermit of Hampole". The OED3 does have some citations, but none with this spelling (mostly something like "gainby") -- and in fact, all but one is from Misyn. All of their citations for both this and Wyclif's preferred "againbuy" are solidly ENM, IMO. What are we to do with words that are used only in modernizations of a single Middle English work? They would seem barred from inclusion under the independence criterion, unless we make like the OED and file all of the Middle English spellings under the modernized spelling. Even then it's touch and go for this one. -- Visviva 10:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, probably the usual form is againbuy Rosswood40 08:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Amsterdamize

Um hum. Equinox ◑ 00:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I found one additional use, in this 1999 issue of Orion Afield. However, both this and the Mirror article are quoting one Ms. Claire Morrissette of Montreal, so this still only counts for one independent use. No evidence that it has been used with this specific meaning by anyone else, despite the existence of a (fairly prominent?) cycling website by this name. There are some one-off uses for other senses, but overall it looks like a fail: Google +amsterdamize|+amsterdamizes|+amsterdamizing|+amsterdamized (Books • Groups • Scholar). -- Visviva 15:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Striking. Equinox ◑ 17:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Transwiki:Helsmat

This one warrants questioning. Goldenrowley 03:39, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed. Deleted. Goldenrowley 19:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

helluation

Has allegedly passed RFV, but entry contains no citations. Nor does the OED, which merely cites Blount's Glossographia and notes "also in later dictionaries." -- Visviva 04:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Related to (deprecated template usage) helluo librorum, no doubt. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

mactator

Found while working on Appendix:Words found only in dictionaries. I was able to locate one use, which I have added to Citations:mactator. It is conceivable that there might be two more. -- Visviva 08:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

It’s strange that such a regularly-formed agent noun would be difficult to attest given that its equivalent verb is still current (albeit rare, though not {{obsolete}}, as claimed by the OED) and its equivalent noun of action sees quite considerable use.
BTW, the OED gleaned approximately six hundred words from Henry Cockeram’s 1623 English Dictionary, so you may want to add Cockeram as a reference to verify in your compilation of that appendix. On that subject, please ensure that you include etymologies in the appendix, since that has been the historical reason for their persistence in lexicographical works. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 13:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like I would need to check their entries citing every dictionary through Johnson (Cockeram, Cole, Bailey, Phillips...) to get a semi-complete list. It's interesting work, but I am not quite sure I am equal to the task; so many shiny objects, so little time. ... I will add some room in the table for etymologies.

It is definitely true that someone who mactates would be called a mactator (or conceivably a mactater). But for whatever reason, there just isn't much call for such a word, it seems. -- Visviva 16:10, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If it’s something that comes about through your efforts, I’d be extremely interested to see the list of dictionaries the OED cites; I reckon it would be something worth including in the appendix’s preamble, too.
As for *(deprecated template usage) mactater, "matater" gets only two hits via G.B.S., both scannos of Latin words (mactatur and magister), whereas the plural, (deprecated template usage) mactaters, gets none; (deprecated template usage) mactatrix and (deprecated template usage) mactatrices are Latin only, whereas (deprecated template usage) mactatress doesn’t seem to exist. That’s not really surprising, given that (deprecated template usage) mactator is so rare, and since (deprecated template usage) -ate verbs very regularly forms agent nouns by the suffixation of (deprecated template usage) -or, as is etymological. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:00, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Since current use of mactate is almost exclusive to Christian theology, it makes sense that the focus would be on either the act of mactation, or on the patient of the act, usually one Mr JH Christ -- the mactatee, if you will. One wouldn't really expect his mactators to get much attention.

"Mactater" would indeed be hideous (or perhaps delicious, if it happened to be some sort of fast-food potato snack). Fortunately, it appears to be unattestable as well. -- Visviva 11:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I dunno: the Jews sure got (and sometimes still get) a lot of stick for deicide in many Christian communities. Whatever the reason, it seems like this one will soon be relegated to the appendix of “zombie words”… † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:47, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

gay card

A jocular term for something that doesn't exist... but the noun might. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

We have race card and play the race card. All depend on a sense of card#Noun. First use in this sense is from 19th C UK "playing the Orange card" in politics about the "Irish question". There is also an RfD question for all these, at least in my mind. DCDuring TALK 18:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it exists...(e.g. "you dropped your gay card!" [just another way of saying/implying that a person is gay]) and seems to have cites. 50 Xylophone Players talk 20:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, never doubted that it existed. But, sense 2 and 3 seem to be the same, lexicographically. Both seem to be instances of the "something card", most commonly used in "play the something card". "gay card" and "race card", by all rights, should be redirects to card, the governing noun in these phrases. And, since "card" also means "identification card", the first sense also seems to be SoP. It would benefit from the same redirect. DCDuring TALK 21:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

dog's dinner

Creator seemed unsure. —Ruakh_TALK 19:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I’ve never heard of dog's breakfast, but I’ve heard making a dog's dinner of something so often that it almost feels like American Engish to me. —Stephen 20:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

In the UK dog's breakfast and dinner both mean a complete mess. The antonym(ish) is dog's pyjamas or dog's bollocks. SemperBlotto 07:11, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The second, contradictory meaning ("The exact opposite of a complete mess") is unknown to me. Equinox ◑ 14:14, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Dog's breakfast (“mess”) and the cat's pyjamas (“an excellent thing”) are familiar to me in Canada, but I haven't heard the others. —Michael Z. 2009-09-24 02:15 z

mammeated

Appears to be a dictionary word only. -- Visviva 11:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

parthenogenesis

RfV-sense for:

(theology) A theory of the virgin birth of Jesus Christ.

Not in the OED. Also, as it is defined, it is very vague.
BTW, the quotation for the main biologic sense needs to be properly formatted, with the quotation’s information greatly expanded. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 16:04, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I very much doubt that a theologian would resort to science to defend a believed event, particularly one that is a supposed miracle. I do recall a teacher saying that parthenogenesis happens, so the virgin birth could have occurred... He was a science teacher, so should have known better. Offspring via parthenogenesis are inevitably female. Pingku 18:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I don’t find it at all doubtful, given the extraordinary lengths that some creationists go to for the doomed cause of imbuing their myth with scientific credibility. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

:) But I wouldn't credit every common-or-garden creationist with the status of theologian. Pingku 19:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps not. Touché. :-D † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Cited, rewrote def somewhat since it does not seem to refer to any specific doctrine. Seems to be a literal use of partheno- + -genesis, rather than a copying of the scientific concept, AFAICT. -- Visviva 13:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yup, looks verified to me. I concur with your etymological judgment; I’ve added a usage note to explain that, including the point made above by Pingku. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

stridewallop

Ironically, the reference at the bottom of the page indicates that it's a made-up word. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:33, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

At best, this can go in the "dictionary-only" appendix. SemperBlotto 18:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I added this entry and the one below ("fornale"), based on the Daily Telegraph article. If that isn't a reliable source, please go ahead and delete the entries. [There are several other "words" in the Daily Telegraph article that are also worth investigating.] Axl 07:19, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is evidence of the word being mentioned, but we need evidence of it being naturally used (without the need to explain what it means). SemperBlotto 07:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thank you. Axl 07:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Does this help? Axl 09:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn’t, I’m afraid. Whilst that is a useful supporting reference for the accuracy of our definition, it does nothing to verify the term’s existence. Please see WT:CFI, especially the section concerning attestation. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:11, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Media invention to sell a book. Equinox ◑ 17:01, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

fornale

Another that might not exist. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It’s in the OED, but it’s marked with Sc. (Scots?); it’s supported by a single quotation (which is at least something), but it includes the letter Template:unicode and is dated 1478, which puts it on the Middle English–Early Modern English borderline. The entry also lists (deprecated template usage) forenail as an alternative spelling, if that helps at all. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Of Google Book Search’s first thirty hits for the term, John Jamieson’s Etymological Dictionary of the Scottish Language (1825) seems to be the only useful one; hits in Polish or Italian or of surnames predominate otherwise. The (deprecated template usage) forenail spelling seems to mean (deprecated template usage) forefinger-nail in English; it’s related to fornale in Scots. I reckon this is Scots, so I suggest we just switch the language header; it should be verifiable in Scots. Meanwhile, we need an English entry for (deprecated template usage) forenail. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

girlsy

As synonym for (deprecated template usage) girly. Equinox ◑ 01:18, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

skrill

Supposed to mean (deprecated template usage) money. I couldn't find anything in the first few pages of Google book search. SemperBlotto 07:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

• I did a Google search for "some skrill" and found quite a few apparent uses, though I didn't take the time to work out what subset/nationality of people is using the term. Ƿidsiþ 07:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
  • OK - I'll assume good faith. SemperBlotto 07:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

abligurition

Have not been able to find any bona fide uses. -- Visviva 10:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

acerote

The OED speculates that this originated with Cockeram (1623?) misreading acerose ("chaffy"). This was then apparently picked up by Minsheu, whose ambiguous phrasing led it to be interpreted as a noun by some later copyists. Does not appear to have had any actual uptake, anywhere, ever. -- Visviva 13:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

nert

Rfv-sense

The Old Irish sense 3 was added by an IP and I was tempted to simply rollback as nonsense, but it was coherent enough I did a quick google and came across this SGML document that indicated that "nert nert" may have occurred in Old Irish, tho in what context I can't say. — Carolina wren discussió 15:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

white coal

the woodchips sense seems from a google to be some companies marketing term, but maybe there's something on google books I missed. Conrad.Irwin 15:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

compilator

Rfv-sense - computing sense. Surely this is only ever (deprecated template usage) compiler. SemperBlotto 07:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Creator appears to have simply copied everything over from compiler, as s/he has also done for a couple of other entries. The sense could be deleted out of hand IMO, but I'll take a look and see if there is any chance of attestation. -- Visviva 10:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Appears 3 times on Google Patents, and once on WIPO PatentScope. Inventors are uniformly from non-English-speaking countries, viz. Japan, France, Norway and Sweden. So it could be cited, but frankly I'm not sure we'd be doing anyone a service. -- Visviva 10:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

OK - I'll get rid of it. SemperBlotto 10:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

addecimate

Added one citation to Citations:addecimate. Cannot locate any others. -- Visviva 07:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

adact

Unless Fotherby's Atheomastix counts as a well-known work, Citations:adact is still two cites short. (The OED cites the Atheomastix twice for good measure, but I don't think that would cut the mustard here.) -- Visviva 08:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The only English citations I can locate for forms of this verb have all turned out to be scannos for something else. There is a perfectly good and logical Latin origin for this verb (from (deprecated template usage) adactio or (deprecated template usage) adactus), but the word doesn't seem to have made the transition fully into English. --EncycloPetey 09:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

aggrandizable

Found in an impressive number of dictionaries. Cannot find any actual use. -- Visviva 11:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Cited, IMHO, but I think I'd file this word under "don't try this at home". —Ruakh_TALK 04:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Well done. -- Visviva 04:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Heley

Is this a pure transcription or does it exist? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It undoubtedly exists as a family name, Google Books gets 395 hits for it, of which at least 350 are surnames, plus some referring to place names. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:58, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a variant of (deprecated template usage) Healey or (deprecated template usage) Haley SemperBlotto 14:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

It's a Pashto female given name, meaning Swan!

A variant of "Helen", apparently borrowed from Greek mythology "Helen of Troy".

I think you're the IP that created this article. Surely Pashto uses the Arabic script, not the Latin one? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• This can't be Pashto. Pashto given names are written using the Pashto alphabet (similar to Arabic). SemperBlotto 14:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. But if you live in a non-arabic country then you have to identify yourself with "latin" script :-) Or were I expected to write its meaning in arabic script?" By the way, Pashto is an indo-European language, hence my initial definition of the name in analogy with the Greek myth, which has been edited.

This is a valid point IMO. But if this is a common name, is Heley how it is usually romanized? Searching "Heley" on the various Googles mostly turns up surnames, and even searching for "heley" and "afghan" on Google News doesn't turn up anything. Even given names still need to be attested independently at least three times in durable media. -- Visviva 15:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but when writing "Heley", what language are the words surrounding it in? If they're in Pashto (i.e. Pashto script) then it's Pashto, possibly. But if it's in English, French, whatever, then those are not Pashto. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I added back the sense I removed, so now this is the only Latn entry in [[Category:Pashto proper nouns]]. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

-I als couldn't find any valid site online that could approve or at least provide the meaning of the name in Pashto. That's why I've started this article in wikipedia. As I've mentioned before, it is a female given name in Pashto and means Swan, in fact, the translation of the word Swan into Pashto is Heley. And it's most likely a variant of the name Helénē from the Greek myth of "Leda and the Swan". But it's rather a hypothetical explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

De facto: It's a female given name.

• You just don't get it do you. We are not saying that it isn't a female given name (we don't know), but that it can't possibly be Pashto. The Pashto translation of (deprecated template usage) swan isn't (deprecated template usage) heley - it would be something written in the Pashto alphabet. We don't yet have this translation - please add it if you know it. SemperBlotto 16:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

هيلی apparently, ironically enough the user in question added this to the article, then deleted it. Since I don't know the script, I can onlyu copy-and-paste it here. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say, SemperBlotto. Let me put it this way: According to wikipedia torch or corposant is the meaning of the Greek name Helene but now, according to you it can't be correct because 'the greek trasnlation of torch is not Helena, then it would be something written in the Greek alphabet.' Namely: Ἑλένη! Point is, I've stated Heley as a Pashto female given name and its meaning in English. However, I probably should've written the article in "wikipedia" rather than wikitionary. Thanks anyway..

google.ps gets 108 hits for this in Pashto, none of which are relevant. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Ergo I moved it to the title above and put {{attention|ps}}. Anyone strongly disagree with that? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Why would you remove it??

anteloquy

Found in a Ph.D. thesis of the current year, from the University of Groningen; not found in use anywhere else AFAICT. -- Visviva 14:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 16:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

apophoret

Many scannos on b.g.c. for the "Apophoreta" in Martial; no other use is evident. apophoretum could probably be cited, but this variant seems to have been less fortunate. -- Visviva 14:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

gizzing

Rfv-sense on hang around and flirting, as do we literally use it like the Arabic? It is used in English language, and the sense I am getting is:

• to flirt and tease
• a colloquialism of gazing

See also: Journal of Arabic linguistics‎ - Page 80. Goldenrowley 02:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Transwiki:Wiki gardening

I am not sure if this has enough in print to qualify, even if from our own lingo. Goldenrowley 03:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed. Deleted. Goldenrowley 19:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Transwiki:Wiki gardener

Same concern as Transwiki:Wiki gardening. Goldenrowley 03:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

RFV failed. Deleted. Goldenrowley 19:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

hoodwink

Rfv-sense: "to make up for." -- Visviva 09:26, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

WOMBAT

Before we clean this up, is it widely used enough to bother? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

celeripedean

Great dictionary word, but does not seem ever to have caught on. Only use I can find is from a scholar writing in 1927, who uses it in a sentence composed of various classic words from the Glossographia. Even if we accept that as a use (which I would rather not), still need two more. -- Visviva 12:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we should accept that use. Unfortunately, I can’t access the page that the quotation’s on; could you add it? † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Enjoy: Citations:celeripedean. I'll grant, if we had two real citations I wouldn't be inclined to stand on principle. But I don't really think this rises above the level of an example sentence in a dictionary (or a weird-words book). -- Visviva

Wow. Yeah, I can kinda see whatcha mean there. That was pretty heavy going. It reminds me of L. J. D. Richardson’s 1947 humorous essay A Little Classics Is a Dangerous Thing (the entirety of which I managed to copy to a .txt file, comparing two snippets and the text quoted by the search engine), whose topic is the pedant’s zeal but which features numerous mis-pluralisations of (mainly Latinate) words and other such errors. Here’s a representative example:

Too often you will hear people saying ‘octopuses’ when they should, of course, have said ‘octopi’ : and we fear that to use the forms ‘platypi’ and ‘rhinoceri’ is only to incur the reproach of pedantry. The times are out of joint : we worship at the shrine of universal education, but this ideal is the very antipode of the actual fact. Slipshod and inaccurate utterance pervades every strata of society.

:-D † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 05:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I think that it’s incorrectly defined as we have it; it’s an adjective, not a noun. The noun would be *(deprecated template usage) celeriped or something; there exists a similar word — (deprecated template usage) celeripede — also claiming descent from (deprecated template usage) [etyl] Latin (deprecated template usage) celeripēs, but in its case viâ the (deprecated template usage) [etyl] French (deprecated template usage) céléripede. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 05:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

monkery

Plausible but... Mglovesfun (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

• The OED has these meanings. It also has it as tramp's cant for (deprecated template usage) countryside etc. SemperBlotto 21:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

semordnilap

Is this actually in use? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems to be. Or should I say, eb ot smees. -- Visviva 10:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Cited, done. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

hake

Hi, the 2nd and 3rd etymologies in the English section (I don't know about the Finish), lack, can anyone verify and add citations, etymologies etc? Thanks Rosswood40 09:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

gamblerette

No hits whatsover on Google News/Books/Groups. Google web search gives only 80 hits, most of which seem to be usernames. Seems very unlikely to me. Korodzik 16:40, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

• Tosh. Deleted SemperBlotto 21:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

bout

Rfv-sense: "An outside circuit of a field made with a plough or implement to mark the ground and create a headland." Not in any OneLook defn I checked, although (deprecated template usage) bout can mean any sort of circuit. The OED's closest defn is "the going and returning of the plough along two adjacent furrows". -- WikiPedant 02:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

The OED sense seems to fit the 19th century US usage I find at google books, though I was confused by the noun that referred to the heaping of the soil, the furrow. The OED has cites, visible without subscription at the same family of sites at BYU are consistent with those uses in the 1700s and 1800s, but not before (I think) or after. DCDuring TALK 17:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

bus.

w:Bus (disambiguation) does not mention this use. H. (talk) 14:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

So much the worse for them. Widespread use. In multiple OneLook dictionaries. DCDuring TALK 16:24, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

secondee

Mglovesfun (talk) 16:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Rare, but hardly unknown. I'd even suggest it's becoming more common in usage. - Amgine/^talk 18:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

creationism

"The creationary beliefs of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism or Islam." "The theological controversy concerning the origin of the human species, and other living beings, and especially questioning in what sense if any the creationary acts of God are considered a matter of historical fact." "The subject of a debate concerning origins and the findings of science, focused on the degree to which the theory of evolution is compatible with religious belief in the Creator."

The three above senses seem superfluous to me. How are they different from sense #2 ("Any creationary belief...")? Korodzik 20:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there are too many senses. The second definition above doesn't make sense as a definition of an "ism". Perhaps confusion is so rampant that it would be attestable. The unchallenged oldest sense is of little current interest outside its narrow context. The 1880 quote I added is apparently the first use in a modern sense in English. If so, the term was born of the controversy stirred by Darwinism and the discoveries of geological time. Thus it is most especially about the Christian flavor of some broader definition of creationism. I have added a sense which is intended to reflect the meaning in at least the early stages of the controversy and the most common current meaning (IMO). Frankly, though I am sure it would be attestable, the broader definition of creationism across all monotheistic religions doesn't seem to be very common at all, except in comparative religion courses. That is the definition into which you would fold the others. I believe it to be an abstraction from the Christianity-focused sense.

Are there major controversies in Islam, Judaism, and Hinduism that involve the use of the English word creationism or for which commentators writing in English use the word creationism? Or is such a sense only justified as a translation target? DCDuring TALK 23:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Afu

Is this for real? Jcwf 04:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

If that wasn't a fatuous entry, or at the very least a protologism, I'll be surprised. An always capitalized, non-proper noun?!? In any case, there is no such language as English/Japanese. — Carolina wren discussió 04:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Transwiki:Quotamid

A see a few uses, but does it meet the criteria of published citations? Goldenrowley 05:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Searching '+quotamid|+quotamids': 0 books, 0 scholar, 0 news archives; 3 groups but all non-Usenet. Looks like a fail. -- Visviva 13:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

RFV fail. Term deleted. Goldenrowley 05:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

cepevorous

Not strictly a dictionary word, as it was used by Stirling (see Citations:cepevorous) before finding its way into Webster's et al. However, it has not been used since, as far as I can tell. No non-Stirling uses found on Books, Scholar, News Archives, or Groups. Alternative spelling "cepivorous" likewise has 1 cite only. -- Visviva 09:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

ersätzer

Is it actually English? Can the lower-case form be cited? Equinox ◑ 12:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's not German; the proper plural for Ersatz would be Ersätze. But yeah, I don't see much sign of use in either language. -- Visviva 13:35, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

In the quotation, it is not used as a plural but the singular. There the -er is the common agent suffix. —Stephen 13:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that's true: "either reminders of her beloved grandmother or Ersätzer for her inadequate mother." The singular would seem to require an article in this case, and even then it would be rather awkward.

But even if this is an agent noun, what would be the verb from which it is formed? The verb behind Ersatz is ersetzen, so the agent noun would normally be Ersetzer, which is well-attested. It's conceivable that there might be an alternative form that uses the a-umlaut (maybe in Swabian?), but I can't find much evidence of it.

Of course, all of this is moot if the word can be verified in one language or the other (or both). But having taken a look around, I have my doubts: Google +ersätzer (Books • Groups • Scholar) (248,1,0,0,0). -- Visviva 14:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I guess the "ersätzer" are her cousins and teachers. For some reason, I had the impression that this was based in Yiddish. Anyway, I don’t think it’s Swabian. —Stephen 04:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

In philosophy, an ersatzer is one who subscribes to ersatzism, something to do with concepts of reality. But the plural of that is ersatzers (or ersatzists). —Stephen 04:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

cupcaking

"The acts of a male courting a female by spending money on things for her (such as on fancy dinners and expensive wine), or by 'lovey-dovey' activity." I found just one self-conscious definition of the word in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 13:24, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

This word appears to have quite a number of attestable meanings, from making cupcakes to smelling one's own farts, but this meaning does not seem to be among them. -- Visviva 13:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

regression tree

Rfv-sense: {operations, computing) a decision tree that gives a numeric value as the output. This is a little vague. I haven't heard of it though I have heard of CART and of regression trees in the context of statistics. If the term has a specific meaning in operations and computing, some cites would be nice. DCDuring TALK 19:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The following link might be more helpful than ones in the entry page: w:Decision_tree_learning#Types. And you can find another similar definition in the second paragraph of this page. As for the context label, probably I should've used data mining ― a field in which this usage is quite common, I believe ― instead. I've also confirmed that it is defined similarly in a reliable introductory data mining book in Japanese:

• 2001: Fukuda, et al., Data Science Series #3: Data Mining, page 95, Kyoritsu Shuppan

[...] Template:Jpan

[...] in problems in which a numeric value like the amount of purchases is to be determined, the tree is specifically called a regression tree.

Anyhow, as I'm certainly relatively new to data mining and machine learning techniques and their terminology, this definition might not necessarily be accurate enough. Thanks for drawing attention to this. ―Tohru 14:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

New revision: (data mining) a predictive model which takes the form of a decision tree and gives a numeric value as the output, usually built by using a data mining technique ―Tohru 15:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The definition is better. I will also add the link and add it to the statistics context, which is the best of our existing contexts. I will try to find quotations that illustrate the fields of application or have other interest. We would welcome having more technical definitions, especially from contemporary fields like data mining. DCDuring TALK 16:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

coup de maitre

Is this really English (i.e. without the accent on maitre)? If so, what is the correct plural? SemperBlotto 21:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

404 hits on Google Books, English only (in theory) although an enormous amount of these are either not English or in dictionaries. It might pass rfv, I might end up going through every last page to find three. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Cited, not only that is has a second meaning as a surgical procedure, but I can only cite it, I can't work out what it means! Mglovesfun (talk) 21:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Should be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_French_words_and_phrases_used_by_English_speakers#C

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/coup+de+maitre

Coups de maitre Rosswood40 14:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

As it should be. Anyway I have found some cites but I haven't added anything yet. Well, I do get a month. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

gomic

talk page says invalid

It's a transliteration of Russian (deprecated template usage) гомик (gómik). --Vahagn Petrosyan 07:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

revenge

Rfv-sense: to take revenge on (someone). I'm paraphrasing the def line, but that is what it seems to mean, with the example sentence: "Sally planned to revenge Jessica for stealing her date" or something. Is this in use? The OED does have a similar sense, but it's marked obsolete with the last citation from 1633. Ƿidsiþ 20:08, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems like poor English from a non-native speaker, and it duplicates the sense above (I think) so I think we can delete it as a "cleanup" issue rather than an rfd one. How can you verify something that nobody can understand? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

adequator

Not in the OED. Not really much on Google books. SemperBlotto 21:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Google adequator|adequators (Books • Groups • Scholar): 1730(14,3,2,0). But only 2.5 b.g.c. hits are in English (the rest mostly Latin), and each is using it in a different sense. The one unique Scholar hit is the reference in the entry. Groups hits are a wordlist, a typo, and a use that appears to mean "something that makes something else adequate", which matches one of the Books hits. IMO all three senses fail. -- Visviva 18:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

dord

If unattestable, consign to Appendix:Words found only in dictionaries. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is really an RFV issue. The community has in the past opted to keep certain non-citable entries, such as this and also hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia etc., based I guess on notability or something. That precedent needs to be overturned, but I think it needs to be overturned in the same way it was established -- through RFD. -- Visviva 18:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Why should it matter where the precedent is overturned? There is now a material difference in the situations of then and now: the existence of appendices to which these notable terms may be consigned. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

nonplussed

Sense 2 is the complete opposite of sense 1, and is poorly sourced. Though marked as non-standard/informal, I question whether sense 2 is a legitimate definition, as the citation merely references a few examples of the word being wrongly used.

Further, the author of the sense 2 cite uses the words ‘undisturbed, unimpressed, indifferent’ to describe this incorrect usage, which was then changed to "Unfazed, unaffected, or unimpressed" for the wiki definition.

There is no basis for the "Unfazed, unaffected, or unimpressed" definition for sense 2, at least in the document cited in the footnote... and the ‘undisturbed, unimpressed, indifferent’ language from the cite is merely describing how the word has been used paradoxically (possibly because the word begins with "non"), so how can that be used as evidence of a correct definition? — This unsigned comment was added by 71.198.231.9 (talk) at 04:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC).

• Well we can debate how exactly it should be defined, but there's no doubt sense 2 exists. It is now very common in the US, as a quick internet search will demonstrate. It may annoy you that it came about by people getting confused, but I'm afraid that is how language change happens and it's perfectly normal. Ƿidsiþ 07:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Language change is great, however, sense 2 is not supported by citation. If a poorly cited, unsupported definition is acceptable to wiktionary, fine by me. But who made up the definition? Is it OK that it is not backed up by proper citation? If so, cool... but maybe that's why academia scoffs at wiki? — This comment was unsigned.

Did you want full attestation or is a single real usage example enough? There are references to others who have observed the sense shift. To help us along, when you find something that bothers you for its lack of attestation, please insert {{rfv-sense}} at the beginning of the sense line, after the "#'. DCDuring TALK 10:48, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• cited. I've removed the non-standard tag. What made the earlier sense standard? The etymological connection doesn't seem very compelling. DCDuring TALK 11:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

pûe

This, plus other Istriot entries by the same person (Poglianniare, Pogliare and poppî) are proving difficult to verify. SemperBlotto 10:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't even have a [[Category:Istriot language]] do we? Mglovesfun (talk) 07:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No, but the language does exist and has an ISO code of ist. --EncycloPetey 14:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

biopunk

A blend of (deprecated template usage) biotech and (deprecated template usage) punk, or simply the compound (deprecated template usage) bio- + (deprecated template usage) punk? — Paul G 15:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me that bio- meaning "biotech" can probably be substantiated, though bioindustry is the only other example that comes immediately to mind. -- Visviva 18:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

homosexual

Two antonyms for the adjective homosexual seem dubious to me: other-sex and mixed-sex. I've never heard either of those used, and a cursory Google book search turns up no instances of that usage. EvanKroske 19:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I can imagine that homosexuals speak of homosexual marriages and mixed-sex marriages. I’m not sure that it qualifies as a term according to CFI, but it sounds like reasonable English to me. Likewise, other-sex as an adjective seems like something that some people might say. I think they fall into the category of colloquial usage, if they are used, and so probably would not find their way into formal print. —Stephen 10:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize that was the standard for inclusion in Wiktionary. I took the lack of entries on those words to mean that nobody has heard those words used in that sense. I believe the antonyms were added for the reason you just described: they sound reasonable. Could you point me to Wiktionary's standard of inclusion so that I can check it for myself? EvanKroske 23:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

In any case, other-sex and mixed-sex are actually used as words: just try Google to find examples! Lmaltier 18:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

It's true that mixed-sex is used as a word, but I still haven't seen it used to denote sexual preference. All the examples I found use "mixed-sex" to describe a group of both men and women or male and female organisms. I couldn't find a single example of mixed-sex being used as an antonym to "homosexual". EvanKroske 14:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

spijten

As far as I know this is an impersonal verb, i.e. it only occurs as het spijt me just like "it rain" with an indefinite pronoun. Can the template be altered not to produce non-existant we rain and they rained forms? Also the translation is rather imprecise. "It causes me regret" is closer. Jcwf 23:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

So it's a cleanup rather than a verification job. Maybe ask AugPi (talk • contribs). Mglovesfun (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

philalethia

Rfv-sense: "a neo-Platonic idea that is or verges on being a school of thought in which one is a 'Philaletheian' (term from Pythagoras) and means much the same as 'Philosopher' (when Classical Philosophy is traced to Pythagoras.)" ...and please clean up too! --EncycloPetey 00:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Peanuts

RFV-sense: "The name of a popular comic strip by Charles M. Schulz." Needs attributive cites. --Yair rand 18:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

agape

Rfv-sense: Both "Adverb" senses. The closest I can find to adverbial usage appears to be an adjective following a copula. --EncycloPetey 22:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I've altered the definitions to try to match with the PoS and the quotes, rearranged and supplemented the quotes. I've also added a usage note for the adjective. It would not be too hard to analyze the "adverbial" use as predicate use of the adjective with verbs like "fall", "stand" (door, not person), "hang", and "yawn"; and "sit", "stare", "watch", and "look". With the first four we would seem to be able to substitute "open", which no dictionary I have yet seem would classify as an adverb. It's all because Milton needed a stress on the second syllable. He could have written "set them gaping." But no. DCDuring TALK 18:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

tuigen

I cannot find any corroboration for either translation. Tuigen is a very uncommon verb nowadays, in contrast to its derivatives aftuigen - to give a trashing, intuigen - to strap in (a horse before a cart) optuigen - to decorate, to put sails/mast etc on a boat.

If found some pretty obscure quotations from literature and internet, see nl:tuigen. Most are pretty old hat

The main meaning today seems to be the strapping in, putting a harness onto a horse. Jcwf 23:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you're rfving here. If both senses failed, the entry would be deleted, yet you insist above that it exists. If it's just an archaic verb, tag it like that. If you don't use {{rfd-sense}} and {{rfv-sense}} people don't know what it is we are even talking about (I don't). Mglovesfun (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

faccedilade

"Common misspelling", if it's so common, it should be pretty easy to cite per WT:CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Only 2 of the citations as to its existence are valid. Because only common misspellings are retained we need some evidence that this is common in raw numbers or proportion. DCDuring TALK 14:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Which of the 3 citations is not valid? Why? —Rod (A. Smith) 15:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

AFAICT, none of them are from sites that we have been accepting as durably archived cites. They are merely websites. Of course a mere web artifact could disappear as soon as someone corrected the HTML. We don't yet have durably archived evidence of its persistent existence and we don't yet have evidence that it is common. DCDuring TALK 16:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes. That lame "durably archived" requirement. Whatever. I understand that "durably archived" is a nice property for citations because the citations will remain available for future readers. I don't understand, though, why it would be a requirement for citations that prove the existence of a misspelling/mishtmling like this. Anyone can verify the existence of the misspelling in those cites during the course of this RFV. The misspelling/mishtmling clearly exists. —Rod (A. Smith) 17:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This one counts. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems the only ones that we routinely accept are the Google sites: Books, News, and Scholar, and Usenet, which one can access via Google Groups. These Google searches give use convenient access to print sources. Once something is committed to print that edition is fixed and cannot be changed. Any content in the broad universe of websites can be changed at the will of the owner. Even if Google hasn't scanned it, anything in print that some libraries somewhere have is probably considered durably archived. One can always make a case for additional classes of durably archived citations. There are places that claim to be archiving the web, but I don't think that anyone has addressed that. I wonder how one would connect such an archive with a particular search result. Accepting such web archives would eventually substantially change the mix of headwords. DCDuring TALK 17:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure, the authors may some day correct the misspelling, but that possibility shouldn't influence this RFV. Anyone can check that the cites are valid right now, so they should count as satisfying the RFV. —Rod (A. Smith) 18:19, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a WT:BP matter to me. The application of any set of rules ends up in technicalities like this. We also haven't established that it is "common". If this is called a misspelling, I view that as a technicality. DCDuring TALK 19:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I have begun Appendix:HTML artifacts to collect these things. Although software improvements may mean they will always be uncommon, they are a curiosity some may find interesting. It is an open question whether they merit an entry or even an "only-in" (or hard redirect) steering users to the Appendix. DCDuring TALK 15:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

That sounds workable: Move to appendix, note the “etymology” thereat (per Appendix:Words found only in dictionaries), and direct the headword [[faccedilade]] thereto with {{only in}}. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 17:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

As a student and practitioner of many forms of error, I wonder whether mony less common misspellings and misconstructions don't deserve enshrinement in one or more Appendixes. There are interesting patterns to such things, as w:Arnold Zwicky has entertainingly and usefully laid out in a downloadable (free, AFAICT) work Mistakes. DCDuring TALK 18:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that 53-page 1979 booklet can be found and downloaded here. Most of the more common misspellings are really predictable and decipherable as such, but artefacts like *(deprecated template usage) faccedilade seem to come out of nowhere (that’s why they’re worth having, despite being much rarer, even when many more common misspellings aren’t). I’ll give Mistakes a read at some point; thanks for bringing it to my attention. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 19:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

moist

"About to cry." Equinox ◑ 17:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

articulation

Rfv-sense: accounting A state in which the elements of financial statements are fundamentally interrelated in two ways: (1) assets = liabilities + equity (2) Beginning balance + changes = ending balance.

Never heard of it. Not in OneLook. Seems like something that one might call articulation in a moment of "theorizing" or exposition. DCDuring TALK 22:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

The concept does seem to exist in accounting, see e.g. this online tutorial[123]. The definition should be reformulated, though. I offer this as a basis for further refinement:

The interrelation and congruence of the flow of data between financial statements of an entity, especially between the income statement and balance sheet.

Another possibility would be to expand definition #1 so as to make clear that the use of the concept "articulation" is not limited to things mechanical. --Hekaheka 12:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

limelon

Supposedly a mathematical theorem and a vodka cocktail. Equinox ◑ 01:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Google Books: scannos and proper names. Google Scholar: 0. Google News Archives: 0. Seems exceedingly unlikely that this has any currency in mathematics. -- Visviva 18:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The source of both the "theorem" and the cocktail recipe appears to be an advertising meme created by limelon.com. Pingku 15:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 16:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

paper flower

Fried egg test. It seems self-explanatory, and it was created by an anon. Ultimateria 03:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This looks like an issue for WT:RFD. -- Visviva 18:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, rfd please. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, sorry. It's taken care of. I don't really do this kind of thing a lot. Ultimateria 22:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Chiayi

Keep --Anatoli 23:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This also looks like an issue for RFD. I think it is safe to assume that the nominator is not questioning the existence of the term. -- Visviva 10:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't rushing to add this to this page. I never would have noticed it if it had not shown up and lingered long in Category:Entries_with_level_or_structure_problems, as a dozen or so gazetteer entries have. I thought this was the page for attributive use attestation? Is this an entry that doesn't need it? I thought it would under current CFI. DCDuring TALK 12:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

IMO the problem is that there is no real consensus among editors as to what form of citation would be acceptable. Because the place-name criteria are poorly drafted and were never the product of consensus in the first place, opinions differ widely among editors as to a) what sort of citations are actually necessary under the criterion (byword? etymon? or any use as a noun adjunct?), and b) whether the criterion deserves any respect in the first place. When there is no consensus on what form of attestation is needed, RFV cannot serve its intended purpose, and what should have been a simple matter of citation devolves into a flurry of "keeps" and "deletes" (vide supra). Which is to say: whether we have this discussion on RFV or RFD, it's going to be an RFD discussion. Having the discussion here just creates a mess for whatever poor soul ends up closing it. -- Visviva 14:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

al place nams4inclsn!--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 16:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

eng

Rfv-sense: abbreviation, in English, in lowercase, for "English" and "England". Note the ISO code is already covered under ==Translingual==. -- Visviva 10:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

How about rfd-redundant then? I mean it exists in English doesn't it? So it needs an rfd not an rfv right? Mglovesfun (talk) 06:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I assumed the definition was claiming that an English abbreviation existed independently of ISO -- that, say, in older dictionaries or somewhere "English" might be denoted as "eng(.)" rather than "Eng(.)" Even if that isn't what was meant, it seems plausible enough to be worth an RFV. -- Visviva 07:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

dokita

Is this really English? Maybe some Nigerian language? SemperBlotto 14:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

hermititude

Mglovesfun (talk) 06:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Zero hits on Google books. Deleted SemperBlotto 07:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Benito Mussolini

Needs attributive citations, per WT:CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Name of a person - should be deleted (unless cited as above). I shall probably add (deprecated template usage) Mussolini though. SemperBlotto 11:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

keep w/short def>fuzzy boundary w/enc-pdia--史凡>voice-MSN/skypeme!RSI>typin=hard! 14:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

gra mo chree

Angicization of Gaelic. Ever attestably used? DCDuring TALK 20:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Fairly widespread long-term use. I found three songs with it included, The Boys of the Old Brigade, Last Night I had a Happy Dream (which uses gra mo chree as its alternate title), and another song of the same title but with different sports related lyrics. I didn't go through the books or group listings, but there are a few of each.--Dmol 08:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Should it have an "Irish English" tag. Is it used widely in UK or Australia/NZ? I'll have to see whether it's in use among Irish-Americans. DCDuring TALK 14:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added an Ireland tag. I've heard it in Australia, but only among Irish friends and family.--Dmol 06:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to confirm usage here. I hope someone can just declare it in widespread use in Irish communities. I should have just brought this to the Tea Room. DCDuring TALK 14:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I find more gra ma chree than this spelling. Is that a gender difference? DCDuring TALK 14:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. It would seem that this is used in transcription of a Gaelic lyric and is rarely used in normal English writing. We don't keep transcriptions, do we? The lyric might be a good usage example for one or more of the constituents in Gaelic. DCDuring TALK 14:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

skirmish

Rfv-sense

English: Noun #3: In warfare, a tactic of attacking with missile weapons without making contact.

Seems to me to be just more specific version of sense 1. Unless some reference or examples can be shown where the more generic meaning is excluded, it out to be deleted or merged into sense 1. — Carolina wren discussió 17:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It's only applied to early warfare. Missiles? I don't think that user meant Tomahawks or SCUDs. Besides that, the definition is a bit strange (no contact = not melee or not the intention of hand to hand). --User:Mallerd (Zeg et es meisje) 12:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

slamobo

Mglovesfun (talk) 17:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Tosh - deleted SemperBlotto 21:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Benito Mussolini

Hitler (2) --User:Mallerd (Zeg et es meisje) 12:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Betäubungsmittelverschreibungsverordnung

Name of a law. -- Prince Kassad 21:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

You can find many citations in Google Books. And it's a word in German. Lmaltier 21:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

celeberrimous

Equinox ◑ 00:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

spanso

According to Talk:spanso, this is a pure error. Can SemperBlotto or Barmar confirm this? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• It is OK - see [124] SemperBlotto 16:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

electricity

Rfv-sense: A field of study. When was it last used this way? Was it ever? DCDuring TALK 18:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

See WT:RFC#electricity. DCDuring TALK 19:26, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

pete

1. Bicycle accident. 2. Tennis stroke. Equinox ◑ 20:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

opisthenar

Equinox ◑ 21:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I see only one use. I think this would be a good candidate for Appendix:Words found only in dictionaries. Nadando 01:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Transwiki:Spixie

No hits on b.g.c that weren't either typos or uses in Latin that predate the possible origin of this word's ecclesiatical meaning. --EncycloPetey 02:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Transwiki:Spetchel

The word seems to exist... just not in the context of a fine linen cabinet? Austrian is not my forte. Goldenrowley 04:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

transsexual

Current definition: One who has undergone hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and/or sex reassignment surgery (SRS). Rfv-sense: Many transsexuals get these treatments, but do they really define a transsexual? --Hekaheka 18:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's one: <http://books.google.com/books?id=BDboCztcUoIC&pg=PA107&dq=transsexual>. It doesn't support the "medicine" tag, though. —Ruakh_TALK 19:47, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Another one: <http://books.google.com/books?id=sitDp-3kf6wC&pg=PA133&dq=transsexual>, also not supporting the "medicine" tag. BTW, while it's hard to find cites that clearly support our sense #2, there are a fair number that seem to intend something more than our sense #1 — either living as a (wo)man, or seeking sex reassignment surgery. Indeed, I'd say that our sense #1 is a better definition of "transgender(ed) person" than of "trans(s)exual person". (And even then it would be a bit wrong, in that a person doesn't cease to be transgender or transsexual on undergoing sex reassignment surgery, even though his/her physical sex thenceforth matches his/her gender self-image. I think something like "birth sex" would be a bit more accurate, though that has the complication that with intersex people, these terms are commonly defined relative to the sex that they were assigned after birth, or the gender they were raised in.) —Ruakh_TALK 21:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Cited IMHO, but I think the "medicine" tag should be removed. —Ruakh_TALK 03:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

hate sex

Wikipedia article is in "request for deletion". SemperBlotto 21:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Since when is RFV a place to post cross-refs to a Wikipedia RFD? In any case, the discussion there is primarily over whether they can make something more than a dictionary definition out of it. The entry already has the three requisite cites, so RFV isn't the right place for it. Maybe our own RFD would be appropriate, but unless we generalize an adjective sense out of this entry and (deprecated template usage) hate crime, I can't see this entry failing RFD either. — Carolina wren discussió 23:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think it only has one of the three requisite cites: neither the New York cite nor the ESPN Page 2 cite is durably archived as far as I can tell. (And even if they are, I think RFV is a reasonable forum for determining that they are.) —Ruakh_TALK 00:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a reason for RFV-ing, tho it would be nice to point out that one doesn't think the quotes are adequate when nominating. Still don't see what the Pedia RFD had to do with anything. I've added three cites found on b.g.c (one dating from 1972) and deleted the ESPN cite since dating it was problematic. That leaves the entry with five cites: three solidly durable, one mostly durable, and one possibly durable. Unless there's a question as to whether the cites are appropriate to the sense, that should do it. — Carolina wren discussió 02:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like hate (attr. n.) + sex. Any reason this shouldn't go to RfD as sum-of-parts? —Michael Z. 2009-10-07 03:05 z

Because there are forms which are hyphenated? (according to the citations) --EncycloPetey 03:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Is being a variant form of an entry a CFI? Should it? —Michael Z. 2009-10-07 03:17 z

If very carefully worded, I think it should be. --EncycloPetey 03:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to making (deprecated template usage) hate-sex the primary entry and (deprecated template usage) hate sex the alternative form since the preponderance of cites favor the hyphenated version. Found one more cite and have exhausted b.g.c. — Carolina wren discussió 03:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Do we, should we, include sum-of-parts hyphenated terms? To me both forms seem equivalent. Hyphenated hate-sex is more tentative, appears more in earlier quotations, and with self-conscious quotation marks. If we keep these, I think the non-hyphenated form may be a better main entry. —Michael Z. 2009-10-07 03:42 z

Hmph, but what if hatesex were attested? Seems to be an argument for permissiveness in there somewhere. —Michael Z. 2009-10-07 05:02 z

good night

The US Army sense, while plausible, could do with some verification, considering its obscurity. It may very well be a protologism. Dominic·t 09:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

ninja

"(Internet, slang) To post a particular thing on an Usenet newsgroup or an internet forum faster than another person." Equinox ◑ 10:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Don't have a durable cite, nor am I interested in slogging through g.g.c to find durable cites, but I have seen this term used in the wild in this sense on an non-durable internet forum that I am member of. Added a generic verb sense, "to act in the manner of a ninja", since verbal usage of (deprecated template usage) ninja is trivial to demonstrate. The exact action being attributed to being something a ninja would do varies based on the context, so perhaps the generic sense is all that is needed. — Carolina wren discussió 19:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

ailihphilia

Usual garbage, I just want to check before deleting. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

In fairness this gets six hits on Google Books, two of which are usable (if you allow Ailihphilia). So I think it merits at the very least a whole month. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, [125], [126], [127], and [128] all definitely use it, whilst this one is unclear. It satisfies the CFI, but the way it’s used clearly requires that it be marked as a nonce word. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 18:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

shluff

Could somebody cite it? Any inflected forms seem practically non-existent, and there isn't much for the infinitive either. Equinox ◑ 19:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought the fact it is in a "real" dictionary is enough. In this case, it might be Yiddish. The JPS dictionary of Jewish words‎, by Joyce Eisenberg, Ellen Scolnic, Jewish Publication Society, page 154. Goldenrowley 04:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I added two English quotes, but maybe they more prove it is Yiddish(?), because both are embedded in English in italics. As Yiddish seems to inflect as shluffen (??). While I am at it, there's several English uses of the phrase "to shluff off" which mean something else. Goldenrowley 05:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No, being in another dictionary isn't sufficient. Examples need to show usage. Equinox ◑ 15:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I can confirm it's Yiddish for "sleep" (not spelled this way, of course: Yiddish uses Hebrew characters). (Whether it's entered English I can't say; cites rule, as always, and, of course, italics argue against its being English.)​—msh210℠ 16:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Antirio

Needs attributive use (not tagged by me). Mglovesfun (talk) 07:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Transwiki:Klempen

I'm not convinced it meets criteria. Goldenrowley 18:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

pauciloquy

Rfv-sense

The form of writing use to produce the intended sound, as in: English = ing-glish.

First sense is uncommon, but is easily citeable, tho by far the majority of hits on b.g.c are of it in various wordlists and dictionaries. This sense is not so easily citable and doesn't seem to fit anyway. — Carolina wren discussió 03:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

refundant

Appears to be either a scanno or a misspelling. OTOH, given the listed sense, a slight alteration of redundant might be indicative of it being a protologism. Only the fact that the editor who added this also added a good word, acronymize, caused me to not speedy delete it. — Carolina wren discussió 03:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

whaupin

Dubious. The etymology ("wha" + "upin") doesn't match the example ("what would happen?"), and neither does the spelling ("waupin") match the entry title. The word occurs a few times in Google Books but not in this sense; it is an adjective perhaps meaning large or substantial ((deprecated template usage) whopping?). Equinox ◑ 15:39, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

pettanko

Has it entered English? Equinox ◑ 02:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• In limited circles (and specialized words are hardly something lacking in entries). English language TV Tropes uses it here if you need an actual use. --68.204.30.138 03:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• I just came across it and was wondering what it mean. Since Wiktionary had no article on it, I have created it. TestPilot^{talk to me!} 12:29, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

xanthophobia

Fear of the colour yellow or (weirder still) the word yellow. I think this is only in invented phobia lists. However, at least one Google Books match suggests a zoological sense (aversion to yellow light). Equinox ◑ 21:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

bzuh

Expression of shock and confusion. Equinox ◑ 22:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

MAWG

Middle-aged white guy. Equinox ◑ 01:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

pentium

Although this follows from deuterium and tritium, it doesn't seem to be used in the place of simply Hydrogen-5. Nadando 17:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I’ve added the source whence I got this, though, as you say, it doesn’t seem to have caught on like (deprecated template usage) protium, (deprecated template usage) deuterium, and (deprecated template usage) tritium have; that said, it may be just about attestable with the aid of Google Groups Search. It’ll be difficult given the predominance of (deprecated template usage) Pentium. FWIW, (deprecated template usage) pentium doesn’t exactly follow from (deprecated template usage) protium, (deprecated template usage) deuterium, and (deprecated template usage) tritium — the latter are formed on (deprecated template usage) [etyl] Ancient Greek ordinal numbers ((deprecated template usage) , (deprecated template usage) , and (deprecated template usage) , respectively) + (deprecated template usage) [etyl] Latin (deprecated template usage) -ium, whereas the former is formed from the Ancient Greek cardinal number (deprecated template usage) + Latin (deprecated template usage) -ium. Consistency calls for something like *(deprecated template usage) pemptium (from the ordinal form of (deprecated template usage) , viz. (deprecated template usage) ), but there’s an absolute dearth of use thereof (for example, google books:pemptium yields only gibberish, phantom hits, and ten scannos of (deprecated template usage) Pompeium). What that source gives as the term for ⁴₁H — (deprecated template usage) tetrium — seems more promising… † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 23:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

fetch

Rfv-sense: "a type of guardian angel, guardian spirit, totemic being or tutelary entity" --EncycloPetey 04:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Oddly, I know of this use and have actually used it this way, but I have no idea where I learned it. It carries more of the sense of a ghost or spook; a puppy-like poltergeist. - Amgine/^talk 02:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

processional marketing

I found only one hit at books, none at other qualifying google sites, only 3 others on web. DCDuring TALK 10:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Albanya

As a given name in Basque, or in any language. I cannot find it in any dictionary, and only two persons in Ancestry.com, statistically equivalent to zero.--Makaokalani 12:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

nonvirile

RfV for the general sense of “not virile” (not the sense pertaining to Slavic grammar). † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 15:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Cited. Nadando 20:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn’t really be rubber-stamping your own verification efforts; also note atop this page: “a week afterwards will be given to allow any disputes about the verification itself to arise”. That said, I don’t dispute the citations provided, and I therefore consider this RfV passed. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Rolyism

Precious little in bgc. User:Goldenrowley may know something we don't. Equinox ◑ 15:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

fonduck

Alternate spelling of (deprecated template usage) fonduk. Google Books has it only in French, not English. Equinox ◑ 19:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

smittling

Cites, please; also, etymology needs to be properly formatted. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

heteroradical

RfV for the sense “A word of mixed roots (from Latin and Greek, for example).”; very believable, but some proof would be nice. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 21:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added a quote that might support this sense, but the actual meaning in context of the quote is not clear to me, even after reading the preceding paragraphs. --EncycloPetey 20:22, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

oat

UK sense just added by anon, slang for "sex." -- WikiPedant 00:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd assume this is related to the expression "sowing own's oats" (or "wild oats", etc.). I'm not sure it has this meaning outside of the expression. --EncycloPetey 02:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Total agreement - sense should be removed. SemperBlotto 07:18, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

private joke

Strangely, this entry is in French, not English. On Wiktionnaire, it is in English, not French. I've been bamboozled, nevertheless. --Volants 11:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

yond

Preposition: Beyond. DCDuring TALK 16:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

ac

Rfv-sense: conjuction. Was this in use in English post 1500? If the OED says it was, that would be fine, because it is a pain to cite. DCDuring TALK 20:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

let alone

Rfv-sense: ({idiom, proscribed) (where the second element is more likely than, or implies, the first) or even / I doubt if there are twenty, let alone ten.

And then there's the question of who proscribes it. DCDuring TALK 20:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

fboms

Really? Caps seem to be wrong if OK. SemperBlotto 21:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you are talking about, caps? — This comment was unsigned.

(deprecated template usage) caps: capital letters, i.e. it should probably be at FBOMS if it exists. Equinox ◑ 16:27, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

what do you mean a request for validation? thanks — This comment was unsigned.

We need proof that this word really exists. Proof can be citations from books or certain other published sources. See WT:CFI. Equinox ◑ 00:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

ergo

Rfv-sense: because. I thought it only meant "therefore". When, where, and how often did it mean "because"? DCDuring TALK 22:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Never, as far as I'm aware. unless that is a common mistake in modern usage. --EncycloPetey 20:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean, it is in all caps? What do you mean it should be AT FBOMS? I'm new to this, thanks.

I'm not sure it's pub;ished in a book anywhere but I've heard about it for years and I know that several Las Vegas oddsmakers use a system based on it. does it have to be a a reference from a book?

take exception to

Rfv-sense: To take offense to or at. The main meaning is to object to. Taking offense is a sometime accompaniment, not an inherent part. Because it is an implication of "take exception" that one might "take offense", supporting the RfVed sense requires some cases where one takes offense at something without objecting. If someone could suggest a scenario, I'd be happy to try to hunt down a citation. I realize this may be getting a bit picky, but please humor me. I'm trying to understand how this kind of not-uncommon implication works and how it should effect our definitions.

There's also a question whether this (not an entry elsewhere) is SoP with respect to take exception (which more other dictionaries have). DCDuring TALK 15:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

gumpstump

I nearly speedy-deleted this, but Google Books seems to indicate that it might exist. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• But I'm pretty sure that the definition is wrong. SemperBlotto 16:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

have to do

Does this have any existence apart from [[have to do with]]? DCDuring TALK 16:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. I'm not totally happy with [[have to do with]] either. Perhaps it is something to do with the fact that the have is also superfluous to the meaning? -- ALGRIF talk 15:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that to do with has become or is on its way to becoming what we might classify as a preposition?

I have been noticing how contributors like to include to#Particle, which I was taught to view as associated with the following verb form, in preceding terms. I have assembled a few at Category:English non-constituents, though I'm not sure that the category name is accurate for these. DCDuring TALK 15:40, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

zwavelzuurtjes

I really don't think this word makes any sense. Yes there are "zuurtjes" they are candies like lifesavers. "Zwavelzuurtjes" (little sulfurics acids) sounds like a morbid joke at best. Like candies filled with sulfuric acid. What's next? Kwikzilvertjes? Ones filled with mercury? I know Halloween is coming up but we don't need to teach people how to do these things.

I think this is a good example of protologism-by-template. Can we please stop that practice? I know it increases the article count but is that really all that wiktionary is about? Why not open the door for protologisms proper. They often make more sense than this kind of linguistic pollution. Jcwf 21:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

That was not my intention when I created it. I saw that it had not been created, so therefore, I thought that it sounded like a reasonable enough word to have an entry for. My intention was not to make a sick joke or anything of the sort. I was just trying to help out. Razorflame 21:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I have changed zwavelzuur to give "no diminutive", since both singular and plural appear to be unattestable. Is this possibly a more widespread problem in Dutch entries? Should the diminutive in {{nl-noun}} be switched off by default? -- Visviva 02:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I never thought you were trying to do anything sick, Razorflame: no offence taken. The thing remains that language can be pretty tricky thing, even our own mother tongues at times, even more so one that is not your mother tongue. And yes, Visviva, this problem is more widespread. A default switch off is not a bad idea, but then I suppose a lot of existing words need to be checked. I think it is really a general issue with generation of forms by template. It is so easy to create forms that way that either are never used or even have rather undesired possible meanings. The Dutch diminutive is a particularly tricky one because it can be used for a number of very different things. One is joking or even showing disdain. Turning a word like say, 'funeral' or 'holocaust' into a dim is not advisable, unless you really want people upset. A bit like calling your dog 'holocaust' or so. Jcwf 03:39, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• And shouldn't the definition of (deprecated template usage) zwavelzuur be changed to a simple translation i.e. (deprecated template usage) sulfuric acid (plus (deprecated template usage) sulfur trioxide if that is real)? SemperBlotto 07:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

ROFL thanks for the laugh Jcwf. XD There are two problems with your "theory" (and yes, I know you were possibly being sarcastic) though:

1. I doubt people looking to do something like that would be looking up a wiki.
2. They wouldn't learn how to do it anyway unless someone described how to do it in the entry. 50 Xylophone Players talk 22:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Ur-turtle

Apparently only in the one book cited. ur- + turtle Equinox ◑ 23:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Britain English

Equinox ◑ 14:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• No, I don't think so. SemperBlotto 16:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Likewise Scotland English, Ireland English, England English. Equinox ◑ 19:47, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Britain and Northern Ireland

I don't think so. Wikipedia article does not exist. SemperBlotto 16:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

And the def is nonsense. Pingku 19:03, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

ho hos

Breasts? I know you can use just a few thousand words to substitute for breasts with the right intonation, but is this verifiable? bd2412 T 18:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

isonym

Rfv-sense: A word spelled the same as another but pronounced differently. Is "isonym" a synonym for heteronym besides having the other claimed meanings? DCDuring TALK 23:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

wrap up

Rfv-sense "To form a cylinder by rolling a sheet of something". -- WikiPedant 02:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Draw-can-Sir

Draw-can-Sirs

Name of a fictional character in a 17th C play. Needs attributive use in this spelling. See drawcansir. DCDuring TALK 13:04, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Jose

Rfv-sense: Has appeared at top of RfC page for a while, though rfc tag was removed. Entered in 2006. A name popular in Kerala (India). Could well be, but spelling, etymology, etc are at issue. DCDuring TALK 19:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

It may be that the name used in w:Kerala has its origins in Portuguese influence in the 16th and 17th centuries. DCDuring TALK 19:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No question that it is real, IMO; just google:"jose * from kerala". As to how we should formally verify that, I'm not sure (three citations pertaining to three different Joses?).

Some random online sources give it as a name used specifically by Christians there (Kerala is 19% Christian); the popularity of the name "Jose Thomas" would seem to bear that out. Also appears to be a common surname. The name of film director "Lal Jose" is spelled ലാല്‍ ജോസ് in Malayalam; puzzling out the viramas and whatnot, it appears that the surname (and presumably the given name) would just be pronounced jōs ("joce"). If the tie to Christianity is accurate, it seems likely that this is from the Biblical Yose, but possibly via English (unless they arrived at "dj" from "y" by some other path). I would suggest that we ask a Malayalam specialist about all this, but we don't seem to have any. -- Visviva 03:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

That is the area of Portuguese influence in India. We seem to show that as the pronunciation. That makes a case that no separate ety is required. It seems to me that it is not a separate sense, but rather a separate pronunciation, more clearly marked. I don't think even a usage note is appropriate. And the usage as last name (hardly likely to be limited to Kerala) needs a sense. We need more contributors from India. DCDuring TALK 12:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

More clearly labeled pronunciation, added usage notes, removed separate Kerala sense, adding surname sense, removing rfv. DCDuring TALK 18:01, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Kelbob

Equinox ◑ 01:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Jafakean

RFV all meanings. One Google Book hit, even the 141 Google hits in English seem to refer almost exclusively to usernames, blog titles etc. Possible speedy delete candidate. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:47, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Possible protologism - deleted for now. SemperBlotto 18:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

tourist's eagle

One mention on Google Groups. That's it. Equinox ◑ 19:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

skilly

"Skylark" in Northern England? Equinox ◑ 20:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Ginny Ollit

Yorkshire term for the barn owl? All I can find is one "mention" (with accompanying definition) in the British Telegraph newspaper. Equinox ◑ 21:00, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

purp sand

The purple sandpiper, in Yorkshire? Equinox ◑ 21:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

As a Yorkshireman myself, never heard of it. But Yorkshire is quite big. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

computer head

Equinox ◑ 21:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

As defined probably should be computerhead, analagously to petrolhead. "Computer head" seems to be used to mean the head that reads from/writes to a magnetic disk. Possible leakage both ways to "computer-head." Pingku 16:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Joe 90s

Spectacles of a certain kind. Added by user:Top Cat 14, who often added playground slang used only in his own school. Equinox ◑ 21:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

necromance

"(Internet) To post messages on a dead or inactive thread." Perhaps related to (deprecated template usage) thread necromancy. I don't think it meets CFI. Equinox ◑ 21:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Eastgate

And Westgate. They may be specific places, but we need evidence for this generic "east or west gate side of any town" sense. Equinox ◑ 21:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

• Even the definition is wrong. (deprecated template usage) gate in a place name means (deprecated template usage) street not an actual gate. I think it's Norse or maybe Germanic. SemperBlotto 21:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

land of fruits and nuts

Is this real? Needs a bit of cleanup if OK. SemperBlotto 06:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks very real, more than 200,000 Google hits. Did some clean-up. Here are some clips [129], but the source is not an original one:

1970 Terry Galanoy Chicago Tribune (Aug. 30) “Ted Liss—talent polisher” p. 42: You can make book on some of the people who were there. That is, if you get a chance to see them peform before some midnight rider from the William Morris Agency makes off with them to the land of fruits and nuts.

1982 Al Strachan Globe and Mail (Toronto, Can.) (Sept. 7) “NFC West holds surprises Falcons should soar; 49ers must dig deep” p. P61: Last year, San Francisco 49ers came out of the land of fruits and nuts to surprise almost everyone and become NFL champions.

1990 Ronald Reagan An American Life (Nov. 15) p. 201 @ (Oct. 1, 1999): In the presidential race, I knew we’d have to confront a different stereotype: the bias many Northeeasterns held against Californians—the one that says since California is a land of fruit and nuts, it’s a great place if you’re an orange.

2003 Mary Starrett NewsWithViews.com (May 14) “You Can’t Make This Stuff Up”: From the land of fruit and nuts comes word of the Oreo lawsuit. A San Francisco lawyer has sued Kraft foods because the popular cookies contain “trans fats.”

--Hekaheka 08:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

That Reagan quote doesn't count, I don't think: It's not referring to the proper noun referent California but rather to a generic land of fruit and nuts. Also, the last quote neither is archived AFAICT nor uses fruits (rather, it uses fruit). The first two look good if accurate, though.​—msh210℠ 15:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

balen

Dutch

I have no idea what is meant with the "etymologies 2 and 3". I do not know any connection with dancing (that is bal - bals, not baal imho). A baal is a stack of something, e.g. hay or tobacco. The latter explains the verb. People tried to grow all sorts of weeds during the World Wars to imitate tobacco and had bales of useless stuff. This led to

ik heb er tabak van - I've got more than enough of it

ik heb er balen tabak van - I've got it up to here

ik heb er de balen van - same meaning

Then it turned into a verb

ik baal ervan

etc.

I think there is only one etymology of this though.

Jcwf 15:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

tingo

Rfv-sense - Pascuense verb. Seems unlikely. SemperBlotto 13:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

See The Meaning of Tingo by Adam Jacot de Boinod, page 95. ISD 13:52, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a mention - not a use. SemperBlotto 13:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Do we have a language code for that? What is it? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

{{rap}}. —Ruakh_TALK 15:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I just added it. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

The non existence of www.google.rap is going to pose an enormous problem. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

double dog dare

Mglovesfun (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a probable pass, see here. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

drunch

Tagged by Logomaniac. Looks like the arrantest nonsense to me. Equinox ◑ 16:23, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know whether it was attestable or not, didn't take time to check. Books search brings up a whole bunch of old (Old? Middle?) English literature -> [130] ...L☺g☺maniac chat? 16:28, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

gift horse

The example given is idiomatic, and if it implied this, the completion of the sentence, don't look a gift horse in the mouth, would stray out of context. -- Cbf536 05:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The definition doesn't seem right. The bare expression "gift horse" is used as an ellipsis of or an allusion to the proverb. I found a quote: "You don't have to pay for them." / Well, a gift horse and all that. I took the sneakers.

Do you doubt that the expression is in use this way or are you just skeptical about the definition that appeared in the entry? DCDuring TALK 07:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

As you said, the definition seems inaccurate as if the creator misinterpreted the proverb. I marked this for RFV to find if the term is used with this meaning. -- Cbf536 08:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Please take a look. DCDuring TALK 09:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

haiku

Rfv-sense "short poem in the style of a translation of a Japanese haiku". The quotation does not support the sense. It speaks of a poem that resembles a haiku, but does not state that it would actually be called haiku. --Hekaheka 07:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

carpetbagger

Rfv-sense: (British, pejorative) One who attempts to force a mutual organisation, such as a building society, to demutualise — to list on a stock exchange, solely for personal pecuniary advantage. This particularistic sense is a use of the general term in a particular instance. I could not find evidence of use where the term conveys this meaning. DCDuring TALK 16:15, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

parking

Rfv-sense. Adjective. Isn't this the attributive form of the noun? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I've been treating them as speedy deletes if I can't find predicate use, or comparative or gradable use or a distinct adjective sense, using a presumed native-speaker license which I somehow can't find documented. But this is more proper. I also would like to get rid of the "action of the verb" sense, because it is inherent in the participle-gerund "-ing" form. To facilitate that, I will add 3-4 usage example of different uses of the the verb form. Looking at other dictionaries, there seem to be some true noun senses missing. DCDuring TALK 15:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't like the wording "action of the verb" either, but what should be done with the translations? At least in the case of German and Finnish (don't know enough of the others to judge) they are not the most evident translations of the gerund of the word "to park", which would be Parkierung and pysäköiminen. --Hekaheka 03:30, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Once we insert true noun definitions, we will have to send them through checktrans. I wonder how many of the nine senses of park are covered by these translations anyway. We need to lead translators efforts away from terms that are inadequate targets for translation toward those that are. Conversely, we might consider translation activity, especially unrequested anon translation, as an indication of the importance of an entry and review it. DCDuring TALK 08:21, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

pretgogga

Possibly somebody's protologism? No evidence on the Web that I can find. Equinox ◑ 15:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I was going to agree but check this out. I don't speak Finnish but the bottom of that page seems to reduplicate our entry.50 Xylophone Players talk 19:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC) in case you're curious, here's how I found that: I Googled "pretgogga" and that site came up then, thinking that *maybe* it was a word in Finnish if not in English I searched what I think was a Finnish-English dictionary.

Oh and look here's a French version. :) 50 Xylophone Players talk 19:43, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

These could possibly be spam sites using our free content to get visitors from search engines. Equinox ◑ 23:31, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Elx

A symbol nobody uses for the exalux, a unit nobody uses. Equinox ◑ 16:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• This falls within the scope of the as-yet unresolved discussion at Wiktionary:Beer parlour#SI units and abbreviations. Cheers! bd2412 T 23:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

gigster

"Someone who attends a gig (musical concert)." Equinox ◑ 17:18, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

brain helmet

Sci-fi sense. Equinox ◑ 18:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe fringe science? Pingku 08:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

DILLIGAF

"Do I [or does it?] look like I give a fuck?" Many mentions but few uses. Apparently military slang. Equinox ◑ 19:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Leftmostcat just told me (on IRC) that this word has failed rfv several times, which somehow I didn't notice. L☺g☺maniac chat? 19:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

From a quick Google Books scan: here's this, though I'm not sure whether it's a mention or a usage. Also this. L☺g☺maniac chat? 19:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Google Groups is probably a better place to look for this, since it's vulgar slang. Unfortunately my first quick glance found loads of irrelevant stuff. Might come back to it. Equinox ◑ 19:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

deus ex machina

Rfv-sense: a god from the machine. Has it ever been used in English with this literal meaning? I know that the literal translation is mentioned in discussion of the term. DCDuring TALK 16:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I note this sense dates from the original entry, which did not include an etymology. Pingku 17:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

It still deserves a chance. If someone has heard it used literally or can imagine it, they may have a good idea how to find the citations. It might just be uncommon or used in some specific context. DCDuring TALK 17:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

In The Matrix Revolutions, one of the machine characters is called Deus Ex Machina, which AFAICT puns on both the literal and the dramatical meanings of the phrase. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr﴿ 02:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd have to look for a specific quote, but I've come across this literal meaning often in discussions of Classical theater. It might be worth adding a context tag or two. --EncycloPetey 03:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

ideonomy

Protologism? All hits seem to come from the same website. SemperBlotto 11:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Bjarnesque

Hmm. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

deleted as personal attack. DCDuring TALK 17:00, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Dynamic Offer System

At the very least bad caps, but I think this might be a brand name. Not sure though. Any thoughts? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Could be promotional material. Google 5 hits, Google Books, Scholar and News all get zero. I recommend a speedy delete, but I want a second opinion. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Deleted SemperBlotto 19:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

apparation

Rfv-sense Harry Potter meaning - noun defined as a verb. SemperBlotto 07:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

abagadugu

Can we believe this? Does anyone speak Nauruan? --Volants 16:25, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I highly doubt anyone here speaks Nauruan. We should probably keep the entry though, the IP that created it has made almost all the Nauruan entries. --Yair rand 16:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Google Books does not seem to be aware of any Nauruan books at all. That is really odd and makes verification rather difficult. -- Prince Kassad 17:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

addendum: I found ebagadugu. Maybe this is a misspelling of that word. -- Prince Kassad 14:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Why was this tagged? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

shability

Apparently from Chinese sha bi and ability, but seems like Urban Dictionary nonsense. Equinox ◑ 19:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Didn't even have a definition. deleted SemperBlotto 08:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

angam

The definitions appear to be incorrect. -- Prince Kassad 14:39, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

fag enabler

Tagged for speedy deletion as a "attack page" which seems like nonsense to me. Who is it supposed to be attacking? Anyway, RFV seemed the only plausible option, as the page does like a bit dodgy. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the foul language but...I could be wrong although at best this seems to be fucking WBC bullshit. Try bgc maybe? 50 Xylophone Players talk 21:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

The only Google Books match is quoting Phelps (of the WBC). I looked on Google Groups and found a rather small number of uses, mostly again quoting him or in reference to WBC stuff. So my hunch is that this hasn't spread enough to be properly citable. Equinox ◑ 21:30, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

progressive

Rfv-sense "a euphemism for obscene": sounds rather POViorish. Any attestations? - Amgine/^talk 02:21, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

out of the box

Rfv-sense: "Outside the box" example: "Berger, despite his concentrated seriousness, is quite capable of breaking out of the box, seeing things in unexpected new ways"

The example does not support the purported idiom. It should be read as break out of the box. It is obviously intended to evoke the "outside the box" cliche. I doubt that this is yet a variant of the idiom. DCDuring TALK 11:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

cord

Rfv-senses:

1. A musical tone; an audible musical note composed of one or more sounds.
2. A cross-section measurement of an aircraft wing.

Is this an alternative spelling of chord for these? DCDuring TALK 03:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Re aircraft wing cross section, I haven't had time to look thoughougly, but it is a very common spelling, including in books. Will follow up later.--Dmol 08:56, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Even though it seems to occur, it seems like a misspelling rather than an alternative. AFAICT, it isn't nearly as common as the "chord" spelling in either context (<5%). DCDuring TALK 10:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

wonder

To amaze. "The gymnast wondered the crowd..." Equinox ◑ 13:33, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

gricer

A railway enthusiast. Possibly just fanciful. DCDuring TALK 20:00, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Never mind. It's just the etymology that needs checking. DCDuring TALK 20:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

British and Irish Isles

I have never heard of this term - surely they are just the British Isles. SemperBlotto 16:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems okay, might just need a {{rare}} or {{dated}} tag. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Doubtless a correction of the term 'British Isles' by people with some sympathy for the Irish who lay claim to some of the land. Even if not verifiable now, it's probably worth watching. ("Bloody English," he mumbles, not quite knowing if he is referring to the language or the people.) Pingku 19:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Irish Isles

I have never heard this term used, not even in Ireland. SemperBlotto 16:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

203 Google Books hits for this, but all of the ones I've seen seem to refer to Irish iles (not The Irish Iles). Mglovesfun (talk) 16:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, all the Google book hits that I've looked at seem to be using the term as a simple sum of parts - like "French rivers". SemperBlotto 16:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

lvxing

Variant Pinyin. Per WT:CFI, seeking 3 examples of durably-archived use to convey meaning. In fact, personally I'd settle for one such example. -- Visviva 11:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

For your reference: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22lvxing%22&rls=com.microsoft:en-gb:IE-SearchBox&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7GPTB

camp

Rfv-senses : to troll for gays partners and to chat up a guy in hopes of getting in him bed. At the very least, these should be merged and made less ambiguous. I think "get into bed" in this context makes to have sexual relations. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

• *is shocked* Ƿidsiþ 16:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

toaster

"Euphemism for an appliance." What? Equinox ◑ 16:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)