Wiktionary:Requests for verification

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for verification

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup
add new | history | archives

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

Requests for verification
add new | history | archives | old index

Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.

Requests for deletion
add new | history | archives

Requests for deletion of pages in the main namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

Requests for deletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.

Requests for moves, mergers and splits
add new | history | archives

Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.

{{rfc-case}} - {{rfc-trans}} - {{rfdate}} - {{rfd-redundant}} - {{rfdef}} - {{rfe}} - {{rfex}} - {{rfap}} - {{rfp}} - {{rfphoto}} -

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

Scope of this request page:

  • In-scope: terms to be attested by providing quotations of their use
  • Out-of-scope: terms suspected to be multi-word sums of their parts such as “brown leaf”



See also:

Overview: Requests for verification is a page for requests for attestation of a term or a sense, leading to deletion of the term or a sense unless an editor proves that the disputed term or sense meets the attestation criterion as specified in Criteria for inclusion, usually by providing three citations from three durably archived sources. Requests for deletion based on the claim that the term or sense is nonidiomatic AKA sum of parts should be posted to Wiktionary:Requests for deletion.

Adding a request: To add a request for verification AKA attestation, place the template {{rfv}} or {{rfv-sense}} to the questioned entry, and then make a new nomination here. Those who would seek attestation after the term or sense is nominated will appreciate your doing at least a cursory check for such attestation before nominating it: Google Books is a good source.

Answering a request by providing an attestation: To attest a disputed term, meaning to prove that the term is actually used and satisfies the requirement of attestation as specified in inclusion criteria, do one of the following:

  • Assert that the term is in clearly widespread use.
  • 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, usage of the word in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year.

In any case, advise on this page that you have placed the citations on the entry page.

Closing a request: After a discussion has sat for more than a month without being "cited", or after a discussion has been "cited" for more than a week without challenge, the discussion may be closed. Closing a discussion normally consists of the following actions:

  • Deleting or removing the entry or sense (if it failed), or de-tagging it (if it passed). In either case, the edit summary or deletion summary should indicate what is happening.
  • Adding a comment to the discussion here with either RFV failed or RFV passed, indicating what action was taken.
  • Striking out the discussion header.

(Note: The above is typical. However, in many cases, the disposition is more complicated than simply "RFV failed" or "RFV passed".)

Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request may be archived to the entry's talk-page or to WT:RFVA. This consists of removing the discussion from this page, and copying it to the entry's talk-page (using {{rfv-passed}}, {{rfv-failed}}, or {{rfv-archived}}). Historically, it could also include simply commenting on the talk page with a link to the diff of the edit that removed the discussion from this page. Examples of discussions archived at talk pages: Talk:impromptu, Talk:baggs.

Oldest tagged RFVs


October 2013[edit]


Another Simpsons-based word. —CodeCat 13:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Google reveals Ich weiss nicht, ich finde das sehr allumpassend. There are also some informal dialogues (in blogs and chats) providing more refrences. —This comment was unsigned.
Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense X 2. Same as above. DCDuring TALK 15:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Passed (cited since October). — Ungoliant (falai) 15:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

November 2013[edit]


Rfv-sense for definition "water that does not recede and cannot be diverted". Purportedly given in the Kangxi Dictionary (1716), the definition isn't in the Unihan database (which, in itself, isn't a problem) and almost seems to contradict one or more of the definitions given at zdic.net (Han Dian dictionary site). It'd be nice to have someone native or near-native in reading Chinese have a look at this definition to see if it's valid. Bumm13 (talk) 22:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm certainly not near-native in reading Chinese, but it looks like this definition is indeed in the Kangxi dictionary: "水不通不可别流" [1]. Mr. Granger (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
The Kangxi dictionary cites the very old Yupian dictionary, which gives the same definition. Mr. Granger (talk) 23:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
Okay, after working with several sources and translation tools, I finally was able to parse the "cannot be diverted" part (不可别流). The "that does not recede" definition seems a bit odd to me, as the literal translation that I'm getting for that part is "stopped" or "blocked" (不通, a compound word) rather than "recede". Bumm13 (talk) 01:29, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
That's true in modern Chinese, but in classical Chinese, words are generally monosyllabic, so my guess would be that it should be parsed as two words: 不=not, 通=pass through. (But again, I'm no expert - we need someone who can read classical Chinese.) Mr. Granger (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
[2]: KangXi ZiDian:
(Balancing between literal translation and meaning translation) --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:08, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, Wyang has commented on his talk page that "the sense is easily attested". Whether the current wording is a sufficiently fluent wording is another question... - -sche (discuss) 02:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


There are no citations and the usage examples are in the plural only. If we are going to have a singular entry for what is in most folks' current English a plural-only noun, we should have citations for each sense in the singular. I suspect that usage in speech is minimal, mostly something like "What is a shenanigan anyway?" DCDuring TALK 05:48, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

The entry "shenanigans has one sense less than "shenanigan". The only translation table provided for "shenanigans" is for the non-existent sense, i.e. the one that is provided in singular only. Somebody's fingers have been faster than his brain. --Hekaheka (talk) 06:02, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
The translation table was "borrowed" without modification from the shenanigan entry, along with just about everything else- even interwikis. Just about the only thing they didn't copy was the missing sense. Not all that great a job- they managed to add an "s" to all the instances of shenanigan, but that was about it. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:34, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
SpinningSpark 14:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Which of these support which of the three definitions? Two of the definitions would seem to be worded as uncountable ("trickery" and "play"). The citations all fit a definition like "trick". None support the other senses. It is only the other senses that I am familiar with and only in the plural. DCDuring TALK 16:46, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Whenever I read the singular form I feel that the author is playing with the word, ie, that it is a "literary"-type use. I don't think I have ever heard it used in the singular in my life. I'm not entirely alone: at COCA the plural outnumbers the singular 28 to 1; at BNC the count is 36 to 0. But looking at COHA it seems that use of the singular preceded use in the plural and has continued into the present. DCDuring TALK 16:47, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I have converted the RfV of all three senses to an RfV of the singular of the two senses that I know only in the plural. It would be nice to see the citations supporting the singular sense actually where they belong, in the entry, under the definition they support. DCDuring TALK 17:01, 13 November 2013 (UTC)


Adjective: of or relating to gamma rays or gamma radiation. I repeat, adjective. Surely this is a noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

[6] shows "gamma-ray bursts", "gamma-ray astronomy", "gamma-ray spectroscopy", and more. It kind of seems like it's just being used attributively, except for the hyphen - it looks to me like it's written without a hyphen normally but with a hyphen when it's being used to modify a noun. Mr. Granger (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Hyphenating the component words of a noun phrase is standard when the noun phrase is used attributively; "'gamma-ray bursts', 'gamma-ray astronomy', [and] 'gamma-ray spectroscopy'" are more correct than "gamma ray bursts", "gamma ray astronomy", and "gamma ray spectroscopy". That doesn't make these noun-phrases-used-attributively true adjectives, however. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:30, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
Looks to pass the RFV, though someone should add the cites to the entry; the POS question is a good one, but doesn't affect whether we have the entry. Note that we have quite a few {{form of|attributive form|...}} (or similar) entries; some are =Adjective=s, some =Noun=s (or =Proper Noun=s where the unhyphenated versions are =Proper Noun=s). We should probably decide on one or the other at some point.​—msh210 (talk) 04:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm challenging the current definition, not ones we may have in future. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
Failed: converted to noun section. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


Adjective. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Failed, leaving only the noun section. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

birota automataria[edit]

Latin for "motorcycle". Mr. Granger (talk) 06:52, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I found one citation at the site mentioned above. See Citations:birota automataria. I'd appreciate any improvements in the formatting. DCDuring TALK 16:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
Passed. — Ungoliant (falai) 21:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense I think that this sense is ambiguous, and it should be split into two different senses. I've already added my proposal, which is one sense for "final point" (e.g. the end of a movie), and one sense for "extreme point, edge" (e.g. both ends of a cable; burn the candle at both ends; hold the end of the thread). I haven't touched the original sense "extreme part", but I already tried to move some translations into the new senses. I have to admit I don't speak Mandarin or Ukrainian, but I'm pretty positive that the people who added "qualifier:edge" were thinking the same thing as I do. I'm not a native English speaker, so feel free to suggest a better formulation than "extreme point, edge". Additionally, you might consider adding a corresponding sense to the main part of the article. Jenniepet (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Which sense? I can't see a tagged sense in end. Also, since you're not disputing its existence, rfv seems like the wrong forum; perhaps WT:RFC. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I think (s)he split the translation tables along the lines mentioned. But RfC is a better venue for this. Sometimes (often ?) spatial and temporal definitions are better separated. DCDuring TALK 16:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I removed the WT:RFV request, undid the changes I had made to the translation senses and used some qualifiers in the original translation sense. I will not be making a clean-up request.Jenniepet (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
As a clarification, the difference is not spatial versus temporal. In spatial use, there are two cases. Objects with a start and a finish, e.g. books, and objects with two ends (or more), e.g. thread, table. To give an example in a better known language, in French you would say la fin du livre (the end of the book) and un bout du fil (one end of the thread). Jenniepet (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
I would say that a book is temporal. --WikiTiki89 22:09, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
This is the kind of discussion that could continue without reaching an end.
A physical (spatial) path can be looked at in two ways, something with a beginning and an end (as when one is starting to take it) or with two ends (as when one is in the middle or when one is looking at it on a map). Purpose or goal is sometimes involved but I don't think it is implied by the word itself. In the case of a spatial application of the word end, the distinction is often not made or not relevant. For something temporal, normal discourse requires a distinction between a beginning and an end. That often corresponds to a purpose or an achievement. Of course end can have an essentially telic sense that is completely non-spatial and inherently temporal, in that in normal discourse a purpose or goal is always after the activity required to achieve it.
I think the question is whether there is an additional telic vs non-telic or spatial vs temporal distinction that would make a useful English distinction and/or help with clarifying translations. DCDuring TALK 22:45, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
One relevant distinction between the spatial and temporal is that a physical path has two ends either of which could be called a beginning. A period of time has one beginning and one end, which are not interchangeable in normal discourse. DCDuring TALK 22:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
Closed. Untagged by nominator. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


Do we have evidence of this having been used to produce forms not present in Hebrew or applied to non-Hebrew singular forms or stems? The individual terms need not be attestable. Three instances of productive use at any time 1450 to present would be sufficient. DCDuring TALK 15:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the policy/vote/discussion page for the policy you describe? —RuakhTALK 21:11, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
WT:CFI and, for the date which something needs to have been published after to be English, WT:AENM (which notes that the date is actually 1500, not 1450). -os is currently defined as an English suffix "Used to form plurals of some Hebrew and Yiddish loanwords, usually ending in -a or -ah"; per CFI, we need evidence of that. The entry currently links to a couple of words which English borrowed wholesale from Ashkenazi-accented Hebrew or Yiddish; it currently lacks anything that might demonstrate -os to be an English plural-forming suffix. - -sche (discuss) 22:06, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
This plural-formation rule is, of course, only used in cases where the etymon used that plural-formation rule. I doubt anyone is suggesting otherwise, and we don't really need an RFV to resolve that. If there is disagreement on whether we should keep these entries, that's a disagreement over policy (either over what it is, or over what it should be); if you are so confident that your view is correct, then you might as well speedy-delete them, rather than putting up straw men for the pleasure of tearing them down.
Sometimes this abuse of WT:RFV is entertainingly farcical, but most of the time it's just tiresome. It's the main reason I stopped bothering with this page.
RuakhTALK 18:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Are you saying that any Latinization of any morpheme in any script of any language meets CFI if there are three English instances of one (three different?) borrowings that contain the Latinized morpheme? DCDuring TALK 20:52, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
I'm saying that if you think this entry should be deleted, you should either start an RFD discussion (if you care to discuss it) or speedy-delete it (if you don't). Listing it here, with requirements that everyone knows can't be satisfied, is disingenuous. —RuakhTALK 21:18, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
But I could imagine them being attestable as productive English suffixes in which case they should certainly be kept. I have no animus against them. I would expect that -im would almost certainly prove attestable in macaronic English formations. Similarly -san is almost certainly attestable in English. These two just seem much less likely. DCDuring TALK 21:33, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
There was a RFD discussion, it reached no consensus. I presumed DCDuring started this RFV in response to the RFD. It is not uncommon for discussions at RFD to raise questions of attestability and thus shift to RFV.
You say it's "disingenuous" to list it here with "requirements that everyone knows can't be satisfied", but those requirements are the ones everything else is subject to. If everyone knows the entry doesn't meet them, then it should be deleted and the question should be asked: why was it created? (-oth was created by me for reasons outlined here, in short I presumed it to be as attested or unattested and as idiomatic or unidiomatic as -os and thus deserving of the same treatment.) - -sche (discuss) 22:17, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
If the closest you can come to demonstrating a policy that requires "evidence of this having been used to produce forms not present in Hebrew or applied to non-Hebrew singular forms or stems" is to link to the entirety of WT:CFI, then you really might as well dispense with the link; it's not helpful. (And even if CFI did impose the requirements that you ascribe to it, your characterization of them as "the ones everything else is subject to" is impossible to take seriously. You can't possibly be suggesting that you'd apply this "forms not present in [source language]" requirement to whole words; rather, you must be applying this requirement to sub-word morphemes.)
As for the RFD discussion link — thanks. As you can plainly see, it was closed with "no consensus", not with "let's invent attestation requirements, then move it to RFV and impose them". (It's not as though anyone there argued that it met these made-up requirements; it's just that there wasn't consensus that they should be applied.) If DCDuring indeed started this RFV in response to that, then this listing is even more disingenuous than I had supposed.
RuakhTALK 23:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Do you think we should have an entry ki-#English that states that ki- is an English prefix? It so happens that in addition to Swahili#English and Kongo#English, English also borrowed kiSwahili#English and Kikongo#English. - -sche (discuss) 22:37, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
Well, what is the relationship of those forms? What speakers use both "Swahili" and "Kiswahili", and what do they take the ki- part to mean? My understanding was — and our entries agree with this — that the two forms are synonymous alternatives. —RuakhTALK 23:27, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
As a crude check of plausibility I looked at Michael Quinion's Affixes.org site. The site includes -im and -san, but not -os and -oth. I understand that there might be some difficulty in attesting these because affixes are not conveniently searched for on Google, but I thought someone might have a feel for where attestation could be found. I aven't tried COCA and BNC yet. DCDuring TALK 23:56, 29 November 2013 (UTC)
  • There is no requirement in CFI that a putative suffix must be productive and attested as such. This nomination is not policy driven. DCDuring has been pushing the requirement that suffixes must be productive for some time, but I do not recall a community consensus for that requirement. For emphasis, the nomination says "Do we have evidence of this having been used to produce forms ...", italics mine. Proposed RFV outcome: out of scope of RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
    First, I asked that there be unambiguous demonstration of productivity at any time in the past 500+ years. I was trying to suggest a more objective means of demonstrating that the affixes convey meaning,
Second, lots of things aren't in CFI and shouldn't be. Attestation of meaning is beyond what detailed rules are likely to sustain. I came up with something that seemed practical.
Third, could you suggest some other means of demonstrating that -os and -oth or other similar affixes convey meaning that has some taint of objectivity and testability (Or is that also to be a realm of whim wrapped in voting and legalism?) 14:32, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
RFV-failed; deleted. - -sche (discuss) 22:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Undone by Ruakh ([7]). — Ungoliant (falai) 22:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
  • RFV kept for no consensus about which policy, if any, pertains to this nomination in relation to attestation. The closer User:-sche (sic) failed to point to a policy supporting his or her manner of closure. For a previous RFD discussion, see Talk:-oth#Deletion discussion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


Same as for -os. DCDuring TALK 15:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Asherim and Asheroth are both attestable as plurals of Asherah; presumably only one of them is correct in Hebrew. This has ayatollot as a questioned plural of ayatollah (the plural from the Persian would be ayatollah(h)a). Bar-Mitzvah can become Bar-Mitzvoth or Bar-Mitzvot, whilst the correct plural form (AFAICT) is Barei-Mitzvah; likewise, Bat-Mitzvah can become Bat-Mitzvoth or Bat-Mitzvot, whilst its plural form is properly Bnoth-Mitzvah. Brit milah is attestable as brit milot in the plural, even though the correct form is britot milah. Chalukah is attestable as chalukot and as chalukim, even though, as in the case of Asherah, presumably only one of them is right in Hebrew. Is any of that evidence at all helpful? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:06, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
It's certainly helpful.
  1. I wouldn't have thought that the existence of alternative transliterations would be evidence for the existence of target-language morphemes based on the morphemes of the source language.
  2. The forms that would be erroneous were they transliterations are definitely better evidence that there was some more active word-formation process. I still wonder whether that kind of error in the frequency that it occurs would normally be deemed to be sufficient evidence of actual "morphemity" rather than of mere error in comparable cases, but no comparable cases come mind immediately.
Thanks. DCDuring TALK 17:36, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Re № 1: Well, presumably, attempted application of this suffix requires familiarity with other words in which the suffix occurs, which would probably include familiarity with the different ways that the suffix can be spelt (Hebrew is quite variable in its transliteration); compare the English -ing-in’ pair. Re № 2: I think that use of a plural-marking suffix in contexts that would be incorrect in the source language is a sign of its morphemity — it shows that the user of the suffix is thinking "-oth (or -ot) marks a plural", and not just that there are a bunch of listemes where the singular happens to end in -ah and the plural meanwhile happens to end in -oth. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I that criterion definitely demonstrates that a suffix should be included. However, I don't think that not fulfilling that criterion automatically means that a suffix shouldn't be included. --WikiTiki89 03:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I agree, this is helpful, whether or ot it is conclusive.
In Deut. 12:3 and 1 Kings 14:23, the plural of asherah seems to be asherim. ISBN 0664241859 says "the Asherah (plural Asherim or Asheroth)".
- -sche (discuss) 07:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Does that mean that asherim and asheroth are transliterations of noun forms that are both correct in Hebrew? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
They both occur in Hebrew scripture, so I would say yes, though I suppose one could argue about whether they're scribal errors or whether they both mean the same thing. At any rate, if they're present in the Hebrew, they could be borrowed, whether they're correct or not. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that was my thinking, too. More examples like ayatollot would be ideal. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 03:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Could someone who is proficient in Hebrew please state which, if any, of the plurals I listed above (in my post timestamped: 17:06, 30 November 2013) do not occur in Hebrew? Given that, I can then create English entries for them and thereby attest -oth as an English suffix. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

I think they are all attestable in Hebrew (except ayatollot, because it's not even a Hebrew word). The only question is whether the -ot ending is attested in Hebrew before or after it is attested in English, and that's a tricky question. Bar-mitzvah has been used in English since before Hebrew was revived as a spoken language, although the sense of bar-mitzvah that is more likely to have the ending -ot is the ceremony sense, which isn't attested in English until 1941. Although, it is still likely that the -ot ending in English may have come first. (Just a side note: the correct plural of bar-mitzvah is not barei-mitzvah, but bnei-mitzvah or b'nei-mitzvah.) --WikiTiki89 00:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • RFV kept for no consensus about which policy, if any, pertains to this nomination in relation to attestation. The closer User:-sche (sic) failed to point to a policy supporting his or her manner of closure. For a previous RFD discussion, see Talk:-oth#Deletion discussion. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

December 2013[edit]

date rape[edit]

Rfv-sense for the sense, "Rape committed with the use of a sedative or memory-inhibiting drug". I do not believe that the term is so broadly construed as to apply to any such act, even if it occurs between complete strangers in a non-social setting (for example, if the perpetrator were to break into a random house and force a complete stranger in that house to imbibe such a drug). bd2412 T 17:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that "if the perpetrator were to break into a random house and force a complete stranger in that house to imbibe such a drug", that would not be considered date rape. Perhaps the words "in a social setting" should be added to the definition. --WikiTiki89 17:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't think it is worthwhile to bother trying to find citations to support the definition's arguable inclusion of BD's hypothetical. But I would expect that folks would use date rape when hook-up rape might more precisely fit the situation. Date is fairly elastic. It is euphemistically (and legalistically) used (as is party) about short-term sex-for-money encounters. DCDuring TALK 18:29, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
At least that's how it's done in the movies. I do not have any direct experience and my friends have the same story. DCDuring TALK 18:33, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Our definitions should be precise enough to avoid sweeping in scenarios not actually covered by a term. Of course, the rape itself is generally not committed in the social setting, but the setting is used as a cover for the drugging. How about, "Rape committed by a perpetrator first secretly administering a sedative or memory-inhibiting drug to the victim, under cover of a social setting"? bd2412 T 18:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
How about we trim it down a bit to: "Rape committed by administering a sedative or memory-inhibiting drug under the cover of a social setting"? --WikiTiki89 18:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I would keep "secretly" (or make it "surreptitiously", which is such a great and sneaky sounding word). Otherwise, I agree. bd2412 T 18:45, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
But if it weren't done secretly, wouldn't it still be a date rape? --WikiTiki89 18:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
If a guy walks into a bar and in full view of his target drops some pills or powder into her drink, and she goes ahead and drinks it with full knowledge that the drink has been drugged, I would consider that to constitute consent to whatever effect the drug has on the imbiber, and whatever activity follows from that effect. Outside of some weird fantasy role-play type situation, "rape" requires a lack of consent. I suppose a drug could be administered in a way that was secret to the victim, but not to others (i.e., the guy at a party telling his friends, "look what I'm doing", and then spiking the drink of an unaware victim). bd2412 T 18:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Consent to a drug does not imply consent to sex. --WikiTiki89 19:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
If I were representing a client accused under these facts, I would argue that consent to imbibe a drug offered by a complete stranger in a bar implied consent to whatever acts could reasonably be foreseen to occur under the influence of the drug. I would win that case, too. bd2412 T 19:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I doubt it. Even real consent given while intentionally intoxicated can be insufficient for legal consent. Anyway, this is not a court but a dictionary; we don't debate laws, but terminology. Also, the word "rape" in the definition implies lack of consent. --WikiTiki89 19:27, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
This being an RfV, are there citations that demonstrate that the phrase is so used where the drugging is done with the victim's knowledge? The Urban Dictionary reference you provided in the other discussion refers to a secret drugging. bd2412 T 19:47, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
For bd2412, couldn't it hypothetically mean raping the fruit a date? I'm not saying any person who has ever existed would interpret it that way, just that it's hypothetically possible. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Since this is an RfV, not an RfD, ther hypothetical meanings are irrelevant to the definition for which verification is sought. If this were an RfD for sense 1, it would be apparent from the context that the relevant sense of "rape" is unlikely to apply to an inanimate object. However, I would certainly avoid your tendency to assume that the meanings of phrases that have been culturally ingrained in you are therefore obvious to everyone else, regardless of where they are from or what language they speak. bd2412 T 19:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't claiming any relevance. I'm saying we shouldn't make up hypothetical definitions and then say the word doesn't mean this. For every word, there are literally infinite things it doesn't mean. Why try to make lists of them? It's madness. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
As I said, our definitions should be precise enough to avoid sweeping in a lot of things that the word doesn't mean. We could define fire engine as "a thing that fights fires", but although that is technically correct, our definition is far more precise. I'm not trying to say what the thing isn't; I'm trying to define it so that it is clear what it is. bd2412 T 20:25, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Date rape is not a legal term. Rape is. The more one tries to make date rape legalistically precise, the more it seems that date rape = date + rape. Date rape seems to have ambiguity with respect to both components of its meaning. DCDuring TALK 20:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Ah, yes, this is true. However, this gets us back to the question of what meanings are verifiable in citations showing how the word is used. I believe that the word is generally used to refer to an act following drugging done secretly. bd2412 T 20:26, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Probably, but there is a great haze of ambiguity (which has led to the usage of terms like gray rape). Some write that alcohol is the most common date-rape drug. Usually nowadays at least the first doses of alcohol are self-administered or knowingly accepted. DCDuring TALK 21:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
In any event date-rape drug seems to be easily citable as being taken voluntarily:
  • 1998 August 8, “"Date-rape drug' blamed in woman's...”, The Denver Post:
    Police say a woman passed out and almost died at a downtown Boulder bar after voluntarily taking an overdose of a so-called date-rape drug
  • 1998 July 28, Lisa Perry, “TEST RESULTS CONFIRM DATE RAPE DRUG”, Dayton Daily News (OH), page 3B:
    Test results show a drug voluntarily ingested by two Piqua women is gamma hydroxy butyrate, or GHB, apparently making it the first reported case of the drug's use in the Dayton area. … ... The liquid GHB has gained notoriety as a "date rape" drug
  • 2011 March 13, “Date-rape drug seized in nation's capital”, Canada.com:
    Users sometimes consume it voluntarily, but because it has no odour or taste, it can be given to victims without their knowledge to facilitate crimes.
It seems to me that date rape doesn't necessarily require that the rapist deliver a drug secretly or at all or even that there be a drug of any kind involved. It seems to mean rape by a rapist with whom the victim was in a consensual social relationship (possibly very short term). DCDuring TALK 21:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Sense one of date rape says exactly that. However, there is apparently a second sense which does not involve the "consensual social relationship", but instead involves secret drugging. Why is it called "date rape" even though there is nothing like a "date" involved? Because people started using the drug to carry out rape in the context of a "consensual social relationship", and the drug came to be known as the "date rape drug", with all rapes using the drug thereafter coming to be known as "date rape" via back-formation. Notably, your citations indicate that the substance itself is still known as "date-rape drug" even if it is used under circumstances that do not involve "rape" at all. bd2412 T 21:31, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
You are assuming that it is back-formation, but I disagree. I think it is more likely that "date rape" first acquired the drug connotation, and then people started using "date rape drugs" to refer to the drugs used that form of "date rape". --WikiTiki89 21:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
That would not be a back-formation.
In Google News, the first usage of date rape that is accurately dated is 1983; the first for date rape drug is 1996. In Books, 1978 and 1996. DCDuring TALK 22:43, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
But was it used in our drug-related sense before "date rape drug"? --WikiTiki89 23:01, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
@Wikitiki: I haven't looked at that.
The citations in [[date rape]] show that date rape has not been limited to traditional dates. Date may even be a term to disguise the actual situation: hookups following from group hangouts. Date rape is apparently a term used to allow cross-generational discussion.
Date rape drugs can be:
  1. administered secretly or not
  2. self-administered or not
  3. associated or not with actual subsequent rape or intent to commit rape
  4. associated with traditional dates or with hookups, with are included by some in an elastic definition of date, or not
  5. a chemically manufactured pharmaceutical agent in the form of pill or powder, an alcoholic beverage, or a natural product.
I do not think that we want to have enough definitions to cover all sensible combinations of these possibilities, nor can we readily use attestation to tease apart which combinations occurred first.
It seems to me that the usage has most commonly been "date rape" drug (with the double quotes) in its first use in the written material I have looked at at Google. This suggests that the readers are not expected to know or care about the chemistry, but to care that the drugs facilitate "date rape", which itself may be a novel concept (and a misnomer given that dates have been often superseded by hookups). "Date rape" is a hot-button to girls and the relatives of girls.
The two medical dictionaries that are the only OneLook references that have entries for date rape drug define it as only Rohypnol/rohypnol (rufie). If that is accurate, then that radical restriction would seem to make a non-SoP definition, though it does not cover all the usage. DCDuring TALK 23:41, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
I have reworked both definitions. The first definition had not been RFVed, but was tortuously worded; I tried to simplify/clarify it. I modified the second definition to include all (and only) the elements mention above which I thought were part of the meaning of the word. - -sche (discuss) 21:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
RFV-passed; the basic sense is attested and has been cited. Further tweaking of the definition can be discussed in the Tea Room and/or talk page. - -sche (discuss) 17:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

of Koranic proportions[edit]

Header was: of quranic proportions

Zero hits in Books or Groups, one cite in the entry is clearly a one-off play on "of bliblical proportions", while the other has "of epic, Biblical and Quranic proportions", and neither meets CFI. However nice it might be to have matching sets of everything on Wiktionary for every religion, the truth is that some figures of speech are only associated with one or two of them, and CFI goes by usage, not by some equal time/space rule. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Like i said on my talk page, Arabic transliterations are difficult to work with because of the large amount of transliterations. The word Quran is especially difficult since it has about half a dozen transliterations. but i have added some citations despite transliteration differences. I think its fine as it is. Pass a Method (talk) 16:44, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
The citations look good to me. Maybe the page should be moved to of Koranic proportions, since that seems to be the spelling that's attested. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 17:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
No. let's keep it as it is. If you look at the Google Ngram stats, the most common transliterations tend to change and it is different for each topic. Pass a Method (talk) 18:00, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I don't think "Koranic" should count toward attestation of "Quranic". --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:05, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
I do; it's the same word just a different spelling. I admit it's a tricky one and I don't think there's a policy on it. It's an excellent example of whether WT:CFI just doesn't mention it. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Sidestepping that issue, all of the citations that seem durable use Koranic, so the entry should be moved. And the definition should be trimmed, since it does seem to be just a rare variation/play on of Biblical proportions. - -sche (discuss) 19:11, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
If this passes, I'm RFDing it as SOP. --WikiTiki89 19:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Debatable, one citation is "of Biblical and Koranic proportions" which could be considered neither one idiom nor the other but a separate one, and two of the citations are by the same author in the same year. Counting them as one citation gets us down to two citations, which isn't enough. How about Usenet? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
What are we going to do about this? The Borman and Pendleton cites are good, but the 1989 one uses “of Biblical or Koranic proportions”. Should it count? — Ungoliant (falai) 00:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


On 15 June 2008 a certain user added a huge number of given names by (one might guess) searching the given names dictionary in WWWJDIC with the keyword "実", unless this user happens to know a huge number of names which all just happen to contain the same character and half of which are impossible to verify. This is one of those which gets under 1000 hits, all of which are online dictionaries, "name recipe" websites, or otherwise dubious sources. I've checked all the "Yumiko"s and these appear bogus:

Haplogy () 01:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]


Appears unattested. google books:"gaplapper", google groups:"gaplapper", gaplapper at OneLook Dictionary Search, google books:"gaplappers", google groups:"gaplappers", gaplappers at OneLook Dictionary Search (courtesy of {{attest-search}}. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

This has been cited. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 14:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't think "gap-lappers" should count toward citing "gaplapper". --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

om nom nom[edit]

Rfv-sense: the noun sense, tasty food. Can we get better and more durably archived sources than yelp.biz for this? TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Added two cites. There's probably another floating around, but it's difficult trying to filter out use as an interjection or verb. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 14:49, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Added a third cite. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Passed. — Ungoliant (falai) 04:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

shark fin[edit]

Rfv-sense "To remove the fin from a shark, usually for use in cooking." The more correct form is "to fin a/the shark(s)". The gerund "shark finning" and the agent noun "shark finner" definitely exist and are not being RFVed. --WikiTiki89 06:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Very common pattern of noun-verb conversion. Nothing guarantees that the process will lead to shark fin#Verb. You would think that such a verb could not be used intransitively and that the object would always be a shark. Something like "The fishermen sharkfin makos when ever they find them in their nets" might exist in the wild, but "The fishermen fin makos when ever they find them in their nets" seems more likely. DCDuring TALK 13:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I suppose there could be uses such as "He shark fins all day," but I haven't found any. --WikiTiki89 18:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Found one:
    • 2008, Paul J. Mila, Fireworks, AuthorHouse, page 42:
      “Yes, perhaps long-liners or poachers illegally shark finning. []
Ungoliant (falai) 14:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I had accepted that we need to attest to the present-tense or 'infinitive' forms, I don't think that is really true. If manner adverbs, like illegally in Ungoliant's example, modify a form of shark fin or there is a true past or passive, that would seem to be sufficient evidence that it is used as a true verb. DCDuring TALK 14:47, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
Here’s another:
    • 2009, Fredric Archer, The New Shark Troller’s Bible, page 188:
      Once again, at the end of the day, everywhere you looked you could see at least one shark finning on the surface.
This one is ambiguous; it could be a verb ( [] at least one [of them] shark finning on the surface.), referring to finners mentioned in a previous sentence, or it could be a noun ( [] at least one [instance of] shark finning on the surface.). — Ungoliant (falai) 15:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
    • 1919, William Merriam Rouse, Peter the Devil in The Green Book Magazine, volume 22, Story-Press Association, page 22:
      [] and the nondescript few who wandered more or less aimlessly about the fifty-mile white beach that was Manaia, shark-finning, boiling bêche-de-mer, hunting hawk's-bill turtle.
Uses a hyphen. There you go: three cites, but two with issues. I’ll leave it to whoever closes the RFV to decide whether this term is verified.
If it passes, it definitely needs to be labelled rare. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
I would still feel more comfortable if we could attest the infinite, simple present, or past tense forms. --WikiTiki89 16:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
The Archer cite does not seem to be the same meaning, or even the same POS. It is a subject-verb use rather than an attributive noun-verb use. The shark is displaying his fin above the water, not chopping off his own fin with his pearly whites. SpinningSpark 18:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
You're right, it's talking about a shark that is "finning" (fin#Verb definition #2). --WikiTiki89 18:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)


RFV for the plural suffix (from the homographic French). Bd2412 closed the suffix's RFD discussion with "Moved to RfV" (see Talk:-x#Deletion discussion), but it was never sent here. I bring this here for that procedural reason. Regarding the suffix's attestation, I think binioux, Citations:cointreaux, Citations:maraboux, and Miniconjoux are enough to verify the independent use of -x in English. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not so sure they're English. The first quote for binioux is instructive: "...the bagpipes or binioux as they are known in France". The writer is obviously under the impression that binioux is the correct plural in French, and is using it as a French word. Being bad at speaking French doesn't change your French into English, it's just bad French. It would be like creating an English entry for buenas días because some people who don't speak Spanish very well think día is feminine. It looks to me like most, if not all, of these quotes are of people attempting to use the French plural for a French word, but getting it wrong (except for cointreaux, which apparently is the correct plural in French- see fr:cointreaux). Chuck Entz (talk) 04:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
To quote myself, mut. mut., in #-oth above (my post timestamped: 01:15, 18 January 2014), "I think that use of a plural-marking suffix in contexts that would be incorrect in the source language is a sign of its morphemity — it shows that the user of the suffix is thinking ‘[-x] marks a plural’, and not just that there are a bunch of listemes where the singular happens to end in [-u] and the plural meanwhile happens to end in [-ux]." Of course, uses of cointreaux in English do nothing to establish the morphemity of -x, since that plural could simply have been borrowed directly from French (rather than having been constructed independently in English). BTW, if *buenas días is attested in English, then yes, it should have some kind of entry (compare baristo). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:55, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
It's kind of ambiguous. On one hand, it's productive use in English by English speakers. But on the other, those same speakers consciously intend to form a plural in a non-English way. Is it English if English speakers try to purposely apply French grammar to French words that are used in English? It's really not different from Latin or Greek plurals. —CodeCat 00:16, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


I can only find hederated; can anyone find hits of other tenses of this verb? If not, it would seem best to move the content to hederated and describe that term as an adjective. I would have just moved the page, but google books:"hederate" gets a lot of hits, and although the ones I looked at were Latin or scannos, I didn't wade through all of them. - -sche (discuss) 04:45, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

There are a couple of dictionary definitions here and here, a few older references to hederate of ammonia or of lead (whatever those are), and a botanical work that uses it as an adjective here. The rest is Latin and scannos. On Groups, there's hits due to its being a username (and most, if not all, not on Usenet), but nothing else. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:15, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
It is clearly a chemical term: I am seeing hederate of baryta, hederate of lime, hederate of potash, hederate of silver [8], hederate of lead [9] as well as several cites to hederate of ammonia mentioned by -sche. It appears to relate to any salt of hederic acid, which is a chemical derived from ivy seeds. SpinningSpark 10:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
"Hederic acid" appears to be obsolete term, it is now called hederagenin. I tried to run NGram for "hederic acid, hederagenin", but there were no results for "hederic acid". "Hederagenin" first appeared in 1919 in that search. "Hederate of" only gets 3 Google hits, all from sources dating back to 1800's. Thus it appears appropriate to tag the noun sense "obsolete". --Hekaheka (talk) 10:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Failed (by -sche (talkcontribs)). — Ungoliant (falai) 15:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


This is now listed as a verb form, but just to cover the superficially plausible hypothesis that this is an adjective existing separately from the verb hederate, I am asking quotations attesting the existence of this specific form, meeting WT:ATTEST, including the requirement that they are in use rather than mere mentions. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:12, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I found one more independent citation (beyond the one from The Diamond Age), from William Winstanley's chapter on John Gower. This is the one often quoted and paraphrased. As much as I enjoyed The Diamond Age, it doesn't seem to rank as a well-known work. I've tried Scholar, News, and even Groups. DCDuring TALK 14:47, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
There are now five citations at Citations:hederated. I’ll leave it for someone else to decide whether they are adjectives or participles. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:11, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I commented above "I can only find hederated; can anyone find hits of other tenses of this verb? If not, it would seem best to move the content to hederated and describe that term as an adjective." I will do that now. - -sche (discuss) 02:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Changed to adjective (by -sche (talkcontribs)). — Ungoliant (falai) 15:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


balneum is commonly a heterogenous noun and has balneae -ārum, f. as its plural (though an entirely neuter second declension usage appeared later). No source to which I have access shows legitimate singular first declension usage i.e. balneam. Endithon (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that if at some point the singular's declension was extended analogically to the plural, the reverse process could conceivably have happened as well. —CodeCat 18:54, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Sure, it's plausible that balneae would have back-formed a singular balnea, but is it attested? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
This seems to be well attested, but I'd appreciate it if a Latin-speaker could double check these citations:
  • 1877, Hints for Hospital Nurses, arranged by Rachel Williams, and Alice Fisher, page 168:
    Balneam tepidam. — Warm bath.
  • 1892, Ungarische Revue, page 648:
    So z. B. Rechnungsb. der Stadt Kronstadt. I. Bd. S. 253: Item pro uno vase walachali ad balneam stubam inferiorem pro lexivio []
  • 1899, Scottish Medical and Surgical Journal, volume 5, page 149:
    His orders were dictated to his clerk in sonorous Latin. "Descendat in balneam tepidam, hora somni."
- -sche (discuss) 02:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Assuming that the RFV requester is allowed to comment, apologies if not, I have no access to the sources quoted so just comment on them as given. The first (Williams & Fisher), being a little out of context, appears to be indirect, possibly an aid to translation of some other source/quotation? If it was a direct definition then I'd assume that it would be in the nominative (balnea tepida). The second (Ungarische Revue) contains three other words (lexivio [presumed abl.], stubam [acc.] and walachali [presumed abl.]) I cannot find in classical latin so I'd have to guess at the meaning. The third is easily understandable to a latin speaker so the medical angle might prove fruitful. Endithon (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Of course you're allowed to comment! --WikiTiki89 19:57, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Here are some more citations:
  • c. 720s, Gregory, an epistle to Serenus, quoted in 1839 in A Manual of Christian Antiquities, page 782:
    Sic homo, qui alium ardenter videre desiderat, aut sponsam amans videre conatur, si contigerit eam ad balneam aut ad ecclesiam ire, []
- -sche (discuss) 20:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
For more citations, peruse google books:"balneam". - -sche (discuss) 20:14, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
These citations should probably go to balnea, as they're just inflected forms of the 1st declension singular form. If we could find citations of balnea and balneae as singular forms, they would also count. They are harder to cite though because they are identical to plural forms of balneum. —CodeCat 20:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
What does "Aug. per." mean in balneum? Can we exp. such amb. abs., please? - -sche (discuss) 20:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Augustan period. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 21:03, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
  • In the case of several of the citations provided above, e.g. the 1899 "balne(V)m tepidam" cite and the 720s "ad balne(V)m aut ad ecclesiam" cite, I can find several ‘editions’ — several works quoting the same Latin texts — and some use "balneam" while others use "balneum". - -sche (discuss) 07:56, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

February 2014[edit]


I've never seen "KTV" as an English term in Australia, Canada, England, India, or the United States.

I've only ever seen it in mainland China.

I suspect it's "pseudo English" just like German "Handy". Otherwise it's both new and regional.

Can we find some quotations and add the missing Chinese entry? — hippietrail (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Moved from Wiktionary:Requested_entries_(Chinese)#K regarding the Chinese entry request for KTV

  • KTV - has English entry, needs Chinese. Deleted with no explanation other than "removed blue links and non-words" by Wyang on 2008-02-08
    It is not Chinese. It is English used in a Chinese context, like hello, hi, bye-bye. The Chinese equivalents of these are 哈囉, , 拜拜, and there is no equivalent for KTV (like Windows). Wyang (talk) 12:28, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. Same with TV, WTO, NHL and various other abbreviations. The term needs to be cited as Chinese. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 13:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I believe you believe it's not Chinese but it is not English. At least I can't find any evidence of it. It seems to be an English-style word invented and used only in China and Taiwan. I can show you my photos of KTV's in several provinces in China. I've been to many English speaking countries and English is my native language and I've never seen or hear it outside China.
You need to provide evidence rather than just belief. Otherwise you could choose to believe that telephone is an Ancient Greek word even though it was invented with Greek pieces by another culture.
Google hits by country:
.cn: 23,700,000
.tw: 2,590,000
.in: 866,000
.hk: 154,000
.uk: 119,000
.sg: 109,000
.ca: 87,100
.au: 76,200
.nz: 19,000

That's not one but two orders of magnitude more popular in China than in the highest rated English only country. — hippietrail (talk) 14:40, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Google hits by language: (hippietrail (talk) 04:14, 25 April 2014 (UTC))
Chinese (Simplified): 173,000,000
English: 36,100,000
Chinese (Traditional): 26,200,000
German: 4,110,000
Korean: 3,390,000
Filipino: 2,740,000
Japan: 2,560,000
Vietnamese: 2,480,000
French: 600,000
Thai: 573,000
Hindi: 196,000
Indonesian: 913,000
You have RFV-ed the English term, I have opened the RVF discussion. It still needs to be verified and cited the normal way using Google books. I personally don't see any need for this entry. I haven't seen it in Chinese dictionaries and I know Chinese people don't think it's a Chinese word. Wyang is also a Chinese person. As I said, if it's verified, someone can make an entry, not me. We had a guy, if you remember (a vandal who abused multiple accounts - abc123, Engirst and his various sock puppets) who made pizza, bacon, tennis, Thames all Chinese words and he quoted "吃pizza", "打tennis", "Thames河", etc. just to prove those words are also Chinese. These are called Chinglish and code-switching. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 14:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes I rfv'd it months ago. I don't know about the vandal, vandals are annoying I agree. I'm not a vandal.
I can't speak for your experience with China or Taiwan or English speaking countries or your experience with the Chinese or English languages. I asked two non-native but fluent English speakers who have never been to Japan what "KTV" is and they were both stumped. It's a small sample but I've began to think this is how it is.
We have many words not in other dictionaries and many words one or even many people don't "see a need for" for many reasons. But we include them if and how they are used. And "KTV" is used in China and in Chinese.
Now I don't know how or why it was invented. I've started to see hints that it originated in Taiwan. But it's very much used in China. Maybe it was supposed to sound cool? Maybe it comes from a brand name of some Karaoke equipment manufacturer.
I also can't tell you why Chinese people / Chinese speakers are resistant to the idea that the word is one they made up and really only they use. Maybe intuition, maybe principle, maybe language purism, maybe they don't think such words are possible, but it's pretty common. Japanese is full of words that look like English words to them but that we English speakers don't know. Many European languages think "the parking" or "a camping" are English. I'm sure Chinese is not special in having some kind of immunity to this phenomenon. Maybe this is the first example? Anyway it's real. — hippietrail (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I just discovered KTV is in a list of "Pseudo-anglicism"s in Wikipedia, where it was added just over a year agohippietrail (talk) 16:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I just realized this discussion is right on the requests page. Please feel free to move it to the talk page and leave just a summary here. — hippietrail (talk) 16:37, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
I added an etymology at KTV. Please correct or add to as necessary. 21:13, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Well it's added under the English heading. That would set a precedent for moving many pseudo-loanwords from the sections for the languages in which they actually used to the sections for the languages they were designed to resemble, but in which they are not used. — hippietrail (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
It's not just China or any Chinese speaking countries. "KTV" is used in some other Asian countries and by English speakers as well, in reference to the phenomenon in those countries.
An interesting observation regarding the use of English letters and abbreviations in China.
If there is a company, concept, medicine, etc. in Japan, Russia, Arab world, etc. it may be transcribed locally as إي-بي-سي, Эй-Би-Си, エイ・ビー・シー (of course, officially or as a brand name it's still "ABC") but in China, there is hardly any transliteration for English letters (they are rare, e.g. 艾克斯 (àikèsī) for "X") and letters are pronounced the English way, even W (double-u, the hardest one for Mandarin phonology). So, are English letters also Chinese, if WTO is either read out by Chinese anchors as English or translated as 世界贸易组织 (shìjiè màoyì zǔzhī). I don't think WTO can count as Chinese word but I know some people would disagree. OK#Mandarin, 三K党 are different cases. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Don't confuse a language and it's writing system. Languages are spoken. Writing systems are secondary optional technologies.
The questions to ask are "Do Chinese speaking people say and understand the term "KTV" in their spoken communications?" and "Do English speaking people say and understand the term "KTV" in their spoken communications?"
Another thing to keep in mind is that the Latin writing system does not belong to English but is shared among many languages, including German, Filipino, Vietnamese, French, and Indonesian. We have the same kind of evidence for creating entries for the term "KTV" in all those languages, why single out English?
It's not about whether the letters are Chinese, it's about whether the term is Chinese. There are no English speakers in China forcing people to say this term or forcing them to write it in Latin letters. Chinese use the term, they say it, they decide how they write it. That they write it entirely in foreign characters may be unique to this term so far, but it has nothing to do with English speakers.
The evidence we have of English speakers using "KTV" is about the same in quality and quantity of the evidence we have of English speakers using "nihao" or "ni hao", and very many other Chinese words. Are these all now in need of English entries? — hippietrail (talk) 06:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Cited; the definitions may need tweaking from someone more familiar with KTVs. The Tamil TV channel sense isn’t being disputed, right? — Ungoliant (falai) 22:52, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. This RFV should be finally closed as an English term, even if it's popular in Asia and is often written verbatim. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:18, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Passed. — Ungoliant (falai) 04:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


"type of hot spicy soup commonly eaten as a street food in China."

According to Wikipedia malatang is:

  1. skewers of various ingredients cooked in hot broth, a popular street food in Beijing
  2. Sichuanese stew similar to hot pot

The questions are: 1) is it also a soup? 2) is Wikipedia correct? --Hekaheka (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

It has both meanings, see Nciku. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 00:16, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
According to your link malatang is cooked in soup (=broth, I would think) but that does not make it a soup. That would indicate that our current definition is wrong, and the two Wikipedia definitions are correct. --Hekaheka (talk) 17:31, 12 February 2014 (UTC)


RFV-sense "A German." This was originally classified as a proper noun, right next to the sense "the people of the Netherlands", so it's possible that it was intended to say "the German people". That might be citable. But if "Dutch" can be cited as a common noun (presumably inflected like "one Dutch, two Dutches"?) in any meaning, I expect it to be in the meaning "a person from the Netherlands". Actually, google books:"two Dutches" suggests that lowercase 'dutch' has more meanings than our entry currently accounts for. - -sche (discuss) 09:35, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Not going to comment on the grammar of it, but I believe this sense is from English speakers commonly confusing the words "Dutch" and "Deutsch". Pengo (talk) 02:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually I disagree, Dutch originally referred to Germans and other Germanic peoples before being eventually restricted to the Netherlandish. --WikiTiki89 07:29, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Right; Dutch referred generally to all continental West Germanic-speaking people before distinctions were made between the ones from the Netherlands and the ones from Germany. This is reflected by the obsolete sense 1 of the adjective and the obsolete sense 2 of the proper noun. But as a common noun, Dutch was never a count noun meaning "a German", though the Dutch could presumably be used to mean "the Germans", or rather "the continental West Germanic-speaking people(s)". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the non-collective noun sense sounds odd to me and I very much doubt its existence. --WikiTiki89 20:13, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I think it's quite common to say things like "There were twenty Dutch, thirty French, and not one English". --WikiTiki89 20:19, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

subordinate trait[edit]

I'm not familiar with it, nor sure that it ought to have an entry; BGC hits seem to be dominated by a psychology sense (which is probably SOP). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

The term is widely used in physiology, but I could not find a good definition anywhere, so I added it here. whatiguana 13 Feb. 2014
Cited. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Passed. — Ungoliant (falai) 06:08, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense # 2: "bottom, downside". None of the dictionaries in Outlook seem to have this as separate sense. Should it be merged with the 3rd sense "butt, buttocks" (which every Outlook dictionary has)? --Hekaheka (talk) 18:42, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

This might be hard to verify given all the other senses of behind, though searching for it on the BYU corpora or on Google with a variety of determiners might help. It might be a job for the OED.
BTW, I don't recognize sense 1 either. DCDuring TALK 20:12, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Sense 1: now that you say it, right. --Hekaheka (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I've put some citations on the citations page, but these could be taken as sense #1. Sense #2 is still dubious, I think. SpinningSpark 16:14, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
The "microscope" citation supports sense 1. The other two seem as much metaphor uses for sense 3 as anything else, but we often seem to enshrine metaphors as distinct definitions. But in any event they would seem to support sense 1 rather than sense 2. DCDuring TALK 17:10, 17 February 2014 (UTC)



Esperanto words for fuck buddy (male and female, respectively). I can only find one use at best: [10]. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 16:46, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

So is this a blend of -um- and amiko? How amusing. Seems like a protologism. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 09:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, it (or rather, geumikoj) actually has a published usage in La ĉapo de la sterko-vermo. In its glossary, Jorge Camacho defines it thus:
  • 1995, Jorge Camacho, La ĉapo de la sterko-vermo, Glosoj:
    umiko [slange] pli-ol-amika persono, kun kiu oni kutime umas, t.e. havas specialajn rilatojn kaj faras diversajn aferojn, ofte (sed ne nepre) seksajn [A. boyfriend, SF. poikaystävä]; umikino: tia personino [A. girlfriend, SF. tyttöystävä].
    umiko [slang] a more-than-friends person, with whom one habitually does unspecified things, i.e. has special relations and does diverse things, often (but not absolutely) sexual [boyfriend]; umikino: a female such person [girlfriend].
~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 08:37, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Both failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


Warlpiri uses several words for "water", but I haven't found evidence that this is one of them. - -sche (discuss) 06:51, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Both jiwiri and waji are listed in the Warlpiri dictionary. Beyond that, I can't say. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 07:01, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


Warlpiri uses several words for "water", but I haven't found evidence that this is one of them. (It might be a word for "rainbow", though.) - -sche (discuss) 06:55, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


The math sense. Note that google:"antirational field" and google:"antirational" site:arxiv.org turn up nothing relevant. I therefore suspect that this is not a term used in math but a word invented for the context (see the quotation in the entry) and not used anywhere else.​—msh210 (talk) 15:55, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to RFV a sense that has no definition. I think it should be speedied. --WikiTiki89 17:06, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
A definition can be found in the sole attesting quotation. This should not be speedied. Even if there were no definition, a RFV would still be meaningful, asking this question: are there CFI-enough CFI-fit quotations for a technical mathematical sense of "antirational"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
Actually when I made that comment I didn't realize there was already one citation. --WikiTiki89 18:45, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
There's another cite (snippet only for me), but note that the definition is different from the one in the cite in the entry! I'm guessing this one, too, was used ad hoc.​—msh210 (talk) 23:02, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
I think it might not be independent from the other citation, either. The citation currently in the entry is attributed to Masayoshi Nagata, and the book you just linked to says "Our definition differs slightly from the one given by Nagata [11]." —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 00:38, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
@Mr. Granger: I don't think that necessarily disqualifies it from being independent (if the authors were not actually collaborating on it, which is most likely not the case since the definitions are different). Everyone who uses a word has to have read or heard it somewhere and by your logic, that would every word in every language unciteable. However, since the definitions are different, we can't count them together for three citations anyway. --WikiTiki89 06:18, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I've added three cites to the citation page. They are clearly the same sense; at least two of the authors give a citation to Nagata. I think the citation found by msh210 is also valid; slight differences in definitions do occur with mathematics authors but this is clearly much the same concept and should be counted as the same sense as far as dictionary entries go. It is rather similar to the inconsistency over whether zero is included in \scriptstyle \mathbb N. SpinningSpark 20:16, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Personally, I think there is something ridiculous about trying to include advanced mathematical terms here. If they really need TeX-work to be properly readable (I just added a bunch of nowrap's to the in-article quotation) they should probably be a WP article and then just a vague definition here with a link. If no one can bother to write a WP article on the topic or put it to use, it's probably not really worth having here.
  • I have no idea how to interpret CFI "independence" in the mathematical context.
  • I'm not, for example, going to add the mathematical notions of "mouse", nor associated terms "premouse", "real mouse", "weasel", and so on. And Spark is correct, minor variations in mathematical terminology is entirely normal. The idea of splitting Wiktionary senses down to mathematically distinct senses is absolutely ludicrous. We have four mathematical senses of curve, which is frankly three senses too many, but if you believe in splitting based on exact mathematical definitions, then there should probably be about 100 distinct senses listed. graph correctly has two mathematical senses, but it too can probably support 100 distinct senses.
  • The basic source of confusion on this point is that "definition" in mathematics is a technical term with a very precise meaning, but it is not the same as "definition" in lexicography. See my earlier comments on Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion#group_action. Choor monster (talk) 20:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

gakko and gakkou[edit]

Haplology (talkcontribs) put a note in the two pages asking if we have "to include alternative transcriptions", and I am therefore putting the two pages here for that matter. --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Arrowred.png Personally, I must say that romanizing 学校 as gakko instead of ​gakkō is a bit like spelling apple as aple, or ate as at -- it's a misspelling that omits important phonetic information, potentially resulting in a different word altogether. I don't think we have any business including "alternative transcriptions" as a matter of normal policy.
  • [[gakko]] is also a valid romanization of other Japanese words: 楽戸 (gakko, in the Nara period, a kind of private-sector school or house of 雅楽 (gagaku, court music) unaffiliated directly with the official court gagaku office); 合期 (gakko, meeting a deadline; turning out as expected or hoped for, also read as gōgo). As such, I'd be much more tempted to deep-six the "alternative transcription" content and turn that page into a regular romanization entry.
  • [[gakkou]] isn't a valid romanization of any Japanese word (using our modified Hepburn scheme), so my sense would be to delete this altogether. Alternately, if other folks feel this might still be useful to incoming users, at least rework it entirely so it's clearly marked as a misspelling, and so it's not showing up in the index of Japanese nouns. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:22, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
This is really an RFD matter... delete both (replacing the first one with the valid content Eirikr mentions). - -sche (discuss) 22:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Moved to WT:RFD. Neither entry was tagged with {{RFV}} anyway. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Chief of Party[edit]

Moved from RFD. - -sche (discuss) 18:54, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Minuscule spelling seems more widely used than the capitalized version > "Alternative capitalization of chief of party" ? --Hekaheka (talk) 04:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I expect that the lemma should be lowercase, yes... but which senses are citable? - -sche (discuss) 05:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
1 and 3 are essentially the same. Judging by a quick BGC search, it looks rare/dated but attestable. The second sense is rare-ish but in use. I saw the president of the United States and the mayor of New York called "chief of party" when they were in a role of supporting some fellow-partisan's campaign for a public office. --Hekaheka (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Sense 1 cited. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:50, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

March 2014[edit]


Rfv-sense for Vietnamese (as in archaic Sino-Vietnamese) reading "tụ", as it's not found in either the Unihan database or at the Nom Foundation website database. Bumm13 (talk) 03:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


This is one of those "ripped from the headlines" terms that seems to be too recent to meet CFI. There are a surprising number of Google Books hits, but none with even a snippet to verify that it's not a scanno. There are hits on Google Groups, but none seems to be more than a month or two old, and most, if not all, seem to be non-Usenet. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

neknominate (an earlier word?) seems slightly more promising in Groups: [11]. Equinox 21:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Olinguito? I think this has crossed the threshold into the sort of widespread international use that would justify inclusion despite not meeting the one-year provision of CFI. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Keep: I get hits before one-year on Google Search, however; without any time limitation there is certainly a lot of usage of this word, both on the web and the news:
  • Make no special exception. Everyone knows Google's numbers are wildly inaccurate. If you click through the pages, there are only 31 pages of results. And I have yet to find a single Google Books result that actually has the word in the search result. --WikiTiki89 22:02, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Move to RFV. Oh, wait, it's already at RFV; people are just voting "keep" and "delete" for some reason. If it meets CFI, it'll be kept; if it doesn't, it'll be deleted and can be re-examined next year. On which note, we should check if that Russian term for "pink slime" that some people were sure would be more than just a one-year fad has seen any current use. - -sche (discuss) 22:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
WritersCramp, if you can find CFI-compliant sources in Google (I imagine mainstream newspapers are fine) then please go ahead and add them. There is the spanning-one-year rule but I think Cloudcuckoo may be right about widespread use. Equinox 22:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the tip. The poster of the +tag should have to support their assertion. I think the definition is fine with the citations it has now :) I have provided the generic google search with plenty of citations from before a year ago. The person that posted the +tag, should have done his own research first. My suggestion would be to remove the +tag and advise the editor that posted it to do his own research first and not waste other peoples time. i.e. did the editor do anything before posting the +tag? Why should I have to go on a wild goose chase everytime some guy posts a +tag, let him provide the proof to support the +tag, not the other way around. Thanks. WritersCramp (talk) 23:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
You're asking someone to prove a negative, i.e. prove that a word isn't in use, or (in this case) hasn't been in use for more than a year. That's not sensible. It's up to you to prove that the word meets our requirement that words have been in use for at least a year before being included. - -sche (discuss) 23:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Bullshit, all the editor had to do was perform a simple Google Search using the time range function, then they would have their proof. Example 1. WritersCramp (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Added three from the The Telegraph (UK), the Belfast Telegraph, and the Toronto Star. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:04, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately they don't even span a month let alone a year. --WikiTiki89 23:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Three mainstream newspapers in a month, from different countries, feels like "widespread use" to me — well, given that it isn't based on a marketing stunt/press release (see Talk:wilf) and is also all over social media. Equinox 23:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
It's not in "widespread use". Widespread use is for words like horse, apple, have, the, etc. --WikiTiki89 23:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree with WikiTiki. - -sche (discuss) 23:25, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Equinox suggested that someone find mainstream newspaper cites. I'm aware they don't meet the one-year-span provision. I added them in the hope of documenting widespread international use. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with the citations, but they are not enough. And international use has nothing to do with being widespread. --WikiTiki89 23:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Me too. The widespread use clause is for words any speaker of the language in question is expected to know, not for slang a couple of journalists found cool and is likely to be forgotten in a few months. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
The verification is anything but a slam-dunk. I looked through the two main sources for CFI-compliant usage examples and found nothing older than January, which is more than enough evidence to just delete it as a protologism. It seemed in enough use recently, though, for me to bring it here where it could be considered in more depth. It's very rare for us to use the widespread-use criterion for such a new term, so it would require discussion before doing so. In short, everything I looked at said I should delete it, but I wanted to give it a chance. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Editors like Chuck Entz are a hazard to Wiktionary, you are a deletionist and you add nothing to the dictionary. Now click on this link, which you could have done and should have done before you posted your frivilous +tag: Google Search - Custom Range Time 1900 to 2013 . 11:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • On a side note, I notice the Collins Harper website shows peoples potential new word contributions to their dictionary. I notice neknominate is one of them, although that does not affect our discussion, it is just a point of interest :). The webpage might be a good place for Wiktionary editors to find and consider new words to add to Wiktionary. WritersCramp (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
    WritersCramp, drop the crap about Chuck Entz. This is an entriely good RFV nomination; your ignorance of CFI does not change that. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
    Dan Polansky read the Google Search - Custom Range Time 1900 to 2013 citation, there are plenty of one-year of longer usage citations!! It is not a valid +tag, he did not even bother to check it, he just posted it without doing any research whatsoever! This is wasting everybody's time! WritersCramp (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
    Please place the attesting quotations at Citations:neknomination, but only those that meet the permanently recorded media criterion as per WT:ATTEST. Per common practice, permanently recorded media means printed media including those found at Google books, and Usenet. Your search is irrelevant, since it is not constrained to permanently recorded media; the first hit is Facebook, which is not permanently recorded media. Again, leave Chuck alone, and focus on attestation, since you are not going to convince us that the nomination was a poor one. And spare us the exclamation marks. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Not completely irrelevant: the Google search shows no durably-archived cites, but there are plenty of references to actions taken by local governments and other official bodies that are likely to have durably-archived records. This looks to be very difficult to verify from online sources, but we only need one cite from before February of 2013 to clinch it. I was ambivalent about nominating this in the first place, and I hope we can verify it. Still, I obviously don't agree that the nomination was frivolous or reckless- I checked the usual sources, and everything pointed to a facebook-only phenomenon that only recently went into broad usage. A broad google search normally just turns up way too much irrelevant stuff to wade through- but in this case, it would have been helpful. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose widespread use. That is, as for WT:ATTEST, the following line should not be applied to this term, IMHO: "clearly widespread use". Other than that, let this RFV run its course as usual, and if not CFI-enough CFI-fit quotations are found, let the entry be deleted. I propose the attesting quotations are placed at Citations:neknomination, since the entry is likely to get deleted, AFAICT. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
  • How long has the word Euromaidan been in use? WritersCramp (talk) 22:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
    Almost certainly not for a full year, givne that the protests began 3.5 months ago; thank you for pointing that out. I have tagged it now, and listed it below. - -sche (discuss) 23:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Failed. Citations moved to Citations:neknomination. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
What good does the deletion of this entry (and neknominate) serve? It was well-formatted, and given the term's widespread use in the media, it clearly qualifies as a "hot word." All this deletion ensures is that some Wiktionarian is going to have to waste time rebuilding the entry from the ground up a few months from now. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
It was a hot word in February, now it only finds occasional use. And if it becomes citable, it can be undeleted (which restores all revisions). — Ungoliant (falai) 20:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


As above. - -sche (discuss) 04:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


And various derived terms: jibabirut, hibabirut, babirutül, hibabirutül, jibabirutül, babirutülamit, babirutil, babirutamit, babirutik. Volapük for different types of babirusa. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 19:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

All failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


"(computing, of a release package or software installation) Having only the files and settings of a specific release of the software package; without updates or upgrades that were released subsequent to the release of a specific version. A fresh installation of Windows XP has Internet Explorer version 6. QA uses a fresh copy of the old version to test backward-compatibility of new add-ons." I believe that such sentences are merely sense 1 ("Newly produced or obtained"). A fresh copy of a file could just be a new copy one has made; it only so happens that a fresh installation will never include items that were released separately later. Equinox 00:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, just sense 1. In British English (if it wasn't for Microsoft) we'd probably just say "a new installation" and "a new copy" because "fresh" is less often used with sense 1 on this side of the pond. Dbfirs 22:31, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

germana vo[edit]

And the alternative form ĝermana vo, which Kwamikagami has made a redirect for some reason. Esperanto for double-u. There are lots of mentions on Usenet, but I can't find any uses. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 02:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The redirect was left behind when Kwamikagami erroneously moved ĝermana vo to germana vo in January, presumably mistaking it in good faith for a misspelling. I've moved it back and added a misspelling-of entry for the hard-g version. Left rfvs on both. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm having more luck attesting the more convenient vavo than either formal name ĝermana vo or duobla vo. Seems like many speakers prefer two syllables to four. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 00:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
germana vo failed, ĝermana vo passed. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Unstriking. All of the citations for ĝermana vo are mentions, not uses. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 01:52, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Fuck me! Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Sigh. I was really hoping Mr. G would withdraw that nomination before it came to deleting a name of a letter of the alphabet. At least someone else stepped up to swing the axe. The CFI is a harsh mistress. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 02:36, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


Gerhard Koebler's dictionary has this, and lists several alternative forms, witon, wuton, wutu. But they are all marked as unattested, with a *. How Koebler was able to include those terms if there are no attestations of them, I don't know, but I do think it means this should be checked. —CodeCat 04:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

funny he has an asterick beside it as its well attested: wuton wuldrian weorada dryhten halgan hlioðorcwidum . It supposedly stems from the optative plural for of wītan. Leasnam (talk) 01:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Cited. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Passed by Leasnam (talkcontribs). — Ungoliant (falai) 19:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


Possible spam? (some hits for macrospection i.e. inspection with the naked eye) SemperBlotto (talk) 16:13, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Failed. Not spam though, there were two uses. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


This spelling looks suspicious. The initial entry contained interwiki links to pl:Zabrhe and de:Zabrhe, but these are non-existent (apparently the city's name was spelled Sadbre at some point, and the German name for it is Hindenburg; oh the humanity). Nothing shows up in web searches. Keφr 15:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

According to w:History of Polish orthography, what is now spelled "cz" was once also spelled "ch". The use of "rh" instead of "rz" may be another old orthographic feature. —CodeCat 20:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
But let's put postulations aside and try to find whether this exists. --WikiTiki89 20:14, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I mean that since it's probably an old spelling, you'd need to look for old sources. You may not find any in the usual places, but only in more specialised ones. —CodeCat 20:54, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
This is supposedly an English alternative spelling, though. I find it doubtful that a Middle-Ages spelling of a relatively obscure city's name survived in modern English (or, in fact, any language). Keφr 20:57, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


Volapük for genealogical table. No hits on Google Books or even on a regular Google search. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 22:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

data lake[edit]

Needs cleanup if OK. - -sche (discuss) 02:07, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Cited. The durable citations span just barely over a year. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)






Volapük for various types of crows. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 02:25, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

All failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:02, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


I want to add this definition to as:

  • "(UK, Australia, slang) Very, extremely."
    She's clever as, like.

The problem is that it is unciteable as - "as" is such a common, versatile word that even seemingly implausible word combinations ("as as well", "as mate", "as too", "as like") get too many irrelevant hits on Google Books, and it's no good searching books written in promising dialects either (Saturday Night and Sunday Morning might have an intensifying "as" in there somewhere, but it also has hundreds of conventional ones). It's in The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English (where it's marked as "Australian"), but I can't think of any way to actually find the three citations we need... Any ideas? Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Closed. If it’s of any consolation, I’ve heard this before (something like “get the fuck out, simple as”). — Ungoliant (falai) 03:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)




Gender-nonspecific, male, and female, respectively. Völapuk for an extinct species of zebra. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 21:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

All failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 03:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


Looks unattestable according to our rules. RAMSET is a manufacturer of powder-actuated tools, but I found no evidence of the word "ramset" being used of the nails that the tool rams into any material it is pointed at. It's not in Onelook. The word seems to be used as verb on various handyman discussion forums, but I found nothing durably archived. So perhaps the noun section should be deleted and the verb section labeled with {{cx|construction|slang|lang=en}}? --Hekaheka (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

That seems sensible. I also fits my experience. DCDuring TALK 21:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Cited. — Ungoliant (falai) 03:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

black ox trod upon my foot[edit]

google books:"black ox trod upon my foot" find two important things:

  • seems to be copied verbatim from the book listed under references
  • that seems to be the only attestation on Google Books. No actual usage. 13:20, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be a figurative expression used only in that context. For something to be a proverb, it needs to see regular usage outside the context of the book. Delete. JamesjiaoTC 22:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
If you allow in your search terms for minor variations, it's not as rare as it first seems: Google Books: "black ox" trod "foot". At any rate, it seems to be mostly Elizabethan, or thereabouts, with some dialectal usage since. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
If you check out the first hit in the search Chuck Entz provided, Renaissance Studies in Honor of Hardin Craig (1941) has "The proverb "The Black Ox has not Trod on His Foot" in Renaissance Literature by Archer Taylor that gives a plethora of cites for various forms, defining it as "1. He has not known trouble in the married state", "2. He is inexperienced, he has not known sorrow or care", "3. She has not suffered the ravages of age", and "4. He has not known want.", backed up with at least 20 citations. I think it's a pretty clear keep in some form.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Webster 1913 includes it as "have the black ox tread on one's foot"; there is a Leigh Hunt citation, though the text is not given. Equinox 19:09, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Moved to the black ox tread on one's foot which is trivially citable. Further improvements or moves are welcome. — Ungoliant (falai) 03:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


Ido for lipid. I can't find a single citation, but it's hard to search for due to interference from Italian. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:13, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 03:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


RFV-sense of two senses:

  1. "(broader sense) Ethnicistic prejudice, discrimination or hostility directed against any other Semitic people (ancient or modern), such as Samaritans, Palestinians, Arabs or Assyrians; anti-Samaritanism, anti-Palestinianism, anti-Arabism, anti-Assyrianism."
  2. "Prejudice or hostility towards adherents of Abrahamic religions."

There having been some discussion throughout the past century about the use of "anti- + Semite" to mean "anti- + [one category of Semite]", I suppose there may be uses of the first of those senses (added in diff), though I expect it may be rare and restricted to specific contexts. The second sense I am not familiar with at all. - -sche (discuss) 20:43, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Our "beloved" pro-Palestine POV pusher Islam editor added three citations for the former sense, and listed them under the latter. Sigh. Also, can we get rid of these awkward-sounding "ethnicistismic" and "religionistisismicistic" labels? I doubt anti-Semites care what they base their prejudice on. Keφr 07:18, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the words "ethinicistic" and "religionistic" are not only a handful to read, but also add no additional meaning to the definition. --WikiTiki89 07:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
I have added the qualifier "rare" to both if that helps. Pass a Method (talk) 18:31, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
It helps, but they still need to be attested. --WikiTiki89 19:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
I think the citations are fine now. Pass a Method (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
Passed since no one disputed PaM’s citations. I’m not sure the definition is 100% accurate, though. I will start a Tea Room discussion. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)



Supposedly "occupied Palestinian territories". ngrams results for "oPt" seem to be white noise. Keφr 08:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Both failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: adjective

Needs citations that are not attributive use of the noun. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Rather tempting to speedy it, especially when I see the hyperformal "piscine; ichthyic" above "It was a fine fish dinner". Nobody ever had a piscine, ichthyic dinner. Equinox 02:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


Meaning a citizen of the United States. User:Pass a Method added three quotations to this entry shortly after creating it, but of those quotations, two were scannos for Hessian and the other was a mention, not a use. All I can see on Google Books is more scannos. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 16:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete. I must have misread, sorry. Pass a Method (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
    • User:Pass a Method: RFV is not a vote, and it is not even a "!vote". The outcome depends on the existence of cited usage, not on what people write in bold letters. What is it that you have "misread"? Keφr 17:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I'm used to encountering USian (or more rarely Usian as an alternate spelling) as synonym of American, but restricted to the United States senses. That said, our entry at USian was apparently deleted back in 2006 for failing RFV. google books:"USian" shows a lot of noise, but there are some valid hits, like this one:

Before developing this idea of "counter-worlding" any further, I would also note that as a postcolonial-oriented comparativist of Canadian and Québécois literatures, I am inevitably drawn to considering such an approach vis-à-vis the United States – especially within the immediate context of greater pressures on Canada and Quebec to integrate within the USian imperial nexus in terms of national, continental, and international policies and values, as well as the current academic debates over whether the US should be a subject of postcolonial studies or whether analyses of its cultures, writings, and politics would be well served by the new field of North American studies.

... or like this one:

I am a member of the Liberal Democrats, a British political party that are liberal in the British, rather than the American, sense – while for the most part the beliefs of the party as a whole (though not of every member) tend to overlap with the USian definition, for us liberalism is based around the idea of allowing the individual the maximum freedom to run their life as they wish – the role of the state being to remove, rather than to add, restrictions on individual liberty.

I'm sure a third cite could be found. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Add these to Citations:USian, then. This is the RFV for Uessian. Two different things. Keφr 19:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
I was unable to cite Uessian. There were two cites of use as adjective to be found on Usenet, both from 1997, and only one use as a noun from a Texas newspaper. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Failed. Note that one of the citations is a mention. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


Said to be an intransitive regional British form of "be". Is it really? The commonness of the name "Abe" makes it hard to search for, even for phrases like "to abe with", "to abe in the"... - -sche (discuss) 21:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Three citations added. The OED lists several more, mostly with the spellings "abee" and "a-be". All three citations I've added and all 10 or so in the OED are part of the phrase let abe, so maybe that's what we should have an entry for. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 22:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, I was going to say the same. The OED says "obsolete" for the sense "let alone" (not to mention), and both regional and rare for the sense "desist from". I'd guess that the word might still exist in the Scots language, and hence Scottish English (... any experts here?). I've never heard it in northern England. Dbfirs 22:31, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Passed. Even if this verb is only used in let abe, its entry should be kept and {{only used in|let abe}} appended to the definition — Ungoliant (falai) 18:34, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense="the north-east African peninsula or region", i.e. "Horn of Africa" or "Horn peninsula", which was rashly deleted. Is it colloquial? Can someone guess that "Horn" is actually a peninsula or a region? It must be local or with someone who lives or travels there a lot in that area. I think it's too ambiguous. Additionally, I think Horn peninsula should be restored and kept. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

(E/C)@-sche: Thanks for providing a citation ("...this was the first coup in the Horn ..."). I can tell from it that the reader already knows, which Horn the author is talking about. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 05:12, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
The adjective section was so dubious I deleted it outright. And I've added a RFV-sense tag to the other sense, "the states which occupy this peninsula", here and at Horn of Africa: is that really a distinct sense?
The "a peninsula which juts into the Arabian Sea" sense is fairly common as an ellipsis. I don't know if it should be included or not. An ellipsis like "Republic"="Republic of Ireland", based on books saying "relations with the Republic of Ireland continued to worsen [...] in June, the Republic withdrew its ambassador", is something I would definitely exclude. ("State" in particular would probably gain about 300 senses if the aforementioned kind of ellipsis were allowed.) In contrast, my inclination would be to allow "Horn"="Horn of Africa" even if most of the citations are like the one I just added. Hmm... :/ - -sche (discuss) 05:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
To me, the "region" sense looks like it passes (cited), the "states of this region" sense looks like it fails. I would be sceptical that citations could use the "states" sense distinct from the "region" sense. - -sche (discuss) 02:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


RFV-sense "An idealized destination or object of one's ambition". There is one citation from Joyce below it, but it isn't clear that Joyce is using the word in that sense. - -sche (discuss) 22:44, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

What do you make of these: “The spring cod is our America”, “I have my domestic America”, “So this is my America, she had thought when she first saw the house”? — Ungoliant (falai) 22:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
The context of the first one is: "Herring and cod fishing offered an alternative to emigration, which many chose. 'The spring cod is our America,' said a later report from Møre. [...] Farm owners were leaving for America [...]." It seems to me that America is being used there in, or in trivial allusion to, its usual geographic sense: farmers were leaving for the US because there was no money to be made in farming but there might be money to be made in the US; fishers, meanwhile, could stay put, because there was money to be made in fishing. I would equate that with "Many of them bought blue cars as status symbols. We couldn't afford one, so we bought a foobar. The foobar was our blue car."
The second one is a translation of a Mozambican Portuguese poem, the full verse of which is "I now know that I don't need to go to America. I say this as I get lost in a street in Johannesburg. I have my domestic America. So what?" And the book goes on to say "America as the intertext for Johannesburg would certainly have pleased the Sophiatown writers and musicians of the 1950s, who felt passionately for an imagined America as a template of modernity." It's pretty far from an English use of "America" to mean "idealized destination or object of one's ambition", in my opinion.
The third one concerns an Italian immigrant to (AFAICT) Canada, and the full paragraph is: "So this is my America, she had thought when she first saw the house: the paint chipped and patchy, the front stairs cracked, the tiny front yard littered with old tires. 'Mia casetta in Canada.' None of the houses in her village were as flimsy as this one. Nor had she imagined how confined she would be to the house, locked in partly by her lack of English and her not being able to drive but mostly by the never-ending winter." That, again, seems pretty far from "the object of one's ambition"; the Italian immigrant in question seems unhappy about being stuck in [North] America.
As a side note: if citations of this sense can be found, I'll be curious to see if they're from the US or not. - -sche (discuss) 23:34, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
Failed. I added a quotations section with the Joyce quote. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


I ask for attestation per WT:ATTEST, since I can't find enough attesting quotations. Consider placing them at Citations:Usonan, since at least one can probably be found. google books:"Usonan", google groups:"Usonan", Usonan at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

After going through all seven pages of Google Books results, I've found lots of Esperanto hits for usonan, a few mentions, and lots of scannos for "us on an", but only one definite hit [12] as well as one that is a possible hit, but not clearly legible [13]. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:31, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I guess it's an early variant of Usonian that didn't catch on. See the usage notes at Usona. I would think simply being derived from Usona, which is well-attested, would be enough to keep it here, since it's the natural adjective form. Soap (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Cited. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Passed. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


German interaction meaning guten Morgen (good morning). Google Books does show quite a few hits for "morgn" as a contracted form of morgen/Morgen, however I can't find many hits where it's used specifically as an interjection. Also I'm not sure if we (should) include such forms which simply reflect contractions in spoken language... Longtrend (talk) 12:23, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

It wouldn't even be pronounced differently from morgen (which is pronounced [ˈmɔʁɡŋ̩] or [ˈmɔɐ̯ɡŋ̩] in colloquial speech); it's pure eye dialect. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:41, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
See RFD discussion for Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion#daughterin'. It seems that we have nothing against eye dialect. --Hekaheka (talk) 19:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Failed. POS changed to noun and definition replaced with {{eye dialect of|Morgen|lang=de}}. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
But if it's a noun, it would have to be capitalized in German. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
I've switched it to "adverb". Many uses predate the standardization of German orthography, which makes me question if "eye dialect" is the best label. How about this? - -sche (discuss) 19:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

April 2014[edit]


The incompetent general's brilliant aid: should this be spelt aide? If so, this example sentence is misleading. Donnanz (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I notice there is a sense 7: aide-de-camp. Perhaps the example sentence can be moved there. Donnanz (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
To my surprise, both the OED and the Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary say that "aid" is an acceptable alternative for "aide" (with the OED noting that using "aid" for "aide" is chiefly found in US military contexts). I agree with Donnanz that sense 7 already covers this. In any case, sense 3 seems to describe things, not persons, and I would just delete this old and unhelpful e.g. sentence from sense 3. -- · (talk) 17:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
The numbers for each sense seem to have been mucked up, either by the rfv or the following quote. Donnanz (talk) 17:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Right, Donnanz, within the numbered senses you should use the template {{rfv-sense}}. I fixed it. -- · (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
OK, thanks; it's the first rfv I have ever done (and probably not the last). Donnanz (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Usex moved to definition 7. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


It looks like literal but not idiomatic translation from English. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 09:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Knowing the IP who created it, it's probably just the result of running the English through Bing Translate. If they ever get anything right it's by sheer luck- they've repeatedly demonstrated they have no knowledge of Chinese or Japanese, but have created dozens of entries in those languages anyway. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes, he added a lot of bogus translations at devil's luck. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. The one hit in the Google books - 魔鬼有魔鬼的運氣 "devils have devil's luck" must be a result from a literal translation of Emil Ludwig's Napoleon's biography. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 21:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Chinese Internet is quite big now, so 11K hits in web searches may not be a lot. There's a lot of Chinglish out there. It may be a neologism but too new to be included. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Deleted. Wyang (talk) 04:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


I don't think so. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:19, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Not English, no. But someone who speaks Dutch might have a better idea. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 09:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
I've had a stab, but someone who actually knows Dutch should definitely clean it up. A lot. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 09:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
@CodeCat:, can you shed any light on this word? Is the definition accurate? - -sche (discuss) 02:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
A Dutch spelling of lock and load, maybe? Chuck Entz (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
No, I'm pretty sure it's "Cloth-lead", being a cast or pressed lead seal with marks to show quality and origin of bolts of cloth. One of the quotes I found mentioned "staalloden" as well. See also http://wf4.nl/Index/indexlakenloden1.htm for examples of the object, and this bachelors thesis (in Dutch) on the subject. On further investigation, "Cloth Seal" might be a better translation, but that would still need an explanation for what a "Cloth Seal" actually is.
unless you're joking. I can't always tell. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 06:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with this word in Dutch, but it does indeed transparently mean "sheet lead". So it may well exist. Judging by w:nl:Lakenlood, the definition is accurate. Personally, my first guess was that this was some kind of weight added to the end of a tablecloth or similar, to weigh it down and keep it from blowing around in the wind or something. I've seen things like that before. —CodeCat 08:27, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


RFV for the sense "newspaper" of the Latin ephēmeris. That sense isn't listed in Lewis & Short. Gaffiot has the sense "mémorial journalier", which translates to "daily memorial", which I don't fully understand, but which I interpret to mean "diary"; in any case, I'm pretty sure it doesn't support the "newspaper" sense. Niermeyer doesn't have an entry for ephēmeris. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Cited by Mr. Granger (talkcontribs). — Ungoliant (falai) 14:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Whilst I laud Mr. Granger's addition of that citation, in it he chose to translate ephemeridem with "journal", not "newspaper", and, given w:La Civiltà Cattolica, he was right to do so. I'm afraid that the challenged sense remains uncited. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:57, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. I'm not quite sure what sense my citation belongs under, actually. La Civiltà Cattolica is not exactly a newspaper (sense 2), but it's certainly not a diary (sense 1) either. Maybe the "newspaper" sense should be changed to "periodical" to accommodate the citation. (Incidentally, I don't want to take undue credit - the translation isn't mine, but rather comes from the book itself.) —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 02:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
@Mr. Granger: I've moved your citation under the new sense "a journal, periodical" and elaborated its bibliographical information to better indicate where the original text and its translation come from ([14]). I haven't merged the disputed sense into the new sense, because I believe they are too dissimilar to be treated as one sense. Be that as it may, I note that there is a logical development of senses: day-book → newspaper → periodical. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

I just happened upon Ephemeris: Nuntii Latini universi [Ephemeris: Latin news of the whole world], the website of an on-line Latin-language newspaper founded by Stanisław Tekieli in June 2004. The date line ("Saturni die 24 mensis Maii 2014"; Anglice: "on Saturday the 24th of the month of May [in] 2014") suggests that it is a daily newspaper. If that is the case, then the use of ephēmeris (deriving as it does from the Ancient Greek ἐφήμερος (ephḗmeros, daily)) to mean "a daily newspaper" is a semantic development parallel with the English word daily, which the OED (2nd ed., 1989) records (under “daily, a. (n.)” B.1) in the sense "A daily newspaper." (with nine supporting quotations, 1823–1965). However, in this use it would appear that Ephemeris is a proper noun, being the name of one specific newspaper, rather than a common noun, being used to mean "a (daily) newspaper" generally. @Mr. Granger, Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV: What do you make of this evidence? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Is this newspaper also published in paper? If not, I’d discount this use an non-durable. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:11, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
I doubt it. However, it has almost certainly been discussed by name in Contemporary Latin publications which themselves are durably archived, as it already has been in an English context. What I'm wondering is, would such citations count toward attesting the sense of ephēmeris currently being challenged, or would they be taken as supporting the Latin proper noun Ephēmeris, or as citing both? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
I lean towards excluding it. If I remember correctly, we’ve had an English RFV where the name of a band was not considered a valid cite. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
small note: journal#Old_French a daily. Also, we may want to accept that digital media are now the standard for publication. Paper, if it happens, is secondary and ephemeral. - Amgine/ t·e 06:23, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Often part of the point of a paper copy of a normally digital work is its non-ephemerality. Digital papers tend to have a serious problem with being ephemeral in my experience; Geocities is virtually all archived away, but newspapers try to keep everything behind a paywall and be the sole source of their text. The theoretical standard behind our citation rules is that we be able to reference our cites in the foreseeable future; a sold PDF is probably hard to get ahold of for the random person, but there's no guarantee at all that anyone will have a copy of the article that we cited.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
The modern equivalent is a dvd/cd annual, occasionally a 'perk' for members or subscribers. Thank goodness that tradition is also dying rapidly. Visit https://archive.org or any of the many other aggregators whose purpose is to present a record of publicly published content. But keep in mind that owning the paper copy is a hurdle to your concept of accessible durability, just as paying for access is a hurdle for paywalled content. Most of the world cannot access the OED, online or off. But this is probably not the best location for this discussion. - Amgine/ t·e 16:42, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
I know about archive.org; that's why I pointed out that newspapers try to keep everything behind a paywall and be the sole source of their text.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2014 (UTC)


Is this really an adjective? allotted at OneLook Dictionary Search shows that many dictionaries make allotted in effect redirect to allot. AFAICT only WordNet shows it as an adjective, "assigned as a task" her allotted chores, but this seems to transfer meaning from the word modified to the modifier. Consider his allotted share of the garden. DCDuring TALK 20:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think this is well suited for RFV. I would like to see a precedent of deleting adjective sections from past participles via RFV or a Beer parlour discussion supporting such deletion via RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
It is perfectly well suited for a fact-based discussion. Either the word is attestably used as an adjective or it is not. The question of whether a term is an adjective is fairly clear cut and reasonable quickly resolved by resort to the facts of usage. The role of lawyerly argumentation is useful in evaluating the attestation evidence or in challenging the authority behind the criteria used. DCDuring TALK 11:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
There are no purely attestation-based criteria necessary for adjectivity. An adjective does not need to be comparable and does not need to be modifiable by "very" and the like. RFD is not forbidden from being "fact-based". All criteria listed at Wiktionary:English adjectives are merely hints; none of the criteria is alone necessary and the criteria are not jointly necessary. If Wiktionary:English adjectives were applied to "allotted", google books:"become allotted" would suggest this to be adjective; nonetheless, I do not take Wiktionary:English adjectives very seriously. In any case, this does not fit my idea of proper use of RFV, which should IMHO above all be used to find whether a term or a sense are actually used to convey meaning. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
You seem to ignore our non-legislated practice of requiring that an English adjective be comparable/gradable OR be used as a predicate OR have a sense distinct from the sense of the noun or verb form from which a separate identity is to be established. The predicate case is that hardest to apply for adjectives that are alleged to be conversions of past participles, because it often requires a high level of sensitivity to the language to reliably distinguish passive use of the past participle from predicate use of an adjective. This is the kind of thing that interpretation of actual evidence rather than armchair introspection and gum-flapping (let alone legislating) is well suited to resolving. DCDuring TALK 15:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, the putative practice you speak of is a non-legislated practice, meaning it is, if it exists, not a result of a vote or a Beer parlour discussion. Now, any evidence of this being a common practice? Do you know of past RFV outcomes that fit this putative practice? How many are they? For the record, I oppose the use of RFV for this. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, of course it can be an adjective, but I'm rather dubious about the comparative and superlative shown in the entry. Donnanz (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    Why of course? It can be used attributively, but so can nouns and ing-forms and ed-forms of verbs.
    1. Can it be shown to be gradable or comparative?
    2. Can it be used after become or seem?
    3. Is it ever unambiguously used as a predicate, ie, following a form of be with semantics clearly distinguished from a past participle used to form a passive?
    4. Does it have a sense that is not present in the ed-form of the verb?
    If it doesn't meet at least one of these tests we do not show it as an adjective. DCDuring TALK 11:04, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    All those hurdles? I'm virtually gobsmacked. Donnanz (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    If it doesn't meet at least one of these tests we do not show it as an adjective.
    I share your skepticism about comparability, but can it be used with very or too (gradability)? I don't think so. I've never run into usage that meets any of the other tests either, but there might be such usage. DCDuring TALK 13:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
    1. The allotted tasks are less challenging than the other job expectations; the latter have no specific time set aside for their accomplishment.
    2. My days seem allotted either as a series of disasters and bad news, or boring montages of the same-ol'.
    3. Each is allotted a colour according to its priority. - Amgine/ t·e 06:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
    @Amgine: The first is attributive use of a past participle. (Would attested usage of "the circumnavigated globe" make circumnavigated an adjective?) The third is clearly a use of the verb in the passive. (Consider Each is allotted a color by rule of priority., which makes the agent explicit.) The second is the sole telling example. It could be argued that it is an ellipsis of the passive, but I think not. Three citations of such usage for each of the two senses would settle the matter. DCDuring TALK 13:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
  • There is enough sourcing on "This film has been modified from its original version to run in the allotted time" alone to support this as an adjective. Something can be an adjective while not taking comparatives or superlatives Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 14:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Your reason would imply that cicumnavigated should be considered an adjective, given usage such as:
  • 1965, G. B. Sansom, The Western World and Japan:
    Not many years after the discovery of the Americas and the opening of the Cape route to India, Christian missionaries were making their way to almost every part of the now circumnavigated globe
There is a clear path to justifying treating this as an adjective: that it attestably meet at least ONE of the tests of adjectivity, such as those listed above (There may be more.). There is no amount of attributive use alone that would compel treatment of this as an adjective. DCDuring TALK 15:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
While I don't have an opinion on the rest, wouldn't the modifying element be now circumnavigated in that quote? - Amgine/ t·e 18:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
@Amgine: Yes, but circumnavigated is the head of the modifying phrase. I searched for "now circumnavigated" to reduce the portion of the ocean that I had to boil to find relevant citations. DCDuring TALK 18:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Well, as a sailor, I would certainly consider a circumnavigated globe as qualitatively different from an uncircumnavigated one, in a comparable way an explored region differs from an unexplored one, a painted versus an unpainted canvas. In a related manner, an allotted hour or day is different from one unallotted. And that's entirely apart from parliamentary usage (throughout the commonwealth), the standard euphemisms allotted span, allotted hours, or allotted days to indicate length of life (or 70 years, whichever comes first?), and of course Google Books—whether religious, poetic, or otherwise. On another hand, your position that allotted is not adjectival is disputed by OED, Merriam-Webster, Cambridge... just wondering which authority is the basis for your position? - Amgine/ t·e 20:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
It appears there is enough sourcing to support allotted as an adjective. User:DCDuring, why do you fight words ending in -ed and -ing being defined as adjectives when they're clearly attestable as such? Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 16:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
@Purplebackpack89: To avoid the need to maintain English entries that convey no semantic information. All English nouns can be used attributively; all English past participles and -ing forms can be used in a variety of predictable ways. Perhaps you would enjoy adding complete adjective PoS sections to all (I do mean ALL) English noun entries, -ing-forms and past participles and complete noun sections to all -ing-form entries. In principle, each sense of the lemma form of a verb should have an appropriately reworded corresponding sense in the adjective section located on the same page as the section for the past participle and the -ing-form. Mutatis mutandis for nouns. DCDuring TALK 18:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Just because it can be done doesn't mean it has to be done only by me, or immediately. What we just do is end the ridiculous deletion of -ed and -ing adjectives, and create more as needed. Furthermore, it doesn't have to be ALL, because, in practice, not all are used frequently enough to be attributable. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 15:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)


Sense "(poetic) virginity, chastity." Sure. I'm putting it on my list of I wouldn't know where to start looking and I don't have a clue how it would be used if it is really used. Cites, please.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Out of all 6 pages of Google Books results for "her thyme" -herb -garlic -cottonwood, these are the only results that look plausible to me: [15] [16] [17]. More context for the third result can be seen here. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 23:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The cites might fit a definition like "fertility or sexuality". I don't see "chastity". DCDuring TALK 00:53, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that it's hard to draw the line between symbolism and lexical meaning, and harder still to pin down the meaning of metaphorical speech- but a line has to be drawn. There are lots of poems that refer to beautiful women as roses, and also refer to the "thorns" encountered when they're "plucked" . That doesn't mean we should have senses at rose, thorn or pluck that capture this usage.
To put it another way: the plant known as thyme may symbolize virginity and chastity, but the term "thyme" doesn't necessarily mean "virginity and chastity" as a word. The former is the realm of an encyclopedia, the latter the realm of a dictionary. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Poetry provides the poorest attestation for contemporary English, ambiguity, allusion, metaphor, and prosody often confusing matters enormously. Also IMO metaphors are often given too much weight in our RfVs. The distinction between "live" metaphors and "dead" ones is worth keeping in mind, even though it is sometimes hard to distinguish between "live" and "dead".
I'm not exactly sure how to handle the symbolic meanings of colors and natural things, as, for example, seems to have been common in the Middle Ages, possibly especially in Christendom. DCDuring TALK 15:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I based this entry on the old Irish song "A Bunch of Thyme". There is a very detailed analysis of this song at http://www.irishmusicdaily.com/bunch-of-thyme which clearly states its use as a euphamism for virginity and/or purity.--Dmol (talk) 09:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

@Dmol: Interesting article, but some of the other actual usage doesn't seem to me to quite fit "virginity".
Also, the song is in English. Is it an adaptation of an older Irish song? Did "thyme" have some specific association with virginity in Irish culture? DCDuring TALK 14:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
The article actually says: "Thyme represents the girl’s purity and consequently it represents her hopes and prospects for future happiness." This is metaphor, not a meaning of the word. Dbfirs 13:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Is it lexical information to include as a definition the symbolic meaning of the thing represented by a word (and its synonyms), ie, a synset? Would only an entry be merited only for the language(s) of the culture(s) in which the symbolic meaning existed, at least at one time.
I would think that only when the symbolic meaning has somehow transferred from the referent itself to one or more of the synset would a definition be warranted. So if blue were at one time a symbol of sadness, at some time the meaning transferred to the word, which now has the sense "sad". I certainly doubt that thyme ever remotely approached that kind of meaning transfer. Note also that near-synonyms for the color blue are not near synonyms for sad. DCDuring TALK 13:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I've added two quotes from traditional songs, one from the 17th century and another later one from (i think) the 19th. I also added two references, one as discussed above and another I found. There is another website, http://www.irishpage.com/songs/thyme.htm , that makes the same connection and give the original Irish language lyrics. I also changed the definition to say that it is "an allegory..." which seems more accurate. --Dmol (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


This entry was deleted by Metaknowledge (talkcontribs), saying "This is a Russian word with an entry at почемучка, not an English word." But I think there is a reasonable chance that it is attestable, so I restored it and am RFVing it. --WikiTiki89 16:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Google Books and Google Groups both have a fair few mentions - almost all in lists of "untranslatable words" - but no uses. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
@Atitarev: I don't think the two citations you added should count. The 1968 one uses it as the name of a ship, and the 2014 one uses it clearly as a foreign word, putting it in quotes after defining it. --WikiTiki89 17:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Isn't this rather easily translated as "questioner" or "inquisitor"? (although it loses the pestiferous, gleefully malicious character...) - Amgine/ t·e 05:32, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
What our current definition fails to mention is that it means someone who always asks "Why?", not just any other question. --WikiTiki89 15:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Failed. Citations moved to Citations:pochemuchka. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

death note[edit]

Was moved today from Appendix:Death Note (which had an RFD tag on it, though I can't find the old discussion in WT:RFDO). Needs to be attested outside of its fictional universe. Equinox 12:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Failed RFV. Equinox 21:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


Two citations given. One is using nonsense words without any meaning, and the other appears to be an error for "gleefully". I don't think this word exists as defined at all. Equinox 14:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I tend to agree with you. The quotes don't convince me. Is it a candidate for deletion? Donnanz (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • A nice round number of hits at google books:"bleefully": round, as in zero.
Delete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Failed RFV. Equinox 21:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


Like "bleefully" above, despite unsatisfactory citations, this does not seem to be an actual word at all. Equinox 14:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

  • Once again I agree with you. A possible corruption or misspelling of gleeful. Delete it? Donnanz (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Only two hits at google books:"bleeful", one of which is clearly not English, instead being poorly scanned Dutch in a Fraktur typeface, and the other on closer inspection also looks like a scanno (though to be honest the image is so small it's hard to tell quite what's going on).
Delete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Failed RFV. Equinox 21:28, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


Volapük for blood clot. Nothing on Google Books or Google Groups; a Google web search turns up several mentions but no uses. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 22:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


Volapük for xylography. Nothing on Google Groups or Google Books. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 22:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


I can't find any English books that use this term (in Google Books). Probably should be spelled bullabesa? Needs a Spanish Catalan entry. Pengo (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I found nothing in English and only one use in Spanish. Pretty much every Google Books hit is in Catalan. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Failed. Readded as Catalan. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: adjective meaning nothing or zero. I'm not quite sure what the author is referring to here. I have found a cite for "since supposedly there are zilch feelings involved". Is this adjectival? Renard Migrant (talk) 12:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the part of speech in your example should be determiner, but it seems to be mostly a noun. We seem to be all over the map in our treatment of this and synonyms such as bupkis, nada, nil, nothing and zip. I also think we're missing the humorous and emphatic overtones to the term in our treatment. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
The French Wiktionary has a head 'adjectif numéral' for cardinal numbers like 'one, two, three' which can describe a noun. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


Verb sense: "to deny the existence or significance of something obviously real or important". In "Quining Qualia" Dennett gives a few quotations of philosophers, but I am quite tempted to quine them. Keφr 14:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Cited. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
BTW, Dennett's The Philosophical Lexicon (1st edition 1988) is available online. It is satirical, but some of Dennett's neologisms may have been taken up in a philosophical context at least. DCDuring TALK 19:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Found some others, added them to the entry. Also, there is a sense of "to prepend to something a quotation of itself"; GEB uses it, for instance, many other works reference it.

  • 1984, Douglas R. Hofstadter, "Analogies and Metaphors to Explain Gödel's Theorem", Mathematics: People, Problems, Results (edited by Douglas M. Campbell, John C. Higgins), Taylor & Francis (ISBN 9780534032036), page 274
    "Quining" is what I called it in my book. (He certainly didn't call it that!) Quining is an operation that I define on any string of English. [] Here is an example of a quined phrase: "is a sentence with no subject" is a sentence with no subject.
  • 1997, Nathaniel S. Hellerstein, Diamond: A Paradox Logic, World Scientific (ISBN 9789810228507), page 183
    Diamond arises in Gödelian meta-mathematics. In meta-math, sentences can refer to each other's provability, and to quining. This yields self-reference: T = "is provable when quined" is provable when quined.

Keφr 20:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Two more Hofstadterian cites:

  • 2001, Howard Mirowitz, Re: Why is L&T in quotation marks?, rec.music.dylan, Usenet
    In "Love And Theft", Dylan quined the love and theft in his songs in the album's title, "Love And Theft". So the subtext, the meaning of the entire album, when preceded by its quotation, its symbol, yields a paradox.
  • 2001, Jim Evans, Re: Quining for the fjords, rec.humor.oracle.d, Usenet
    And, of course, the existence of various sigmonsters guarantees entire quined-posts.

Also, of a related sense "to create a quine (self-reproducing program)/an indirect self-reference":

  • 2006, John Doty, Re: Create a word that returns its own name?, comp.lang.forth, Usenet
    Over a year ago, I wrote the following to my son (who had helped me implement dynamic linking in LSE64, but didn't know the language well) after he told me about a homework assignment involving quining in Lisp: []

Both are hardly citable, though. Keφr 06:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

  • I've added the "append something to a quotation of itself" sense to the entry. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Yes... But one reason I wanted to quine these quotations is that most of them immediately follow references to works from which they originated (Hofstadter's and Dennett's), in which the speaker points to their definitions. And they barely exist. I would argue that this means the verb meanings have not really entered the lexicon. Keφr 18:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Passed. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "empty set". Never ever seen this: is the standard symbol, if there is any use of γ at all, I suspect it is ad-hoc. How do we cite symbols anyway? Keφr 11:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

This is easier to search for than most symbols - Google will search for it since it's a letter. No evidence that I can find for γ as an empty set - the only search results that it finds are all partial hits for "non-empty set". Incidentally, sets are almost always written with capital letters, which makes me suspicious of this one - the vast majority of hits use Γ, not γ, to refer to sets. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


Supposedly English. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

It's certainly citeable in italicised text:
  • Just as we were given a Xmas tree and hollies, we were presented with a shōchikubai,* a very well-made artificial one, and a vase with pines and daffodils by Kumasakas and Yokotas respectively.
  • Both of them are connected with ideas of good fortune and together with bamboo they constitute the traditional shōchikubai depiction which often accompanies gifts or celebratory decoration.
  • The interior center is ornamented with shōchikubai design encircled by a band of interlocking triangles.
It appears without italics and unglossed in a few books on Asian design (although the first one might be a mistake, since its italicised once in the same book):
  • Three separate sets of gay shōchikubai motifs grow upward from the hem.
  • the outer cover with three shaped piercings and decorated in iroe hiramakie and togidashi on a roironuri ground with card-shaped panels depicting the shōchikubai, maple leaves, leaves, grasses, etc.
  • Made by Hoyensai (Kaku-maru-sai), on a piece engraved with the shōchikubai in katakiri.
Nonetheless, I don't personally find this evidence overwhelming (the fact that it's easier to find with a macron indicates its mostly being used by people who understand Japanese, as opposed to, say, shōnen, which is more common in English texts as shounen or shonen). I wouldn't object to keeping it, but I also wouldn't object to just pointing people to the Japanese definition either. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
The above citations look good to me. I think the definition currently in the entry would benefit from some trimming/clean-up. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Only one of Smurrayinchester’s unitalicised citations uses the macron, but I managed to find two more (one of them capitalises the term though). We should move the content to shochikubai, which is much more common in usage that is definitely English, and rewrite shōchikubai as a rare alternative spelling. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:33, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


The decade that began with the year 2000. I don't see anything on Google Books or Google Groups. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:42, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Rachel Maddow uses it all the time. The 2nd quote is from last night: 04/17/2014, 1st story, 1m 17s – 1m 20s.
Second source: Federico Moramarco (2010) The City of Eden: Poems from a Life Paperback. The last section is called "The Two Thousandsies". Reviewed here.[18]
kwami (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe we shouldn't include quotations as example sentences without attribution.... Anyway, that book gives us one durably archived citation. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 21:59, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I don't know why it would be called that. I would just call it the "two-thousands". --WikiTiki89 21:28, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
But is the 2000's the decade or the millennium? The obsolete term "noughties" similarly disambiguated the 1900's as the decade 1900–1910 from the 1900's as the 20th century. kwami (talk) 22:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I was not aware of that. I always called that decade the "nineteen-hundreds" as well. --WikiTiki89 23:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
You're expecting usage to make sense? It looks to me like a deliberately silly attempt to make the name of the last decade sound like those of the previous decades. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I think you hit the spot just right there with "silly". --WikiTiki89 23:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Found three other, independent uses on the net. Put them in the citations tab. kwami (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

It looks to me like none of those three are durably archived. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 23:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Our guideline recommends using web sources: "Usenet groups, which are durably archived by Google", etc. How is something archived by Google "durable", but something archived by WaybackMachine is not? What are our criteria? We could archive a few with WebCite. kwami (talk) 00:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
We had a discussion about this not too long ago (see here). It is possible for a website to opt out of Wayback Machine and have all of its archives deleted. --WikiTiki89 00:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
But that's not a problem with WebCite. kwami (talk) 01:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
This is not the place for a discussion about changing our policy. We are not WebCite, and when and if we start allowing citations from the web, we will most likely also have to increase our web citation threshold for inclusion. --WikiTiki89 01:21, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
A dozen citations is certainly an increase. kwami (talk) 04:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Who said anything about a dozen? Anyway, as of now web citations are not allowed at all. --WikiTiki89 04:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
You said "we will most likely also have to increase our web-citation threshold for inclusion", as if that were an objection. kwami (talk) 05:09, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that's when and if we start allowing them. So it's irrelevant. --WikiTiki89 05:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Hit at Google Groups:

  • Back in the early two-thousandsies I was briefly obsessed with the idea of using license plate numbers as messaging addresses. (2012-1-10)[19] —This unsigned comment was added by Kwamikagami (talkcontribs).
That's not Usenet. --WikiTiki89 05:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Google says it's an archive of Usenet postings. kwami (talk) 05:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Where? Keφr 06:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Google Groups is a discussion forum thing that also serves as an archive of Usenet. Not everything in Google Groups is Usenet. I'm not an expert on Usenet, but I do know that Usenet group identifiers generally look something like "alt.language.latin", while that quote is in a group called "Buffalo OpenCoffee Club". --WikiTiki89 06:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
I haven't used usenet in ages, and my accounts have all expired. I'd have to reinstall the software just to scan it. kwami (talk) 04:51, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Failed. There are lots of uses, but only the two in the entry (which I moved to Citations:two-thousandsies) were durably archived. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


I request this for verification. No redirects on Wikipedia. I don't see anything on Google. Supposedly an alternative form of Danelaw in the English language. And please add citations to Citations:Danlaga. LalalalaSta (talk) 19:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Why are you RFVing a word that you added? —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 20:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
It was originally listed on the Danelaw page as an alternative form. And why, is it not allowed here to RFV your own page? I see some references now, but is this word really only in English? Please verify. LalalalaSta (talk) 20:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
By creating an entry, you take at least some responsibility for it. You should create an entry only if you are able to judge whether the term is correct (even with something as weak as "native speaker's gut feeling") and meets our criteria for inclusion. And you should have something more to put on the page than just a link back to the page where you found the redlink. If you cannot do that, leave it alone. Keφr 20:27, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
WAIT A MINUTE.... why did this fail? Did you even TRY to site this? This makes me mad. You didn't even give a reason why it failed. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 02:30, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
1: "cite".
2: [20] The nearest thing to something relevant is a scanno for "damage". Unless you think this is citable from Google Groups, or you have a history of Pre-Norman England which uses "Danlaga" instead of "Danelaw", in which case please provide your cites.
--Catsidhe (verba, facta) 02:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
@ReadySteadyYeti: Do read the introduction of this page. The protocol recommends failing RFVs one month after the nomination. This one has been here for nearly three.
If you don’t like it, just find three cites that meet the requirements and readd the page, no questions asked. That’s the fun thing about RFVs: even if a word previously failed RFV, you can recreate it immediately if you find adequate citations. And yes, I did try to cite it. — Ungoliant (falai) 03:15, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Big Brother[edit]

Fictional character sense. Since challenges of meeting WT:FICTION are answered with citations, I figured I should rather bring it here rather than at RFD. Keφr 13:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

It would not be easy to distinguish such citations from those for the other senses. IMO we should remove this sense and put the information in the etymology instead. Equinox 14:49, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Failed. Turned into etymology. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Other dictionaries do not seem to have the mathematical sense. Therefore, three quotes would be called for. --Hekaheka (talk) 21:19, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

[21], [22] and [23] are optical/astronomical cites. [24] was the only mathematical one I could find at quick notice. [25] is an abstract of a preprint (of an otherwise Chinese paper) that uses abaxial in the optical sense. [26] is another preprint with Chinese authors, this time in plasma physics. I'm going to say that if arXiv doesn't have mathematical documents using it, it's not in use, at least currently, in mathematics.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:17, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


If anyone wanted to talk about a 13-foot meter, this would be the logical name for it- but, judging from Google Groups and Google Books, I doubt anyone actually uses it. Even Google search yields only 17 hits, of which 16 are dictionaries. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:43, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

13-foot meter? That does not seem right. Keφr 05:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
$ units meter foot
        * 3.2808399
        / 0.3048
No, "meter" (or "metre") as in music and poetry (senses 5 and 6). We have tetrameter, pentameter and hexameter, but I've still never heard of triskaidecameter used of a thirteen-foot or thirteen-beat meter. Nothing beyond octameter seems to be used. For decameter (the poetic sense of "a verse consisting of ten metrical feet"), the OED calls it "a nonce word" (with just one cite). Dbfirs 08:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Cf. tridecameter and tridecasyllable. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:09, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


Linked Wikipedia article does not exist. Single cited book uses the term hyphenated, i.e. "smell-brain". Is the single-word form real? I don't think so. Equinox 00:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Some hits, though a few are recombined "smell- / brain". Also nosebrain, which might be citeable. Both seem to be calques of rhinencephalon. — Pingkudimmi 08:56, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Failed. Moved to smell-brain which is easily citable. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


I can only see mentions. Could we have some actual usages please. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:09, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Failed. Added to Appendix:English dictionary-only terms. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense genitive of (kare, “he”); his. It's a SoP. We don't make entries for noun, pronoun + の. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 11:34, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

It had been an article about the adnominal "彼の" (kano) until I added the noun sense raised above. When you encounter a phrase "彼の" in written modern Japanese, it is much more likely to read as the noun-genitive "彼の" (kareno) than the adnominal. Failing to explain that is not interest of our readers, in my opinion. Could we perhaps add the explanation into the usage note? Same might apply to 此の. Whym (talk) 12:15, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
For this you could use {{&lit|lang=ja|彼|の}}, I think you could even pronunciation right after it, add a short definition ("his") and a usex on the next line. See 得了, etymology 2--Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 12:33, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
Can it be used for a pair that are not exactly the same in the surface form (in pronunciation), but are closely related in the etymology? (I don't know which is the "original" form for that matter.) I am feeling that it is a bit stretching to call one "idiom" in this case. --Whym (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Not sure at the moment how best to reformat the JA entries, but my general thought is that, if a particular JA spelling merits inclusion as a term, then we should include etyms and senses for all readings and meanings that apply to that spelling. Since 彼の does merit inclusion as a valid spelling of non-POS terms あの and かの, we should include etyms etc. for those readings, as well as for any other readings, in this case, for かれ. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 07:11, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
{{&lit}} has this flaw that it makes the entry's other senses "idiomatic". What about # (literal) his, see かれ, .
Is the term "genitive" used often to refer to Japanese possessive ?--Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 11:36, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Re: literal, that sounds good. We probably also ought to add a link to a page or pages about Japanese grammar and how particles function.
  • Re: genitive, some authors might, but it's not that prevalent from what I've seen (anecdotal and subjective evidence, but there you go). “Genitive” implies a case system and declension, which Japanese doesn't really have, strictly speaking; Japanese grammarians, at least, consider nouns (of which JA pronouns are a subset) to be invariable and unchanging. I think possessive might be more appropriate. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree to Eiríkr Útlendi on that possessive is more common, and if one does not wish to liken it to case systems in other languages, they normally avoid genitive. I didn't carefully choose the term when writing "genitive", sorry. Whym (talk) 23:28, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
No need to apologise. Guys, please edit the entry you see fit as per discussion, you can take out the RFV as well. I'm busy with other stuff :) --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:53, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
Sure, here is my attempt. Whym (talk) 11:36, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
I made more changes. Please check this revision. Please note headword and template changes as well. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Finally got around to reworking 彼の to split everything out by etymology. Have a look, see what you all think. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Thank a lot, Eiríkr Útlendi. This organization makes much more sense to me. Can we maybe remove the pronoun sense, unless there is an adequate quote to support? If that was derived from what I wrote, [27] I would regard this now subsumed by the adnominal sense above (that [one] (distant from both speaker and listener). Explaining by you-know-who might have not been a good idea. I just meant that it refers to an object not introduced previously but already known in the dialogue; there is no connotation whether they want to mention it explicitly or not, and it cannot stand as a pronoun as far as I know. A typical use I had in mind is found in 「岩波茂雄 読書子に寄す ――岩波文庫発刊に際して――」(1927): 吾人は範をかのレクラム文庫にとり. Whym (talk) 23:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • The pronoun sense does show up as an independent nominal in two quotes I have to hand, both dating to the Edo period. I'll add those to the entry for illustration purposes. That said, I haven't done any further research into how current this usage is, so it might be archaic or even obsolete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:07, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I am pretty sure that the sense is obsolete. Or more precisely, as Nihon Kokugo Daijiten puts it, 近世の隠語的用法. Whym (talk) 22:38, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
Closed, as the issue has been dealt with. Untagged by Whym (talkcontribs) ([28]). — Ungoliant (falai) 00:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


This is marked as hot word. For one thing, WT:CFI does not recognize the notion of a hot word as far as attestation. But even assuming we bend WT:CFI: from what I understood from the proponents of hot words, hot words would fail the "spanning at least a year" requirement of WT:ATTEST, but otherwise would be attested. This is not attested by even a relaxed standard. google books:"proalitionist", google groups:"proalitionist", proalitionist at OneLook Dictionary Search, google books:"proalitionists", google groups:"proalitionists", proalitionists at OneLook Dictionary Search. Even google:proalitionist and google:proalitionists finds very few hits. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Nothing on Books or Groups, and all but one of the regular Google search hits are for a specific article or direct quotes from that article in news aggregation sites. Definitely not widespread. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
  • "proalition" was briefly popular in late 2012, early 2013, but it looks like it had no staying power. Both terms seem to fail CFI at the moment. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:59, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


We need three independent citations. Every Google hit for "selfiest" that I can find is quoting the same original source - an article in Time ranking the "selfiest" cities. Searching for "google:selfiest -TIME" gets virtually no useable citations, and I can't realistically see a way of using this word in the sense given ("Describing the place in which the most selfies are taken") outside this one article, unless city selfie ranking becomes a regular thing (searches for "selfiest party", "selfiest house" and "selfiest university" find nothing). This Huffington Post video is arguably a citation of a more general "most pertaining to selfies" sense (although it's not strictly durably archived), and that's about all I can find. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:22, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


Using ʀ for the early Norse reflex of Proto-Germanic z is a modern convention, so it's unlikely that this is attested this way in the original form. I'm not sure in what form the ʀ would be written instead, though. I suspect that this entry actually represents a romanisation of a word that was written in runic originally (which did indeed have a separate letter for ʀ). —CodeCat 13:47, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

The exact spelling hæimr occurs in a couple of Old Icelandic (West Norse!) works, e.g. Thómass saga erkibiskups. In Runic, all I can find are inflected and abbreviated forms, e.g. a stone in Folsberga has ᚤᚴ ᛁ ᚦᚬᚾ ᚽᛘ and a stone in Fjuckby has ᚴᚱᛁᚴ᛫᛬ᚼᛅᚡᚾᛁᚱ ᚼᛅᛁᛘᛅ ᛏᚢ; none of those stones vouch for this spelling. We could move the entry to hæimr and drop the claim that it's East Norse. - -sche (discuss) 01:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Moved to hæimr and removed the East Norse label, per -sche’s comment. Does it need a West Norse or Icelandic label? — Ungoliant (falai) 23:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

özçekmiş, teinipeili and meitsie[edit]

Tagged for deletion by an IP with the comment: "There isn't that word at Turkish commonly. It is a prefabrice."

Nothing on Books or on Groups. Regular Google search turns 51 hits, many tracing back to us: not hot- not even lukewarm ... Chuck Entz (talk) 22:06, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

What about Finnish teinipeili and meitsie? Can you find the results on books or on groups? -- 05:32, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Teinipeili (lit. "teen mirror") has been around for years and finding three quotes in newspapers would be a piece of cake. First internet appearances of meitsie seem to be from January this year, and thus it does not fulfil our "spanning over one year" -criteria.--Hekaheka (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Turkish word 'sanalgı' has been around for years and you may find three quotes in newspapers [29] but it was deleted. Is it not same with 'teinipeili'?--12:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
If they were actually nominated, someone might check. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
selfie is selfie at Turkish too. Also "take a sefie" is "selfie çekmek". Selfie did become news at online newspapers. When searching at google, you will see "selfie akımı" and "selfie çılgınlığı" ... özçekmiş isn't truth.-- 23:42, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Can someone add teinipeili citations to the entry? — Ungoliant (falai) 23:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


Esperanto for stoplight. Nothing on Google Books or Tekstaro. There is one hit on Google Groups, although it's followed by a question mark in parentheses, suggesting that the author was uncertain about the word. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 04:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense - Etymology 2. No reference. Seems to be a strange choice of kanji for such a concept. JamesjiaoTC 02:17, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Added by our favorite IP, who probably misinterpreted something he found online somewhere. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:28, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Absolute bonkers silliness. No idea where he (I'm assuming "he") gets some of this stuff. Next thing, we'll find out that 茄子 (nasubi) has a new sense, nuclear reactor. My, what a wonderfully exciting world we live in.
(For the record, the JA term means eggplant.
I'll clean up the entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 06:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks mate. This user is obviously a Naruto fan. I am thinking of banning him/her again for dodging IP ban and for making substandard, unreferenced edits. JamesjiaoTC 01:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
They're a big anime fan, and don't seem to realize that anime wroters and artists make up a great deal of the mythology they use, or borrow it from elsewhere.
There are several of us who block this person on sight (they geolocate to Sky Broadband in England, with occasionaly stints on Easynet, also in England), but they've gotten in the habit of doing quick bursts of editing, then changing their IP. After seeing the odd language used in the request they made on Feedback yesterday (diff), I'm beginning to think there may be mental issues involved. Not that I'm surprised- based on their edit history and failure to learn from the reaction to their contributions, there certainly seems to be a bit of a detachment from reality.
I'm starting to use mass delete (Special:Nuke) on their page creations and revert everything that looks questionable just to see if we can discourage them from constantly adding stuff- I've seen too many cases where they get reverted or the pointless clutter they add to entries gets pruned, but they come back and add it again until it slips by because no one is paying attention at the moment. They don't just mess with Japanese and Mandarin, either: there are lots of their junk edits pervading the English-language coverage of anything having to do with deities and personifications of death, and they go off on weird tangents every once in a while- it took me forever to get them to realize that there's no such thing as a "single-malt brandy", for instance. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
It was previously agreed to Special:Nuke their new edits, regardless of quality. That's the only way to discourage him/her. The anon misuses the system and distracts editors. It takes more to clean up the mess than creating new entries. Simple ones (ja, cmn, ko, vi) can now be generated with User:Wyang's tools. BTW, Chinese topolects are now being merged into one L2. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 02:50, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
Speedied by Eirikr (talkcontribs) ([30]). — Ungoliant (falai) 23:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "The active opposition to such violence, especially the refusal to take part in military action" This splitting of senses is sometimes irritating, especially when ttbc's are then created. Are they really different from each other? Can e.g. Portuguese "pacifismo" be different for these two senses? You may believe in peace or be active about it, does it make a difference for a dictionary? pacifism is pacifism. Perhaps "an attitude or policy of nonresistance" is a new sense, especially in a non-political sense. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад)

like User:Atitarev--Pierpao (talk) 01:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
What does your comment mean? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:38, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with you--Pierpao (talk) 08:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
There is a countable sense of pacifism (see google books:"pacifisms"). Maybe this is what was meant. — Ungoliant (falai) 03:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
MWOnline has two definitions:
  1. opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; specifically: refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds
  2. an attitude or policy of nonresistance
Some others at pacifism at OneLook Dictionary Search have three senses.
I'm sorry that the same word may translate all the senses in some or all languages, requiring tedious copy-and-paste to indulge one's desire for completeness, but the English language dictionary is not for the convenience of translators. DCDuring TALK 04:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Failed. I replaced the definition with a {{rfdef}} for the countable sense. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

May 2014[edit]


Translingual symbol meaning "neither male nor female". It appears to resist Google searching, so this may be hard to find attestation for. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 22:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Note that the original definition was slightly different. -- Liliana 00:29, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Wiktionary's mission is to create a dictionary which has an entry for every word in every language. I don't see how this could be a word. If it is, then e.g. traffic signs could be understood as "words". --Hekaheka (talk) 06:10, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
You mean like this 🚦 (U+1F6A6 VERTICAL TRAFFIC LIGHT)? --WikiTiki89 15:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Is it used in writing? It seems that's the first question to answer; if we can identify uses in writing, then we can judge whether it qualifies. We have a bunch of characters used in writing, like * and ? and Unsupported_titles/Colon and (but not [[<]]), and also , , and , symbols with similar usage. I can imagine uses that I would regard as keepable; try "Three people were there, Pat (♀), Pat (♂), and Pat (⚪)."--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:31, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

shutter shades[edit]

I am only disputing the characterization of this as solely a plural noun. - Amgine/ t·e 05:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Neither of those represent a singular form of the sunglasses sense that's currently in the entry, and so they do not call its status as plural-only into question. If either example turned out to be attestable, the definitions would belong at "shutter shade," not "shutter shades." This is a matter for WT:REE, not RFV. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 16:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
See shades for an example. It looks to me like shutter shade might be SOP, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
The photographic equipment is fairly specific, rather than SOP, as it does not describe its actual purpose (film 'shading'.) The awning use I have no clews about. Obviously either might be used as a plural, while the sunglasses sense would not (thus my contesting the plural only for the term, not {{rfv-sense}}.) - Amgine/ t·e 20:09, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
@Amgine: "the sunglasses sense would not" "be used as a plural".
Of course it can. In this regard it inherits the properties of glasses (eyeglasses, spectacles).
One can say "These glasses are cool" referring either to a single pair of eyeglasses or, say, all those in a display case.
Did you mean something other than my interpretation of what you said? DCDuring TALK 20:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
If you look at shades, you'll see there's a plural-only sense and a plural-of sense. As Cloudcuckoolander was saying, you just need to add the plural-of sense to make it parallel to that entry, which wouldn't require doing anything to the existing sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the RFV tag since this was, as noted, not an RFV matter. If you create [[shutter shade]] you can restore this version of the page and voila... - -sche (discuss) 21:37, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


Created by our well-known and prolific creator of garbage Japanese entries, but just plausible enough not to delete on sight.

Although the Japanese Wikipedia uses this name in its article on w:Amphitrite, I can find only one hit in Google Books and none in Google Groups. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I should also mention that Japanese Wikipedia spells the asteroid differently, so the second sense is almost definitely wrong. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
I think we could convert アムピトリーテー into an "alternative form" entry linked to アンフィトリテ which is definitely a more commonly used form and is attestable. Japanese Wikipedia uses a transliteration scheme of Ancient Greek that is supposedly more faithful, but it does not necessarily reflect actual uses in Japanese we can observe. Whym (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
The form アムピトリーテー itself does seem to be accepted by some researchers, at least as an alternative form, if not in wider use: [31] (p. 10) , [32] (p. 4) Whym (talk) 15:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
Converted to alternative form of アンフィトリテ per Whym’s suggestion. Can someone add the citations in his link? — Ungoliant (falai) 00:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


  • Turkish: university

A user asks for attestation. Consider placing the attesting quotations at Citations:birdem. Here is Google Books search for "birdem" in Turkish, which does find some hits of the term, in whatever meaning. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

At there it isn't birdem, it is "bir dem". So, bir=one, a/an; and dem=time, moment.-- 17:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Why are you telling a lie Türkeröz (or "123Snake45")? -- 20:39, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
http://www.anadolu.edu.tr/ You are telling lie.

It isn't birdem meaning university. It is üniversite. It isn't "anadolu birdemi". It is "Anadolu Üniversitesi".-- 21:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Some of the google books results have a meaning like Latin universitas which is the root of the word "university". There are some google results like "Anadolu birdemi, Oxford birdemi" etc. —This unsigned comment was added by 2001:A98:C060:80:54AB:5B78:4A38:5A74 (talk) 10:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC).

I don't see any Google books results with the meaning university. -- Curious (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


I couldn't confirm the existence of this word in Japanese. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 13:49, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I found a couple of works related to Shinto and Japanese mythology that use 隱身 in Japanese (not read おんしん but かくりみ, though): [33] [34] [35]. Whym (talk) 01:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
@Whym: thanks. With this reading it makes more sense, it's also in 隱身@Weblio.jp. Apparently it's a Shinto term. Could you improve the definition, please? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 01:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Our favorite IP strikes again. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
Does this have to do with the above entry or related entries? What were the edits?
@Whym:, @Eirikr: I'll leave the above entry in your capable hands. :) --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 05:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)If you look at the edit history, it was created by back in 2012. Any time you find something in our Japanese entries that's wrong in ways that just don't make sense, the odds are it traces back to this same person. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Note also that the initial character here, , is the obsolete kyūjitai for . As such, the entry at 隱身 should only ever be a stub entry marked as {{alternative spelling of|隠身}}, directing readers to the lemma entry content at 隠身.
FWIW, I find evidence for both the readings kakurimi (google books:"隠身"+"かくりみ", 81 hits) and kakuremi (google books:"隠身"+"かくれみ", 28 hits). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 06:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
@Atitarev, Eirikr: I tried my best at 隠身 and 隱身. Quotations are not yet added. Whym (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I haven't done much research on this, but 隱形 (隠形) probably has the same problem. Whym (talk) 13:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
@Whym: Thank you! I see you're using {{ja-altread}}. I haven't used it before @Eirikr: has some other way to put together terms with multiple reading but I don't remember exactly. Just by repeating the headword on two lines? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 13:40, 6 May 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: To ease access to services (such as banking, insurance, or healthcare) to residents in specific areas.

I have not been able to find support for "services" outside of real estate lending and property insurance, though it would not be too much of a surprise. I have created and found citations for the financial services sense (mostly lending, but I think insurance would be supportable). There are other senses for greenlined involving parkland areas and some kind of cloth used for umbrellas and parasols, among other things. DCDuring TALK 20:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Speedy close as disruptive: DCDuring found sources, then claimed they were for a new definition of his own devising rather than the existing definition that he's RfVing. Each of the citations he has down for #2 (his new definition) also supports #1 as a definition (the definition he's contesting). DCDuring's new definition #2 is too close to the definition he's RfVing, and if one of them should be deleted, it's his. The definition also needs to be preserved to maintain parallelism with the antonym of greenlining, redlining. Furthermore, DCDuring has a history of being contentious toward me, so I somewhat suspect this latest stunt is part of that history. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 20:35, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Having two senses, each with the same three citations, and one RFVed while the other is RFDed, is certainly some kind of bureaucratic mess. Ouch. Equinox 20:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
The second sense should have never been added, as it is redundant to the first. The only difference is the first sense puts the onus on residents while the second sentence puts the onus on businesses. Only one sense is needed. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 20:52, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Adding the second definition definitely disrupts the process of sloppy, unsupported definition practiced by the contributor of the first sense. The first definition would have us believe that the term includes all banking and insurance services, as well as health care. The citations solely support real-estate lending and possibly property insurance.
Should I have instead simply edited the first definition to exclude what I cannot find support for?
I really don't see how parallelism is any justification, under CFI or on any but some idiosyncratic semantic-theoretical basis for inclusion. I also think that Purplebackpack89 has a pattern of personalizing any disagreement. This disagreement is readily resolved by the simple means of finding citations to support the extended sense.
Finally, the narrow sense is certainly older, with the yet-unattested extension much more recent. The timing of the evolution of the extension, should it be attested, would be worthwhile lexical information, nicely accommodated by separate definitions and separate applications of {{defdate}}. DCDuring TALK 22:06, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
You say I have a pattern of personalizing the disagreement...in the same comment where you personalize the disagreement, in your sentence that begins "Adding the second definition...". You should not have done things the way you did, an RfV was not needed. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 22:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Also, it is completely unnecessary to find new citations when the current citations in the article support either definition. Three distinct citations support definition #1. One citation applying it to something other than banking, maybe. But you didn't need an RfV for one, you only need RfV when a definition has no citations, and this definition HAS citations Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 22:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore, it is wrong of you to dismiss the parallelism argument. The term redlining predates greenlining in common parlance; redlining is STILL the more common term and greenlining is a term ONLY because redlining was a term first. Anything that can be redlined can also be greenlined. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 22:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
This is only about citations. I thought gum-flapping, such as yours about symmetry, belonged on WT:RFD, though it really has no bearing on RfD either, never being mentioned directly or indirectly in WT:CFI. DCDuring TALK 01:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
You're the one who personalized it, forcing DCDuring to defend himself- which he did by putting your rant in the context of your usual modus operandi. You sometimes stick to the merits of the case at hand, but mostly you hold forth on the topic of how everyone either a) hates you b) is generally deficient in character or intellect, or c) narrow-mindedly wants to delete everything (often a combination of all three). If anyone replies in kind, you scream about personal attacks. I can see why Mglovesfun wanted to block you, even though I agree that was wrong. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2014 (UTC)


Tagged for speedy deletion with the comment "This is a hoax. There are precisely 0 attestations on Google."

As I always do with questionable new entries, I looked for usage and I found a cite on Google Books, so that isn't strictly true. Whether it meets CFI is another matter. There are also a good number of typos for hybrid and references to something having to do with a game, which muddies things a bit. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

What's the citation you found? I couldn't find anything plausible. Equinox 14:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Most are obvious typos. But not in,
Of calculatingly unprincipled / Surrender to hubrid incompetence
Constancio Sulapas Asumen, 2011, "Why, or Why Not?", Flirting with Misadventures: Escapades of an Exotic Life
kwami (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Hmm. That's a vanity-published book by somebody with a non-English-sounding name (so perhaps not a native speaker). I personally wouldn't give it much value as a source. Equinox 01:12, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Unlikely a non-native speaker would be writing poetry like that, but he may be natively bilingual, or influenced by a heritage language. But isn't that what people do? I need a word, and it doesn't exist, so I'll coin one. Anyway, if we accept chat from Usenet, we can hardly object to vanity press. kwami (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Another (they're few and far between):
Showing off for him, for all of them, not out of hubris — hubris? him? what did he have to be hubrid about? — but from mood and nervousness.
Stanley Elkin, 1991, The MacGuffin. The line was actually quoted by the New York Times Biographical Service, vol. 22, p. 189, and the New York Times Magazine, also 1991.
So that's two independent sources, 20 years apart, but the fact that the NYTM quotes one of them should count for something. I'm also finding "hubrid hyper-nationalism", "hubrid policy" etc. on-line, but not on permanent media. kwami (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
The one from "The McGuffin" is the one I found earlier (Google has it in snippet view here). There's also one from alt.psychology.nlp on Usenet. Even if it passes, it's extremely rare- my guess is that people who aren't aware of or who have forgotten about hubristic are unconsciously combining hybrid with hubris to reconstruct an adjective that they assume must exist because assuming otherwise would leave a gap in their vocabulary. The word hybrid, itself, traces back originally to Latin speakers assuming their word hibrida must be related somehow to the Greek word ὕβρις (húbris) (the same Greek letter was borrowed first as u and centuries later as y, due to changes in its pronunciation). Chuck Entz (talk) 03:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Or it could be an occasional loan from some language that has that form. We have our three sources, but it would be good to have a usage note saying 'rare alternative form of "hubristic".' kwami (talk) 04:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I don't find that the poetry citation provides a clear indication of meaning. If one assumes that it means "hubristic" the sentence seems to verge on making sense. Can one really make that assumption for poetry? Can one make that assumption for an author who makes mistakes of grammar and diction? I'd reject it as a valid citation. DCDuring TALK 15:40, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Which mistakes? Granted, it can be hard to spot errors where someone is taking artistic license, but I don't see anything obviously wrong with the poem. kwami (talk) 02:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Cited. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: abbreviation of "and for all I know". I'm only aware of the other sense, "as far as I know". —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 01:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, it would be confusing to have an almost contrary sense. kwami (talk) 02:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
See Category:English contranyms. DCDuring TALK 13:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
It's in the Glossary of Emergency Preparedness Acronyms and Terms in Durham (no date) The Re-Birth of a Nation, published by vanity press Lulu.com. Not an actual use, not worth including since the author could have simply got it wrong. kwami (talk) 02:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


"A bright green colour." I am challenging the noun (and its plural); the adjective is in other dictionaries. Equinox 18:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I found three citations of the singular, but I doubt there are many more. The citations for virids were for a different etymology and pronunciation (I think) relating to virus. DCDuring TALK 01:35, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for looking. With the exception of the final (Hummingbird) citation, I think all of them are using the adjective, though... Equinox 01:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Of course you are correct. I have moved them to the adjective section. It must be past my bedtime. DCDuring TALK 02:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Cited. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


You would think the only hope for this one would be Usenet, but the cite already in this entry refers to the only Usenet post that contains this word (if Google Groups is to be believed). The other cite on the entry is not, as best I can tell, a durable citation.

There are only two Google Books hits, one of which doesn't appear to even contain this word. This, that and the other (talk) 11:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Failed. Citations moved to Citations:fagmosexual. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


This word is used in a work by Joshua Sylvester; see [36]. I guess the inclusion of this word hinges on whether Sylvester's translation of Du Bartas is considered a "well-known work". This, that and the other (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I have added the Sylvester cite. Note his use of the accent as in self-unéd. If that counts, there are now two cites on the page. SpinningSpark 11:33, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
And there'll be a third when someone adds the Du Bartas one. This, that and the other (talk) 00:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
Sylvester is translating Du Bartas, the original won't be English. SpinningSpark 18:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
But can't translations be cited? It doesn't make sense to disallow them, if that's what you're saying. This, that and the other (talk) 12:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Translations (that is, the English editions of works) can be cited. I imagine Spinningspark thought you expected Du Bartas in the original French to count as a citation — that is also what I thought your comment was suggesting, and I'm not sure what you meant if not that. A work by Sylvester has already been cited, if you cite another, it won't count towards attesting the word, per WT:CFI#Independent. - -sche (discuss) 17:41, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, no, I wasn't suggesting to cite a non-English word in an English entry; I'm not sure how that could be inferred. Anyway, I wasn't really aware of the idea of per-author independence, so we are still in need of one more citation here, I suppose. This, that and the other (talk) 07:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Failed. Citations moved to Citations:self-uned. Added to Appendix:English dictionary-only terms. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


Only seeing one use (non-mention), repeated several times in the Google Books results [37]. This, that and the other (talk) 11:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Cited, but I think the definition needs revision, as it seems to be used to mean the canine equivalent of anthropocentrism. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
I had a go at a better definition. This, that and the other (talk) 11:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It's in the OED, which is where the first quote came from. That's one's meaning is somewhat different, so I split the def. kwami (talk) 02:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Passed. — Ungoliant (falai) 07:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


Again, is this relatively obscure scientific text really a "well-known work"? The word doesn't seem to have caught on elsewhere. This, that and the other (talk) 11:53, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's made it into dicts such as the OED. Or do we intend to be a more limited dictionary? kwami (talk) 02:35, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
I think we do. We even have a list of words that some dictionaries include but that have failed to pass CFI: Appendix:English dictionary-only terms. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 03:22, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
But the OED often gives citations of real-world use, just like we do. Maybe someone with access to it can find out if it provides cites, and if so, track them down and add them to our entry. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
In this case, the OED (or at least its online version) only gives two citations, of which one is a clear mention and the other is from the text linked above. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 12:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
My edition gives one actual citation, from 1837, where it appears to be a protologism (We may‥consider this instrument as a phthongometer, or measure of vowel quality), and as a second only in "Smart ... and in later Dicts." About as close to a "dictionary-only term" as we're likely to get, so I'd say this is a good candidate to be moved to that appendix. kwami (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

I've looked through the hits yielded by google books:"phthongometer", and I couldn't find any English uses that aren't by William Whewell, and even then, all he seems to do with the term is to give it as a suggested name for a device that measures the qualities of vowels. He was a prolific neologizer, so it would be no surprise if he'd coined the word; however, in the course of my searching, I found this isolated use of the German term Phthongometer from 1754 — what is the chance that these usages are related? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:28, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Failed. Citations (all mentions) moved to Citations:phthongometer. Added to Appendix:English dictionary-only terms. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:49, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


An old entry from 2004: "Someone who collects cigar bands." It looks like a possible typo for bandophile, but neither form seems to meet CFI. Equinox 17:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Cited under the sense "one who is fond of a brand or brands" (also, in capitalized form, as "a fan of Marlon Brando"). The "cigar band collector" sense does indeed seem uncitable. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Closed. The original sense was replaced with the current one, which has enough citations. — Ungoliant (falai) 04:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


Without the hyphen? (The creator's other contributions may have the same problem: smellbrain is already under RFV because it only seems to exist hyphenated, and I haven't RFVed selfblanking and selfboot but they probably deserve scrutiny.) Equinox 19:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


Are there any attestations of this after 1500? —CodeCat 11:34, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

For weye as variant of way: one from 1658, one from 1568, and one from about 1528
For weye as a variant of weigh: one from 1625, one from 1563, one from 1559, one from 1554, and one from 1551
I didn't find anything for the senses meaning to deceive or lead astray, but I haven't gone through all of the hits at Google Books. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
The OED has the verb (from Old English wǽgan to delude, deceive), both transitive, meaning to deceive or lead astray, and intransitive meaning to go astray, but it marks it as both rare and obsolete, with cites only from Shoreham's poems of 1315, so it would hardly meet our criteria for inclusion. Dbfirs 17:24, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
The OED covers English since the beginning of the second millennium, meaning that the earliest five hundred years of their coverage is Middle English on here. Couldn't the language header simply be changed from English to Middle English? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 01:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
As 1315 is Middle English, one cite meets CFI.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Readded as Middle English. {{obsolete form of|weigh}} added to English entry. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


Allegedly a Turkish word meaning "group".

Allegged inflected forms: definite accusative türkümü, plural türkümler.

Someone doubts the existence of the word entry, so I request attestation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Failed. Türküm seems to be an actual Turkish word (Ne mutlu Türküm diyene). — Ungoliant (falai) 01:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


Allegedly a Turkish word meaning "camp".

Allegged inflected forms: definite accusative düşerge, plural düşergeler.

Someone doubts the existence of the word entry, so I request attestation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Cited since May, but the citations don’t have translations. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:33, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Düşerge is "pay, miras payı" at Turkish. But it is not "camp". "düşərgə" is "camp" and Azeri's word. A group try to show like Turkish. --123snake45 (talk) 14:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
@123snake45: what do the citations at Citations:düşerge say? — Ungoliant (falai) 15:51, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


Another junk phobia, I suspect, with not one but two senses! Equinox 05:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I've added one quotation from Usenet and one from Google Scholar, but I can't seem to find a third. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Found a third cite. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

This word is also spelt caenophobia, caenotophobia, cainotophobia, cenophobia, cenotophobia, kainophobia, and kainotophobia according to Oxford's Dictionary of Psychology. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Passed. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


Alt spelling of chiliahedron. Umm yeah? Equinox 05:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I've found three sources that use this spelling, one of which is John Locke's Essay Concerning Human Understanding, which is certainly a well-known work; it appears that Locke coined the term. However, this spelling is very rare, so I've redefined it as a {{rare spelling of|chiliahedron}} and marked the plural not attested. Does the entry as it currently stands appear OK to you? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
IMO it's really just one independent use. I would exclude Century and the commentary on Locke as mentions. OTOH, as you say, it is a well-known title, if not often well read. DCDuring TALK 17:50, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Passed. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:32, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


"Small tool used to create holes in leather." Created by an old Wonderfool incarnation, ostensibly from Wikipedia. I can't find anything on this and it sounds like a hoax. Plural "bretches" may possibly (unrelatedly) be an obsolete form of "breeches", or just a scanno. Equinox 05:31, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The word bretch used to exist as a Middle English spelling of breach, and the OED has a 1610 cite. There is no trace in Google Books of the tool sense for leather, and the common word awl goes right back to Old English (in the Laws of Ælfred), so I agree that we should suspect a hoax. Dbfirs 17:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
Failed. Definition replaced with {{rfdef}}. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


"The daedalum or zoetrope." It's okay, I'll wait while you click through. Equinox 05:54, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I found two — one use, one mention. Despite Corbett's assertion that this was the original name for the device given to it by its inventor, William George Horner, it would appear that he actually called it the Dædaleum. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


And ji-Kanadänanik, ji-Kanadänan, Kanadänan, hi-Kanadänanik, Kanadänanik, and Kanadänik. All Volapük words for Canadian. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 19:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

All failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


Esperanto for hover. The alternate form flugpendi is easily attestable, but I can only find one use of this form. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 19:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


As well as jikujöran, hikujöran, and kujöravan. Volapük words for obstetrician and midwife. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs)

All failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


Sense: "A small positive quantity." As fas as I know, a lowercase epsilon is usually used for this sense. Keφr 20:37, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


A particular planet. It seems to me that this is a code/designation rather than a true name, or dictionary term. Anyhow it doesn't seem attestable from Google Books and Groups. Equinox 19:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there any reason why these types of astronomical object names should be listed as words in languages instead of translingual? — Ungoliant (falai) 03:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV. But attestation is still key per WT:CFI. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Cited. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


RFV of all senses. A sense similar to the first sense is probably attested, but it may need to be condensed and/or broadened. The other senses are more dubious. The citation assigned to sense 3 directly disclaims that the word has that sense; all of the citations for senses 2 through 4 are easily read as referring to a single sense ("a person who happens to be exempt from taxes") and it is not distinct from sense 1, as far as I have seen. (Among the first few pages of Google Books hits is the Historical Dictionary of Kazakhstan, which specifically notes that one of the rights which came with the aristocratic title was exemption from taxation. In other words, "(holder of) a certain aristocratic title" and "person exempt from taxation" are not separate senses.) The etymology is also sprawling and dubious (even after Mr. Granger's cleanup of it), referring to Korean, Mongolic and Etruscan; see the talkpage for discussion of it. - -sche (discuss) 20:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I created Citations:Tarkhan (which seems to be the most common spelling). The citations support the first sense and two new ones. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Great work! I imagine the lemma of the "noble title" sense should remain lowercase; many capitalized instances are probably just honorific (compare "King"). - -sche (discuss) 04:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Here’s what I gathered in my research: it was originally a title granted to exceptional warriors. Eventually it become an inherited title of lower nobility. The common characteristics to both types of tarkhan were that they were allowed to visit the king/khan/etc. without requesting permission and were exempt from taxes. — Ungoliant (falai) 04:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


"(obsolete, fashion) Length, specifically when referring to an article of clothing." Equinox 21:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a grain of truth to it, but it seems to be more dialectal than obsolete, and to be derived from side by analogy to wide and width- thus equivalent to depth, not length. The phrase "walking width and striding sidth" is quoted in some places as a traditional rule of thumb for the dimensions of a dress, which I interpret to mean "wide enough to accommodate how far the legs are apart when one is walking, and with enough room from front to back to accommodate the length of one's stride". It looks to me like the creator was trying too hard to derive specific information from vague/ambiguous passages, and got it wrong. I would get rid of any reference to fashion, and just make it something like "(dialectal) The length of the sides of something, that is, the depth."
There may be enough quotes to support my interpretation, but I don't think any support the interpretation in the entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
After further looking, I seem to have oversimplified: there are, indeed, a couple of references that talk about a dress that is too long being "too side"
The cites I've found in Google Books: here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. You'll note that most are more mentions than uses, but they do quote usage here and there. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:34, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
The sense specific to clothing failed. The more generic, dialectal term, which was added after the entry was tagged, remains. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:44, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


"A unit of semantic meaning." Can't find in Google Books. Equinox 22:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Not relevant to the validity but that sounds like a morpheme to me. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:41, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


Ido for excavate. I can't seem to find anything on Google Books. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 22:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


"(obsolete) To complain." No suitable whingling nor whingled in a Google Books search. Equinox 12:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

There's the dictionary only mention in "Altenglisches flurnamenbuch" (Page 79), and a couple of examples of use as a rhyming nonsense word for the sound of a bell, but the OED hasn't recognised the word, and I can't find enough evidence to justify an entry for any meaning. Dbfirs 08:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Seems to come from the book "Lost Beauties of the English Language". May be just a variant/misremembering/printing error of whinge. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Sense 1 cited. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)



Esperanto for cherry (the color). I can't find a single use of either variant of this word, and the plural forms in particular seem unlikely to be attested. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 17:04, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Plus it violates Zamenhofian phonotactics. It wouldn't qualify anyway, as it's a transparent compound. kwami (talk) 05:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Zamenhofian phonotactics is utterrly irrelevant to RFV, as is this being a "transparent compound" or not. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
In English, transparent combinations such as "green grass" are not acceptable as entries, so why should they be acceptable for Esperanto? Or, would we accept cherry-colored as an English entry? kwami (talk) 07:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
For one thing, whether something is a tranparent compound is a RFD matter, not RFV; RFV only finds out whether the word or phrase is actually used in a way that meets WT:ATTEST. Second, if we were in RFD, I would point out that we have kept several transparent German compounds (Talk:Zirkusschule), and that things written together without a space are considered by multiple editors including me to be not sum of separate components. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
In fact, the whole reasoning behind WT:COALMINE is that anything written together as one word is keepable. This gets kind of hazy for writing systems that don't use spaces, but for those that do, it's fairly clear cut (clear-cut? clearcut?). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Both failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 19:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a few mentions of a Scots word for house or hall, a surname. and lots of scannos for half, hoff, holy, and even how, but nothing in Google Books. In Google Groups, there's evidently some kind of acronym in sex-related posts, and quite a bit of random character sequences in posts used to render discussions unreadable- but nothing remotely relevant. It's of course possible that usage has been hidden by scannos and other errors, but there's absolutely no evidence I can find by using Google's search. I would guess that it might be in some obscure dictionary of historical slang not accessible on the internet- or it might be someone's attempt to get away with cheating at some word game... Chuck Entz (talk) 23:27, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
Keep! It's a real word. It was used in The Ever After Bird by Ann Rinaldi. I remember it! Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 00:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Does the usage match "18th century slang for a thief who steals watches."? Given that the novel is set in the 19th century, I'm skeptical it would apply without rewriting the definition. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
It's a Middle English variant of Old English "hof" (hall or dwelling), from Old Norse "hof" (temple), hence the Scots house, though "hove" is the usual spelling (now obsolete). Google can't find the word in The Ever After Bird by Ann Rinaldi. Is this a problem with my Google search, or with Ready Steady Yeti's memory? Dbfirs 11:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


Esperanto for a group of archeopteryxes. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 16:28, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Transparent compound, in as much need for an entry as "group of archeopteryxes" needs an entry in English. kwami (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
This is really not the correct forum for this issue; this is probably a better discussion for Wiktionary:Beer parlour. I will say this is one of the affixes that caught me out for irregularity; why homaro (humanity and not a flock of humans) and ŝafaro (a flock of sheep and not sheepdom)?--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Why isn't this the correct forum? User is questioning whether this meets our criteria for inclusion, specifically attestation. Sounds pretty correct to me. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I've done a quick search. I say quick, when there are no results for something it's very quick. Speedy as patent nonsense. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Kwami was questioning whether or not transparent compounds in Esperanto need entries; that's not a question for RFV. And I disagree in principle with deleting this; it is not patent nonsense, it's an entirely plausible Esperanto word, and we still accept cites from physical works, meaning that there's no way to prove that a word is currently uncitable for any but the most poorly attested languages.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:03, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Failed. Transparent or not, it still needs to be in use. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:57, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


Tagged by @Ready Steady Yeti:, but not listed. Definition:

  1. (archaic) Sick

This IP has posted a plethora of mostly-unattestable archaic and obsolete terms (see hoif above, for another example). Etymologically, it would make sense for a term to exist with this spelling, but this returns absolutely zero hits on Google Books and Google Groups under this spelling and under the spelling with the æ ligature. Even on plain Google Search, this returns no hits, with only three if you use the ligature (one of which is an archived copy of the first one)- and those are mentions in non-English-language dictionaries. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:10, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know whether the anon IP (from Croydon or Woking?) is in fact Ready Steady Yeti (-- probably not, it's a long way from California). It would also be interesting to know where they are getting all the non-words from. We do have the related word aegrotant, but not the rare but attestable aegritude. Dbfirs 06:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Nonsense. I teleport from one side of the country to the other every day... Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
From Asturias to the Balearics? — Ungoliant (falai) 00:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I say watch out for this IP. It seems like he/she's making up fake words. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
No, I think our notorious Asturianín would make fewer stupid mistakes, at least of the kind Yeti makes. Keφr 08:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


Raised at RFD, but the real question is whether this can be attested to meet WT:BRAND. bd2412 T 16:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Either keep all WikiMedia foundation words or delete all of them except Wikipedia and related terms and Wiktionary and related terms because there are still translations that have not yet been blanked. See the difference between Wikimedia and Wikimédia. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
That's not what CFI says. Certainly Wikipedia has reached a place in culture few other words associated with Wikimedia have, and thus is more likely to meat WT:BRAND.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


Tagged by Yeti but not listed (or I beat him to it!). Entry was created by the IP who's added some dubious obsolete words, but this one seems common and I have now cited it. Equinox 21:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Passed. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


Tagged by Yeti; not listed; I've just cited it. Equinox 21:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Passed. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


Tagged by Yeti. Equinox 21:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Found nothing solid after going through 16 pages of Google Books hits. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Failed. It occurs in The English Physician, by Nicholas Culpeper, but that doesn’t seem to be a well-known work. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


Tagged by Yeti. Equinox 21:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Nothing found in English, but it apparently means something in Danish [38][39][40] so conceivably it could have been an Old English word. SpinningSpark 09:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Can someone please speedy delete falms, falming and falmed for no usable content? Renard Migrant (talk) 09:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
If falm fails RFV, its inflected forms will be deleted too. Until then, the precedent is that the inflected forms are kept while the RFV runs its course. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:20, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:45, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


Tagged by Yeti. Seems to be a nonce word used in one single work. Equinox 21:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 03:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Donkey Kong[edit]

Racist slur. Apparently taken from Urban Dictionary: [41]. Can it meet WT:CFI? Equinox 22:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

[42] [43] I also found it here. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Those Web sites do not meet WT:CFI. Please do read it because it's important and dictates what we allow here in entries. In particular, the ChaCha site is obviously just parroting what someone found on UrbanDictionary. Equinox 07:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Cited as slang for "penis." I also managed to dig up one cite seemingly using it to mean "uncivilized person" or "brute." -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 05:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
The penis slang is clearly used widespread. We should just keep that one. But I say we should delete the black dude sense. I think that sense is clearly not used enough. I am saying that the page Donkey Kong should be kept but not that sense. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 05:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I found more cites confirming the use of this word as an insult, but it seems to be used against anyone who is boorish, not blacks specifically. — Ungoliant (falai) 03:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I think we can close this case as verified, as there are so many citations for both senses. Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 13:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

murder by suicide[edit]

An IP recently changed the definition. I restored the old definition alongside the new one. Which of the definitions are supported by citations? There are three citations in the entry; one clearly uses the first sense, the other two are less clear. - -sche (discuss) 19:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The quotation about Kaliayev definitely does not support the second sense. It is a very strange case of the first sense in my opinion. The link to the Myslobodsky cite has gone dead so I can't get the full context but it is very unlikely it supports sense#2. I got a further snippet of the cite from google "Among fathers of terrorism are the Russian-born political philosopher and anarchist, Michael A...." which indicates that it is supporting sense#1. SpinningSpark 08:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Here are some more cites supporting sense#1 [44][45][46]. SpinningSpark 09:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Alright, I've removed the second sense and kept the first sense. (See also the previous discussion on the talk page.) - -sche (discuss) 21:30, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


And hipädrit, jipädrit, pädritil, pädritül, hipädritül, jipädritül. Volapük words for partridge. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 17:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

All failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 03:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]


A proposed extension of the Esperanto participle system. I've managed to find quotations with the corresponding active suffix, -unt-, but I can't find any quotations that use this suffix. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 01:03, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

What about the words listed as containing suffix (vizituto, mortiguto, faruta, venkuta)? Do they exist? — Ungoliant (falai) 04:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Not as far as I can tell. If anyone can find three citations containing any of those words (or any others using the suffix), I'll be satisfied that the suffix exists. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 13:01, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

prophetic lifestyle[edit]

Sense: "The eating habits formed from the actions of Daniel from the bible". Doubtful. Originally submitted as "Prophetic lifestyle". Keφr 05:53, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

That definition doesn't even make sense at all. I say delete. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 06:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
Yes, delete. The true meaning of the two-word term is slightly variable depending on context, but largely sum of parts. Dbfirs 06:55, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
This is RFV, where quotations attesting words and senses are sought, to be placed directly to the entry or to Citations:prophetic lifestyle. This is a process where voting is rarely meaningful. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
We could also add this to RFD. And my point is, by me reading the definition and not knowing what the fuck the phrase means (the definition looks a bit childish), then I don't see why we should keep it, unless we can make the definition make more sense, if you know what I mean. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 10:43, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The definition is referring to a passage in the Bible where God gives Daniel the power to interpret visions and dreams for sticking to a kosher diet of lentils and water:

But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the portion of the king's meat, nor with the wine which he drank: therefore he requested of the prince of the eunuchs that he might not defile himself. Now God had brought Daniel into favour and tender love with the prince of the eunuchs. And the prince of the eunuchs said unto Daniel, I fear my lord the king, who hath appointed your meat and your drink: for why should he see your faces worse liking than the children which are of your sort? then shall ye make me endanger my head to the king. Then said Daniel to Melzar, whom the prince of the eunuchs had set over Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah, prove thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them give us pulse to eat, and water to drink. Then let our countenances be looked upon before thee, and the countenance of the children that eat of the portion of the king's meat: and as thou seest, deal with thy servants. So he consented to them in this matter, and proved them ten days. And at the end of ten days their countenances appeared fairer and fatter in flesh than all the children which did eat the portion of the king's meat. Thus Melzar took away the portion of their meat, and the wine that they should drink; and gave them pulse. As for these four children, God gave them knowledge and skill in all learning and wisdom: and Daniel had understanding in all visions and dreams. —Daniel 1:8-17

I can see quite a few usages of the phrase in gbooks but not very much agreement on what it actually means. It means whatever the writer happens to perceive such a lifestyle to be, ie SOP. However, none of them would appear to mean a diet of lentils. SpinningSpark 08:27, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

"The eating habits formed from the actions of Daniel from the bible" does make sense. I'm not saying it's not bollocks, just that it makes sense. Renard Migrant (talk) 09:48, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 04:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


Any attestation of this would-be Danish word, as per WT:ATTEST, emphasizing use in permanently recorded media? google books:"musikvideoinstruktør", google groups:"musikvideoinstruktør", musikvideoinstruktør at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:23, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I got somewhat different results at Google Books. —Stephen (Talk) 16:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
See. At Google Books it has 3 sources. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 14:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I added a third citation. All of them still need translations though, can someone someone who speaks North Germanic languages add them or at least confirm they’re using the defined sense? — Ungoliant (falai) 19:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)



Esperanto for pubic hair. Aside from the quote that I've added to pubhararo, there's nothing on Usenet, Tekstaro, or Google Books. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 16:26, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Both failed. Citation of the latter moved to Citations:pubhararo. — Ungoliant (falai) 04:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


Esperanto for pubic hair. Nothing on Google Books, Google Groups, or Tekstaro. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 17:52, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 04:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


Sense: "A photo shared on a social media network with the sole intention of making your friends/followers jealous" At first I wanted to speedy it, but then I reconsidered and decided to give it a chance. Anything durably archived? The citation given initially is incomplete. Keφr 18:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The citation originally provided in the entry doesn't look like it's CFI-compliant. I found a few newspaper cites, but none older than November of last year. Marked as a hot word for now. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Generation 9k[edit]

Recently added term. I can't find anything in Google Books, and there are barely any uses in a Google web search. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:12, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The phrase doesn't seem to appear in either reference... Smurrayinchester (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 04:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


Dubious. Editor not trustworthy. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Unless one of the native-ZH editors here can confirm that the above short spelling is an abbreviation (which seems quite unlikely), delete, and then make sure the [[lapsang souchong]] entry that this same editor also worked on is also correct and in the proper format. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:59, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

assal horizontology[edit]

Appears in one Simpsons episode, often quoted. Used outside of this universe at all? Equinox 14:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Nothing on b.g.c, Usenet hits seem to be mostly quotations from the episode. But of course, we could always keep it under the "well-known work" criterion. Keφr 15:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I did find a few instances of people using it without referring to the quote. I wasn't sure if these counted: one, two, three
In general, Web pages don't count for citing because they are not durably archived (and may disappear at any time): see WT:CFI. This term could possibly be attested from Usenet newsgroups, which we do allow (because of the way they are archived), but it might still be tough. Equinox 19:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Cited, but the citations are far from perfect. Take a look and tell me what you think. — Ungoliant (falai) 04:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


Volapük for lethargy. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 04:36, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 06:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: (slang, Brazil, of a person) sad on a Sunday because Monday will be boring

Ungoliant (falai) 19:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 06:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

hybrid warfare[edit]

RFV of both senses. The word sees little use. When it is used, I read it as referring to a kind of warfare which one deals with via certain strategies (the second sense, which has one citation already), not to a strategy (the first sense). Some citations capitalize one or both words. - -sche (discuss) 21:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how any citation could meaningfully distinguish between the two, to be honest. One is just the application of the other. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
DoD states: "a blending of conventional and irregular approaches across the full spectrum of conflict." The definition I like is as follows: "a military strategy that blends conventional warfare and irregular warfare across the full spectrum of conflict." WritersCramp (talk) 21:28, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
I have merged the definitions. Examining other "war" and "warfare" terms, including total war, cyberwarfare, civil war, guerrilla warfare and warfare itself, I find that they are defined as "war[fare] that [X]", not as "strategies for warfare that [X]", so I have omitted the latter language here. - -sche (discuss) 16:01, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Cited. — Ungoliant (falai) 06:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

centre diététique[edit]

Health food store. I can find one mention in a phrasebook but the actual usage indicates it's a dietetic centre (i.e. a place people go to to have their diet and lifestyle reviewed). I think it's just a pure error copied from one phrasebook to another (I've found another that lists it now). Renard Migrant (talk) 11:18, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Fails. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


Couldn't find in dictionaries or such usage. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 05:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Delete. Wyang (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Cool. Speedied. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 05:16, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
Uh, last I checked that's not how RFV is supposed to work. Why not give the word its fair 30 days, in case it exists and is just difficult to find? —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 05:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I did check before RFV-ing, including Google books. It won't be archived for some time, so there will be a chance to dispute. Besides, we don't have many native speakers active. The entry was created by an anonymous user. I took the liberty to speedy. Do you have any objections to the deletion of this specific term or just objecting to the quick processing? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 05:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm just objecting to the quick processing. I don't think 11 minutes is enough time to give people a chance to look for citations. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 05:51, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
The word seems simply wrong or mistranslation of two separate words thought to be one (to replace linen?), like 係小 not long ago. You might also want to check with User:Wyang, why he voted Delete. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 06:00, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I object to this quick closure of RFV. I ask restoration of the enty, and that this RFV runs its usual course. I ask that the "delete" votes in this RFV are withdrawn as inappropriate for RFV. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
  • I've undeleted the page and unstruck the header of this thread. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Does it mean that from now on any silliness by IP-users is under protection of Polansky and Co? --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 21:15, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
No need to make it personal. The term in question is not obviously unattested (google:"更衬", google books:"更衬"), so it deserves our normal RFV process. Compare to #Rectatorium submitted below on this page; that is an item to be speedied as unattested, as per google:"Rectatorium". 更衬 was in Wiktionary since 18 October 2009‎, so it can wait for the conclusion of our regular RFV process; there really is no urgency. Also, by posting to RFV, you imply that you ask for attestation rather than for votes, so you really should not be closing a RFV 11 minutes after you've created it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't know your true motives for wanting to restore it. All Google hits show two characters together as belonging to two words, that must be the reason for the original mix-up by the IP who may have used an online translator. We had hundreds of non-words, which were deleted on sight, even if they were unnoticed for a long time. I received confirmation from a native Mandarin speaker at the moment of hesitation that it's not a word, that's all there is to it. Speedy deletions should be allowed for stupidities, besides I was the nominator. I can withdraw the RFV, since I have created RFD for it. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 21:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Wyang has given a substantial reasoning, why 更衬 is a non-word at Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion#更衬. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 06:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I have deleted the entry; however, I will leave this discussion open for the full thirty days (until July 10). If sufficient CFI-worthy citations showing this to mean lining can be found in that time, the entry can be restored. bd2412 T 18:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


This was marked for speedy deletion by @Renard Migrant:, but I've tidied it up, and I think it should be RFV'd instead. Very clearly in wide use in a simple Google search for "DC'd from", but no durable citations. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:06, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd expect Google Groups to be the best of our normal sources for this, but I come up empty there. A possible source not previously accepted is the CORPUS OF GLOBAL WEB-BASED ENGLISH (GloWbE), which is available for download ($795) and contains information about the ultimate source. This database has 14 hits for DC'd. DCDuring TALK 13:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I doubt that GloWbE could be hosted on a WMF site due to license incompatability. DCDuring TALK 13:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Technically, this should just be a {{en-past of|DC}}. --WikiTiki89 15:34, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I marked it as speedy because of its content. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
I was unable to find citations for this but I found one for dc'd and three for DCd, so I think it can be moved there. — Ungoliant (falai) 06:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)



Esperanto for "in the Southern Hemisphere". Nothing on Google Books, Tekstaro, or Google Groups. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 20:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Both failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 06:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


Esperanto alternative form of stirrado, meaning steering wheel. Nothing on Google Books, Tekstaro, or Google Groups. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 20:54, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 06:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


This is real, but I would like citations meeting WT:BRAND. Which I doubt exist. (Or maybe just speedy it?) Keφr 13:34, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Nice to see my former favorite game try to get on Wiktionary, but I can't imagine any uses not referring to the actual game. --WikiTiki89 14:11, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
RuneScape was staggeringly popular in its heyday, I think it’s worth a non-speedy RFV. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:46, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Kephir that WT:BRAND applies here, as well at WT:CFI#Attestation of course. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Failed. Oh dear, you are dead! — Ungoliant (falai) 06:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: A city of cakes. It is theoretically possible to combine the Esperanto words kuko (cake) and urbo (city) to form a compound word kukurbo meaning "city of cakes". But this is a strange concept to need a word for, and I doubt the word has ever been used this way except maybe in artificial example sentences. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 03:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

It might be used in puns, I suppose. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 06:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


One hit on Books (not publicly readable and seems to be in Latin), one on the Web (nonsense page), nothing on Usenet, nothing even on UD (which I checked just in case it was some obscure slang). Keφr 15:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Failed. — Ungoliant (falai) 06:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


Added by an IP that I blocked for responding to speedy deletion of a few unattestable entries with a couple dozen more, including "igazib" and "gagladon". There were a couple I left alone because they're attestable, and then there's this one: I found two cites, but not three. It seems plausible enough, but I'd like confirmation, given the source.Chuck Entz (talk) 03:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I think this should be moved to the two-word phrase:
SpinningSpark 15:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
I think this shows an interesting use of "nickel", but does not necessarily support "nickel brain" as a set phrase. --WikiTiki89 15:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


Please verify topo. I can't find the English sense of "a game" on Google or Google books. It does seem to be short for "topographical" though. Siuenti (talk) 09:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I have added the definition "A topographic map.". DCDuring TALK 20:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
I have found the game Topo, apparently invented by mathematical author Theoni Pappas, no article on WP, but the search engine there finds three references to him.
I placed one use from Usenet (via Google Groups). I have found a use by Pappas in The Joy of Mathematics. DCDuring TALK 20:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
There is a product called Topo! which makes Topo quite hard to find with simple search strategies. DCDuring TALK 20:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
Other than the ones in the entry, I found these two: [47], [48]. All of them, except Pappas’ book, are mentions. — Ungoliant (falai) 20:15, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


Verb without any inflected forms: "To wash something out."

There are many occurrences of "to washout". Most are nouns, including all before 1980. After 1980, I suspect that unsupervised spelling correction and not-too-sophisticated spelling correction has led to some substitution of washout for wash out. I personally wouldn't be convinced by anything other than instances of the inflected forms, but perhaps someone can produce other arguments and/or evidence. DCDuring TALK 23:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Like the ubiquitous "click here to login"; see also our dubious verb entry for strikethrough. I would prefer to see this gone, because I think most users would agree it was wrong if made to think about it, but I don't suppose that's a tenable reason here. Equinox 20:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#Topramenesha.

Appears to be a nonsense word, unused outside of usernames and the like (and mirrors of wiktionary, of course). No actual meaning listed, not an actual given name that I can tell, probably written solely to be offensive. Writ Keeper (talk) 05:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it no doubt is made-up nonsense, but this is the proper venue for dealing with such things, so I moved it here. Oddly enough, I'm not completely sure this was written to be offensive. The person who created it has a long history of really bad edits, and is inept enough to have perhaps not recognized it as a joke. At any rate, I don't see anything in the kind of sources that meet our Criteria For Inclusion, so it will probably be gone soon enough. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
Toprameneesha is a bit more promising, but every citation I can find is mention-y (“ [] named her daughter Toprameneesha...”, “ [] , called herself Toprameneesha”, “ [] one of those bad baby names of immigrants / Usnavy / Toprameneesha”). — Ungoliant (falai) 21:10, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


Heroon, heröon (misspelling?) and heroön are attestable, so I ask that, if this entry fails, its content be moved to any of these spellings. — Ungoliant (falai) 03:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I will move the content (hopefully uncontroversially) to heroon as the main form of the English word. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


The entry appears to be a Russian protologism. In the Italian Wiktionary was cancelled after a community decision. As an additional information, the same page was created on the same day, 10th of June, in different wiktionaries. --Diuturno (talk) 12:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Speedy. No meaningful definition is given. --WikiTiki89 13:11, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
It’s a foreign word (Russian), so it’s not supposed to be a definition, it gives a translation. The bigger question is, does the English word psaking meet WT:CFI. —Stephen (Talk) 15:37, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
Well in that case, no meaningful translation is given. --WikiTiki89 17:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
It might... sort of. I found the word psak in a Jewish discussion forum on Usenet as a term for a Halachic ruling, and people were making a verb out of it to refer to the making of such a ruling. On the other hand, there's psak, created by a Russian IP a couple of days ago with a completely different definition, which doesn't seem to be attestable- though there are thousands of hits that I haven't checked. It's impossible to tell which meaning is intended. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
While it's probably a hoax... if it's only probably we should allow it the full 30 days. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
psaking (the p is silent) is taken from Jennifer Psaki, the former spokesperson for the U.S. Department of State. psaking is supposed to mean something like defending the indefensible, and in an uninformed, confused, comical way. The Russian media quickly zeroed in on her for her inane prattle. Russia Today claimed the Russians liked to make fun of her because of the comic relief she provided. —Stephen (Talk) 10:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Russian пса́кинг (psáking) is a neologism. It's common on the web, plenty of definitions too, is included in some online dictionaries but no books with the term yet. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 11:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
It may be a neologism so, obviously, there won't be any old use of it. Since it seems currently quite common, I added {{hot word}}, which should be reviewed after one year has passed. (I should state again that I am neutral on the use of the word and not supporting those who created the term.) --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 04:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
It still needs a better definition, because no one can be expected to know what "psaking" is and we have no English entry for it. --WikiTiki89 05:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I oppose hot word on this. At least, quotations that meet WT:ATTEST other than spanning one year have to be added; if the proponents of hot word criteria even want to relax durably archived media requirement, then they have to provide at least some quotations that convey meaning, and argue why the sources of these quotations are good enough for hot word. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Why are you opposing? It is used in blogs and news articles, even if it's new and quite silly, IMHO. Some links - псакинг in Google News. I'm not going to bust my balls over this word but I may add some links to blogs or news articles. "Pravda" and "Radio Liberty" articles are definitely going to be archived. It's low on my priority list but I might add a better definition, usexes and links later. (Remind me if I forget). --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 03:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Hot words are meant to be words that have such a large and widespread usage that they are unlikely to die out in the next year. This does not seem like the type of thing people will still remember next year. (Plus I still don't know what it means because no one has bothered to enter a proper definition.) --WikiTiki89 17:18, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Re: "Hot words are meant to be words that have such a large and widespread". No-one can make such guesses, until the time has passed. It is clear that the term has already gained certain popularity, due to Kremlin massive propaganda and the war of words between Russian and the West and odious Dmitry Kisselyov being the leader of the Russian media. I could add the definition and other things but I completely lost interest after watching Что такое "Псакинг"? (Psaking). If anyone deletes it, I won't object. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 09:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

hooded monk[edit]

This was in Wikisaurus for "clitoris". I ask attestation per WT:ATTEST via this formal RFV process. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Searching for "her hooded monk", I couldn't find any citations on Usenet, and the only three citations on Google Books were all literal ("he hooded monk friend", "her hooded monk robe", etc). - -sche (discuss) 01:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

pink jelly bean[edit]

This was in Wikisaurus for "clitoris". I ask attestation per WT:ATTEST via this formal RFV process. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't find any uses on Usenet or Google Books that weren't references to actual jelly beans. - -sche (discuss) 01:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

magic bean[edit]

This was in Wikisaurus for "clitoris". I ask attestation per WT:ATTEST via this formal RFV process. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Searching for "her magic bean", I couldn't find any citations on Usenet or Google Books that weren't references to literal magical beans. - -sche (discuss) 01:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


"To speak without understanding the meaning." Cf WT:RFV#псакинг, above. - -sche (discuss) 17:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

For info, psaking is a current Internet buzzword/protologism mocking Jen Psaki. Equinox 17:34, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
"psaking" seems to be more of an attempt of pro-Russian media to create the impression of this being a buzzword, by making false claims about the existence of the would-be word, willful or otherwise; you can check the actual prevalence and the sort of occurrences in google:"psaking", especially if you press "next" reveral times. Among all the world wild web hits, most seem to be talking about the would-be word (mention) rather than actually using it, so "psaking" would probably be unattested even if we allowed any online quotations conveying meaning. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I would not discount it as pure propaganda so quickly. The bulk of uses might be on platforms which are not indexed by Google. But either way, it does not seem to be attestable by our standards. Keφr 20:05, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
What sort of platforms do you mean? Where do you expect to find written uses of would-be English "psak" online? --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Say, Facebook is indexed by Google rather sparsely, and 4chan only indirectly (by indexing dedicated archive sites). And yet there is a thriving slang there that with current criteria we will never successfully document. Runet has its own social networks for which I would not be surprised to find they disable indexing by external search engines. I find it somewhat plausible that a neologism like that would spread primarily through such inaccessible or ephemeral media. It might as well be real, but we have neither the resources to find evidence, nor the policy to accept it. So do not treat Google Search like an oracle it never claimed to be.
On the other hand, I will agree that this is at best a fad and nobody will remember the word in a year. Keφr 07:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
If we're having trouble finding cites, I don't think it qualifies for any exception to the year of existence in CFI. It's certainly no olinguito.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree. However I find this "I know it when I see it" test rather unsatisfactory. Any progress with more formal hot word criteria? Keφr 07:56, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: Psak is widely, widely used in the Orthodox Jewish world, often as part of the phrases "psak din" and "psak halakha", and commonly left untranslated from the Hebrew. Choor monster (talk) 13:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, but that is irrelevant to the sense being discussed. We could of course add this sense as well. --WikiTiki89 15:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
What is with the sudden psak and psak translation attack on Wiktionary? Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 03:51, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Obama phone[edit]

Obama Phone[edit]

Had been tagged for cleanup with the reason "POV, may or may not be true". The right way to answer that question is with an RfV Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 02:19, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Clearly this word is used widespread. The term was coined from an actual program called "The Obama Phone", but it became a term after that apparently. Such as "Instead of getting a real phone with real minutes, how about we get an Obama phone?" Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Cited. — Ungoliant (falai) 03:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Even the parts about minorities and unlimited free minutes? I don't think so. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
The term has enough citations. The definition being inaccurate is a different issue that will be solved (hopefully) by the RFC. — Ungoliant (falai) 03:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
RFV has nothing to do with POV and factual issues- this term is no doubt in sufficient use, and I see no reason to delete it, but the wording of the definition has problems. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
The term is used to refer to subsidized access to cellular phone service which is part of a US "Lifeline service program" funded by a tax on phone service. The benefit is aimed at the qualified poor of all races. Since 2008 one form of the benefit consists of a free flip-phone and 70 free minutes a month. It is subject to some abuse. Our definition reflects a popular exaggeration of the benefit, the misleading attribution to Obama, and the outright false and racist claim that it is limited to minorities. I think we need two definitions, the accurate one and the one that reflects the urban legend. I expect both could be cited though the current citations do not. DCDuring TALK 04:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
User:Chuck Entz, POV reads: "Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion do not attempt to enforce "correctness", but rather exist to define which words are in widespread enough usage to include them in a dictionary." The unfortunate problem here is that portraying a person, place or thing (in this case Obama) inaccurately is not in itself a criteria for deletion. You can't delete content here because of POV or UNDUE like you can on Wikipedia (ironic that now it's YOU who's applying Wikipedia policy to a Wiktionary definition). If "Obama phone" in any sense is used enough times by enough people, its definition may be kept. Purplebackpack89 (Notes Taken) (Locker) 04:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
This isn't about inclusion, so CFI is irrelevant. You keep trying to steer this in that direction, but you're completely wrong. People use it, we should have an entry for it- that's not the issue. We don't delete things because of POV- we rework them. That's what RFC is for. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Then why don't we just move this entire discussion to the one at WT:RFC, instead of complaining about it being in the wrong place here? Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 05:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I apologize, I do not mean to be POVing. I heard this term from real people in real life joking about government related things. This word is clearly used a lot. I gave a definition based on the things I read online. Yes, I think the urban legend and the actual project should be listed in two definitions. Ready Steady Yeti (talk) 05:10, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Passed. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

plum blossom[edit]

Rfv-sense: "The blossom of the Prunus mume."

I suspect that this was created because it was a translation of a species-limited CJKV term, not based on actual usage in English. As it stands it is misleading. DCDuring TALK 22:59, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

  • The Wikipedia article on prunus mume has said for a long time that: "The flower is usually called plum blossom", and provides a citation for that proposition. bd2412 T 13:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    @BD2412: That citation is a translation of an old Chinese work, which would probably support my suspicion as to the source of the term. I really don't think that hyponymic translations should be used to justify overly specific definitions, unless we are to completely write off our role as a monolingual dictionary. DCDuring TALK 13:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
    Moreover, the book does not actually use plum blossom as a translation for the flower of Prunus mume, but rather mei-flower, as the translator explains in the introduction (page lv therof). DCDuring TALK 13:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, if that's the route we're going:
  • 1969, Ernest Henry Wilson, ‎Daniel J. Foley, The Flowering World of "Chinese" Wilson, p. 63:
    Japan holds flower festivals during many months of the year, beginning with that of the plum blossom (Prunus mume) in February and ending with that of the chrysanthemum in November, but the most popular is that of the cherry blossom which falls in early April.
  • 1974, Yoshiaki Mihara, Agricultural Meteorology of Japan, p. 25:
    The plum blossom is the earliest of all the flowers in Japan. The flowering date of the plum (Prunus Mume) has also been extensively studied.
  • 1983, Edwin T. Morris, The Gardens of China: History, Art, and Meanings, p. 173:
    Hsiang Sheng-mo (1 597-1 658), "Prunus mume" (mei hua) in "Landscapes, Flowers, and Birds." The plum blossom that bloomed against the naked wood was the sign of spring and renewal.
I can't say whether this is idiomatic, since the fruit of the plant is an apricot, which is technically just a pale plum. bd2412 T 13:48, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps context is an issue. Among native speakers, plum blossom would seem to be understood as "flower of the Prunus mume" only in the context of discussions about oriental flora, the Orient itself, and in reference to products or art associated with the Orient. I suppose it could all be done in a usage note. I can only hope that the translations respect the narrowness of the usage. DCDuring TALK 15:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I agree with your assessment. In any case, this only differs from sense one in that it identifies a specific species of plum blossom. bd2412 T 18:32, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: in the OED. Ƿidsiþ 18:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
That the fruit of Prunus mume is called a Japanese apricot and the tree goes by that name as well is sufficient, I suppose. I have added some material to the entry to clarify some of what is idiomatic about it. DCDuring TALK 19:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Actually, Prunus mume is really neither an apricot nor a plum, but something without a clear one-to-one English translation, except the lesser-known loanwords ume and mei. Botanically, it's definitely much closer to the apricot, but judging from the Wikipedia article, most of the culinary products use plum in the English name. From this I would guess that "plum" is the older, more established usage, but "apricot" is the current prescriptivist favorite. I don't think that the "it's an apricot, not a plum" argument is sufficient in itself to prove that it's idiomatic, but I'd be curious how references to the blossoms of Prunus salicina are translated, since that's the Japanese fruit most solidly identified in English usage as a plum- in the US (at least in California, where I live), it's actually far better known than the original European plum, Prunus domestica. The blossoms have deeply iconic cultural significance with both the Chinese and Japanese, and so are more likely to be found in English translations, while those of Prunus salicina are no doubt of secondary importance to the fruit. By the way, I'll have to see if I can spend some time sorting through our East Asian fruit tree terms, since many of them seem to be either confused or vague. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Prunus mume more or less specifies the bearer of the blossom. Simple vernacular terms often refer to more than one species, sometimes to different genera, families, orders, even classes and phyla. Chinese plum is an example, by no means exceptional. The set of English vernacular names that have a one-to-one correspondence to species names not only doesn't cover many species, but also is often not used except in limited contexts, though many of the contexts are in print. The English vernacular names for species not native to English-speaking lands are a challenge as there may be one or more "official" names; names based on similarity of appearance to a species that is native to English-speaking lands, qualified by one or more adjectives associating it with a region (eg, Japanese, Chinese); and transliterations of non-English names.
Plum blossom is one of a narrower set of terms that have a connection to vernacular names, but also a cultural meaning in a culture that has a strong cultural influence on the English language. DCDuring TALK 11:35, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


Some other kind of selfie. Protologism? Equinox 18:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The earliest citation I could find was from September of last year. The alternate spelling usie is also in use. Should we tag this as a "hot word?" It's evidently in use, and will likely still be in use in three months time, so why not keep the nicely-formatted entry for now and reassess it later? -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't quite cover a year but the citations are good, and numerous. Thank you. I'm okay with "hot word". Equinox 22:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


As far as I can tell, this is only ever mentioned in the context of the A Song of Ice and Fire books (which means it fails WT:FICTION), and even in those books and other books which discuss them, it's a title like "Queen" rather than a name. - -sche (discuss) 23:40, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

It is a rapidly growing name in the united states. See this article --Mnidjm (talk) 01:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider 146 in the US in one year to be "rapidly growing". That number is minuscule. --WikiTiki89 02:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
[49] Ancestry.com finds 39 hits, about ten baby girls named Khaleesi. Birth records of Nevada are probably durably archived, but I cannot reach them or format proper citations. Betsy, less fashionable according to the Mnidjim's article, gets 2 437 163 hits. To quote WikiTiki, this kind of result means Khaleesi is very, very rare.--Makaokalani (talk) 09:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Rapidly growing, as in 5 babies with the name in 2010, 28 in 2011, then 146 in 2012. --Mnidjm (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

bible belt[edit]

I ask for attestation of this capitalization: bible belt. Note that Bible Belt exists, and is currently not questioned. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Even if this capitalisation is accepted, aren't the two definitions basically the same. Does the Bible Belt ever mean anywhere other than the south-east part of the country.--Dmol (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I think the first definition of "bible belt" is meant to be general, potentially referring to any bible belt in any country. The question is whether this usage is attestable. --WikiTiki89 00:26, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not experienced at this, so ignore me if I don't know what I'm on about, but how about [50] and [51]? This, that and the other (talk) 12:20, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The first citation seems to be rather attributive use of the narrow meaning. But it may be either way. The second I cannot read. Keφr 12:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with the fact that it is attributive. It seems to be the broader meaning, since it is referring to regions of Australia as far as I can tell (even though America is mentioned earlier in the paragraph). The second I also cannot read. --WikiTiki89 13:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
What about w:Bible Belt (Netherlands)? —CodeCat 13:12, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
That would be another narrow sense. It doesn't necessarily prove the existence of the broad sense. --WikiTiki89 13:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Also Finland, Sweden and Norway have a "bible belt". I don't know how often they are written about in English, though. --Hekaheka (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
I am sceptical that this capitalization ("bible belt") is worth keeping; I am even more sceptical that it is worth keeping as a lemma. Inspired by Heka's comment, I have added some citations of "Bible belt" and "Bible Belt" in reference to Finnish and Norwegian areas to Citations:Bible belt. I am not sure if it makes sense to have a dozen narrow senses or one broad sense + a subsense for the US region, which is the region meant by most of the citations (even most of the citations that turn up for searches like google books:"Bible belt" Finland or google books:"Bible belt" Norway). - -sche (discuss) 01:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

fonner, fonnest[edit]

Is it a real form of the adjective fon as Equinox asked? I took a quick look in Google Books at fonnest and all I'd found was a surname (which is why I added Fonnest to the see also template at the top). Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 20:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

google books:"the fonnest" turns up only scannos of formest and soonest. google books:"the fonner" turns up capitalized proper nouns, and scannos of former. I'm a bit surprised that it isn't used as a jocular spelling variant of "fun / funner / funnest". - -sche (discuss) 00:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
Since Yeti created these himself (from the green links at fon) and now has doubts, perhaps we should speedy them and remove the -er/-est forms from fon. Equinox 11:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense (Portuguese): to hospitalize

Ungoliant (falai) 15:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think this is wrong? Could you explain your case a bit more? Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 16:01, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
RFV is not for thinking it is wrong, it is for thinking it doesn't exist. No case needs to be made, but simply citations need to be found and added. --WikiTiki89 16:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
The default case for RFVs is that the nominator thinks the word doesn’t pass the requirement of having three independent, permanently recorded uses (though the requirements are more lax for smaller languages). I spent some time looking for them, even the inflected and elided forms, but the only thing I could find in permanently recorded media were the adjective and scannos. Furthermore, it’s not even mentioned in the trustworthy dictionaries I have available. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, I too looked on Google Books for several of the inflected forms (hospitalarmos, hospitalardes, hospitalando, and hospitalarem, hospitalava) and found nothing, although hospitalarem does seem to be a Latin word. If this fails, it won't be (as it is for some words) because no-one tried to cite it, it'll be because it really doesn't seem to be in use. - -sche (discuss) 00:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


This has the sole sense: "A very thin person." The quotations that I find seem to be adjectival. Worth attesting. google books:"skinnymalinky", google groups:"skinnymalinky", skinnymalinky at OneLook Dictionary Search. We have skinnymalinks, which I do not question, since that seems easy to attest using google books:"skinnymalinks". --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

axe wound[edit]

The only sense is "vulva". This was deleted before but the process records are less than perfect. Present in multiple slang dictionaries. One search is for google books:"hairy axe wound"; the attesters could figure out a better one. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Cited. Equinox 02:08, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Passed. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


Saltmarsh asks for attestation of this Greek would-be word, entered to mean "bricklayer". --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't read Greek, but it only gets one Google Book hit, and the web hits, many of them aren't even in Greek! So yeah it does look bogus based on the web results. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I will delete — Saltmarshαπάντηση 05:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


""Railroad built upon an evened, ground level length of land." This is supposed to be an adjective, not a noun; also, all I could find relating to railroads was sense 1 (crossings on the same level). Luciferwildcat added this sense so I am not very hopeful. Equinox 19:05, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

  • It seems very plausible as an adjective and would most most used in the context of railroads, I think, though other rights of way may be contexts as well. "A unprotected at-grade crossing" might be an example. DCDuring TALK 19:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Not so plausible to me. It's SOP use of at + grade (sense 8: ground level). You can find usage of "at grade", "at or above grade", "at or below grade", with hyphenation when used as a modifier. Do we have entries for at-sea-level or below-sea-level? Chuck Entz (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
I might add that grade crossing and level crossing are basically the same thing as at-grade crossing. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
Because of all the references to academic grades, it's hard to be sure, but searches with preceding words such as "an", "no", "many", etc. and with pluralizing to reduce the number of false hits turns up nothing in Google Books for a noun. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:01, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
    • Never mind. I was only thinking of the other sense. I can't see a noun meaning for this. DCDuring TALK 21:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


Back in December 2013 someone questioned the existence of ap as an English adjective meaning "In or relating to the apothecaries' system of measures", but nothing more was done about it, so now I'm bringing it here. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:47, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

To start off, here are a few hits in reference works: here, here, and here, and one use: here. Maybe not complete by CFI standards, but at least enough to show it wasn't made completely up. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

July 2014[edit]


English. — Ungoliant (falai) 10:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Essentially the same edit was made to byk. I have no idea. Looks bogus but I've been wrong before. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Shia crescent[edit]

RFV all senses: I request citations to establish how the term is actually used and base definitions on that. Keφr 11:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


It looks like the term is in use (e.g., Dioscliosta David Guetta), but I can't find anything permanent enough to count. Not in GBooks, GGroups, or Foinse.ie. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 04:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

There's focloir.ie, but it's more of a mention than a use. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Yes... that's the 1959 English-Irish Dictionary, which is as near to the Official Modern Irish dictionary as is available. (Ó Donaill's Foclóir Gaeilge-Béarla is the other half, from almost twenty years later, and doesn't include this word, although diosc and liosta are both present.)
Which leads to an awkward situation: anyone looking up "discography" in the closest thing to an official dictionary of Irish will find dioscliosta. And just because it hasn't shown up in print yet, it's appearing in other places and a print appearance would seem to be a matter of time. If someone can find it in a citable medium, then no harm, no foul. If not... I dunno. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 05:06, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
No, it is not listed in the 1959 English-Irish Dictionary; the link above points to Foras na Gaeilge's new English-Irish dictionary. Irish is an LDL, so a single mention is sufficient for it to pass RFV, but since Foras na Gaeilge coins its own Irish words in response to a perceived gap in the language (rather than waiting for speakers to develop terms naturally and then reporting them), I'm not inclined to take its word for the realness of this term. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:20, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Huh. That's not exactly clear from that page. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 23:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
It is once you get used to how that site is organized. The pages that say "New English-Irish Dictionary" beneath the focloir.ie logo belong to the new dictionary. The Ó Donaill and de Bhaldraithe databases are at breis.focloir.ie, e.g. http://breis.focloir.ie/en/eid/discography. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Mexican beer dermatitis[edit]

The phenomenon itself is thoroughly plausible, since many plants in the family that limes belong to contain photosensitizing substances- but I only found one usenet post, which linked to an online article, which referred to a journal article published in 2010. It looks like a one-off descriptive phrase that never caught on. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Journal of the American Medical Association - Dermatology: [52] 2010
  • New York Daily News [53] 2010
  • National Public Radio [54] 2010
  • "The Doctors" TV show [55] 2011
  • Canadian Dermatology Association [56] 2014

-- 10:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

margarita dermatitis[edit]

By the same user. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't rfv this one because this quote seems to point to there being actual usage, though Google Books and Google Groups don't show it. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
But even that quote is just a mention. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
  • BBC [57] 2006
  • ScienceDaily [58] 2007
  • KCRW radio [www.kcrw.com/news-culture/shows/good-food/modernist-drinks-geology-and-terroir-margarita-dermatitis] 2013
  • USA Today [59] 2013
  • About.com [60] 2013
  • Canadian Dermatology Association [61] 2014
  • New England Journal of Medicine [62] Margarita Photodermatitis - 1993 (yes this is a somewhat different term; seeing if it should be added or left alone, if these are being deleted; there's also the alternate meaning for "lime disease" being phytophotodermatitis from the fruit 'lime' (shown in some of the links above))

-- 10:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Various ostensibly Hiberno-English words[edit]


RFV of the English section. google books:ablachs turns up nothing but Scots; google books:ablach turns up a lot of capitalized chaff. - -sche (discuss) 13:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

I have a hunch we're dealing with someone who considers Ulster Scots to be English, or is using a reference with that point of view. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
Ah yes, Ullans, the lect famously derided by opponents and even some supporters as "a DIY language". Hard to say what L2 it should be treated under (English, Scots, or an L2 all its own), since its speakers try so hard to make it different from both English and Lallans Scots. I'd stick with considering it Scots for now (though note how it was double-categorised). - -sche (discuss) 19:06, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
I would definitely treat it as a variety of Scots. Any words with a distinctly Ullans sense should be tagged with {{label|sco|Ulster}} to be categorized in [[Category:Ulster Scots]]. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


- -sche (discuss) 14:37, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


- -sche (discuss) 16:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


I'm seeing exactly one citation of this word (probably, but not definitely of one of the two listedmeanings) at Google Books: John Joseph Jennings' 1900 Widow Magoogin. I see nothing on Usenet. - -sche (discuss) 18:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

PS, "listedmeanings" is not a typo/misspelling, it's an homage to Joyce, who typo'ed/misspelt this word as pishogue. - -sche (discuss) 19:01, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


Nothing on Google Books for this spelling, "doodog" or "dudoge", or the plurals thereof. "Dudog(s)" might be citable. - -sche (discuss) 20:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


Nothing on Google Books. The "alternative form" garsoon does seem to be attested, but seems to be derived directly from French, not via Connacht Irish as gasoor claims. - -sche (discuss) 20:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


All I see on Google Books are capitalized names (from a variety of sources, including Slavic) and an unrelated common noun meaning "corner", from an unidentified language. - -sche (discuss) 20:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


Esperanto for uxoricide. Nothing on Google Books, Google Groups, or Tekstaro. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:46, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


Esperanto alternative spelling of olivoleo, which means olive oil. Nothing on Google Books, Tekstaro, or Google Groups. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 00:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


Allegedly Slovene for "apple tree". Since Slovene is not an less-documented language per Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Well documented languages, I ask for three quotations attesting the word in use to convey meaning, as per WT:ATTEST. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

You don't have to be so overly formal about it. We all know what RFV is for. —CodeCat 20:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Don't the refs suffice? They are from the site of SAZU (w:Slovenian Academy of Sciences and Arts). The second one is from a web edition of a 19th century dictionary by w:sl:Maks Pleteršnik, AFAICT. --biblbroksдискашн 21:03, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Not in this case. Slovene is not an LDL so we need three real citations of usage. But we probably won't find any because this is a dialectal term that would not likely be used in published texts. —CodeCat 21:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Re: "We all know what RFV is for.": As you can see, many people have a poor idea of RFV. Nothing wrong with being clear and explicit so that even newbies can know what is going on, which you call "overly formal". --Dan Polansky (talk)
Indeed, people sometimes post things here asking to verify the pronunciation, which isn't the job of this page. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:03, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

pecker mill[edit]

I request attestation in use to convey meaning as per WT:ATTEST. The current three quotations are not in use to convey meaning, IMHO, since the invocation of the term is preceded by "called", so the quotations talk about the term rather than using it. Relevant snippets: "Rice mills, called pecker, cog, and water mills...", "and in others by a rude machine, called a pecker mill.", "The first mechanical mills were harnessed to animals: the so-called pecker mill ". --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I think the citations in the entry are good enough. —CodeCat 12:44, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Are they used to convey meaning? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:46, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, yes they do convey meaning. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Additional cites added from the Google Books search on the citations page. Thanks for wasting our time. DCDuring TALK 15:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
Of the citations in the entry, I think the 1995 and 2003 ones are clear uses; the rest are all mentions or at least very mention-y. I don't doubt that there's a third use out there somewhere, though. - -sche (discuss) 18:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
If you look at the first one " [] called a pecker mill", I'd class this as a use not a mention. It's used in context to convey meaning but recognizes that the reader may not be familiar with the term, hence the wording. Renard Migrant (talk) 09:03, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
I rest my case. A sentence of the form "X is called Y" does not use Y; it merely mentions it. For the purpose of use-mention distinction, I do not see a difference between "X is called Y" and a dictionary entry "Y: X". Sentence "X is called Y" does not make use of the meaning of Y; instead, the sentence binds the meaning to Y to the reader; in order to understand the sentence, the reader does not need to know the meaning of Y.
As for the 2003 quotation ("The pecker mill is likely the fulcrum device developed by Guerrard in 1691."): the phrase "The pecker mill" does not suggest the meaning of the term is clear to the reader and to the writer either; instead, the writer seems to be in the process of figuring out what "pecker mill" means, stating one hypothesis about the meaning of the term in the quotation. That does not seem very use-y to me, but I admit that it is much better than the "X is called Y" quotations. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: feminine form of chocolat. Chocolat is listed as an invariable adjective. Perhaps it's attested though. Even if attested, it could be considered a rare error (unless it isn't rare). It's similar to orange and rose which are not supposed to have feminine forms or plural forms. Renard Migrant (talk) 09:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't find any uses of this spelling, but then, I couldn't find many uses of chocolat as an adjective, either. - -sche (discuss) 04:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)



RFV of the adjective sense. --kc_kennylau (talk) 11:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Delete sense. This should be RFD-ed instead. Calling the creator @Tooironic:. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
他很风度 might make sense colloquially, but it does sound very awkward. 他很有风度 just sounds heaps more natural. JamesjiaoTC 01:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Delete. Human error on my part. ---> Tooironic (talk) 21:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Done and dusted. JamesjiaoTC 22:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
(E/C) This is not an RFD but hopefully there won't be objections. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 22:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

iridium birthday[edit]

Ungoliant (falai) 01:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Highly dubious. Searching for " "iridium birthday" -SUNGLASSES -JOHNNY ROGERS " brings up exactly nothing in Google web, books, or images. Only addition by this anon editor. Suspect hoax.--Dmol (talk) 04:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Probably not a hoax, but most likely a protologism. I think the idea is: if there's a silver anniversary for 25 years and golden anniversary for fifty years, then you just have to come up with a substance that isn't in the lists for a number that isn't in the lists, and, secondarily, the same concept that applies to anniversaries must apply to birthdays as well. People add lame inventions like this all the time- look through WT:LOP and you'll find lots of them. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
A protologism is a hoax for our purposes. Unless I suppose the creator freely admits they've coined the word. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


RFV of the noun meaning "The action of driving around a reservation without a license to do so".
In non-durable media, one can find a different noun sense, along the lines of "the act of, as a white person, appropriating a non-white culture's practice as if one were discovering/inventing it from scratch", but this doesn't seem to have been used in durable media yet.
On Google Books, there are some old (1910s) hits for google books:Columbusing|Columbused|Columbus as a verb, which I've added to Columbus. - -sche (discuss) 04:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Since we've had this since December 2004, if this turns out to be bogus it could be the longest-surviving hoax we've ever had. 4 months less than 10 years. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I've read that Wikipedia catches most vandalism within 24 hours (because people who watch the vandalized pages notice it), but the things it doesn't catch within 24 hours survive for months or even years. I can imagine the numbers would be similar here. We have had a few other instances of dubious content surviving for a long time, e.g. Talk:lain, Talk:peewee. - -sche (discuss) 14:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Heh, I inserted a lie into a Wikipedia "trivia" section in 2006 and it remained there for 7 years, 10 months, and 2 days. It only got removed because someone ditched all of the trivia. Equinox 21:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

devil's shoulders[edit]

The only uses I can find seem to be of the {{&lit}} sense. - -sche (discuss) 18:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Not even in Google Groups. Also I can't verify the sole citation in the entry. DCDuring TALK 19:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
The IP that created the entry was really Gtroy/Luciferwildcat, as was Acdcrocks, who added the citation. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
The edition cited, the 39th (2005) of Gray's Anatomy, could almost certainly be found in a medical school bookstore or library for verification. If the cite is a fabrication, it is just something else to add the indictment. DCDuring TALK 18:42, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: intercontinental ballistic missile

Tagged but not listed. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Cited. Equinox 17:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Company names[edit]

These need citations meeting WT:COMPANY rules -- Liliana 21:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)



(company sense only) -- Liliana 21:20, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

This already passes. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Where are the citations? - -sche (discuss) 15:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, I mean it passes WT:COMPANY as "To be included, the use of the company name other than its use as a trademark (i.e., a use as a common word or family name) has to be attested." It's attested as town in Finland. It would seem trivial to type these citations up. I just said it passes, I never claimed to have typed the citations up. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:47, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
the use of the company name. The city sense is not the use of the company name. -- Liliana 09:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)





  • I oppose this RFV nomination. This is a very unwise nomination. These entries are single-word ones, capable of hosting lexicographical material such as etymology, pronunciation and translation into other languages; multiple of the nominated items already do. WT:COMPANY is not supported by consensus, as per Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/CFI and company names. WT:COMPANY is not a plain RFV regulation; it is one that places additional hurdles on company names, for reasons that I still do not undertand and that are IMHO not explained at Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/CFI and company names. The opposers have not explained why company names must be excluded while place names can be included. The arguing in the vote is along the line "we need some rules or else will have too many company names", but the opposers have not proposed any rules, and have not explained what is wrong with having a large number attested single-word company names. As for plain RFV nomination, all terms are clearly in widespread use, and RFV does not apply. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
    • We have a certain user here who often likes to say "no consensus -- status quo ante". Keφr 08:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
      • For one thing, the status quo ante before this RFV for the nominated terms in the namespace is that Wiktionary has them. But let us look broader, at the status of company names in the mainspace in general, not just the nominated ones. As for most of the nominated terms, they are quite recent, so they are a poor indication of "ante": Motorola (since August 2012), Samsung (since August 2012), Hyundai (since September 2012‎), Toshiba (since March 2013‎), and Mitsubishi (since April 2013‎). However, Wiktionary had company names as early as in 2004 - Sony; Apple, BMW, FedEx, Gibson, Google, IBM,Kawasaki, Mobil, Nokia, Peugeot, Pixar, Raleigh, Toyota and Volvo are all from 2005, all as company names. More company names are listed at User talk:Dan Polansky#Company names. There were some deletions, including Atari, Exxon, Microsoft and Verizon, and probably other. As for the current WT:COMPANY text in CFI, it was entered there without a vote and even without a discussion AFAICT, so it never was supported by consensus by any stretch; the diffs that I found are diff (22 May 2005) and diff (21 November 2007). So I am not sure what your point really is. In any case, I consider this use of RFV to be an abuse of it, by a person who could not get his or her way by a proper consensus-based channel, in Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Names_of_specific_entities and Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Placenames_with_linguistic_information_2 under former user name Prince Kassad, newly Liliana-60. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
        • It may have been added without prior discussion, but nobody removed it. The above-linked vote on your proposal has failed with 9 opposes against 8 supports. Which for me indicates that the community feels that WT:COMPANY is still in force, and supports keeping it in place for the time being. And even if the policy is changed, the citations collected here (or lack thereof) can still be useful to make drafting the new policy more of an evidence-based discussion instead of armchair consensus-building. Keφr 12:56, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
          • The fact that no one removed the offending part from the CFI after it was added is wholly immaterial. I for one never felt comfortable making changes to a policy page that said at the top of the page that changes should not be done without a vote. For some time, I naively thought that CFI was really based on consensus; I only discovered later that it was not so. As a result, I set up a multitude of votes to remove things from CFI that were not supported by consensus. Some were a pass, some were a fail. Some of the best examples of things that were in CFI for ages with most people not taking them seriously is the attributive-use rule, removed via Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Names_of_specific_entities. The trick of adding stuff to policy pages and hoping that people will not remove them for the fear of edit war was tried in Wiktionary multiple times by various editors, with a considerable success. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't know, which rule could be applicable here but I vote keep all and I think we should keep all notable one word company names for the same reason we keep countries and place names. People are likely to look them up, search translations or want to find etymology, pronunciation. The more linguistic info such entries contain, the more important and interesting they are. --Anatoli (обсудить/вклад) 23:48, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


Esperanto for crowbar. The alternate spelling levstango is attested, but there's nothing for this spelling on Google Groups or Tekstaro, and only a single mention on Google Books. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 01:46, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


This looks like another made-up substitute for a term whose etymology isn't Turkic enough. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It is some people's surname in Turkey. Kara means black and bat means duck or kar means snow (kara is the dativ form) and bat means sink in Turkish. Why are you commenting about the etymology of a Turkish word without knowing Turkish language? -- 03:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Some people's surname... that would be Karabat then. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
You may find some google results that it was used with the sense of pinguin: May 1, 2014 Linux'un simgesi karabat kuşudur (yani penguendir). (from Google Groups). -- 13:47, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I don't need to speak the language to see that penguen, the word listed in dictionaries, isn't etymologically Turkic, and you've now demonstrated that karabat is. Thank you for proving my point. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:17, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
"karabat" isn't penguin. They did fabricate against "buzulkuşu" word and try to show like a other bird the "buzulkuşu" word.


Added by same IP as previous. rfving to be on the safe side. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

It is a noun derived from old Turkish verb öndürmek to produce. It's some people's surname in Turkey. -- 03:27, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
Some people's surname... that would be Öndürücü then. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:31, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


As far as durably archived material goes, it is only used in the film Portrait of a Zombie. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


The superlative base form of שיין (sheyn) is שענסט (shenst). The declensional forms are דער שענסטער (der shenster), די שענסטע (di shenste) and so forth. --Sgold84 (talk) 15:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


RFV-sense "A doctrine of wholeness which may involve brainwashing." I'm not even sure if that's saying any such doctrine is a "totalism" and one can speak of multiple "totalisms", or if "totalism" is one particular doctrine of wholeness. The word itself seems to be one of those words that every philosopher and theorist gives her or his own interpretation to, and which therefore never has the same meaning two times in a row. It's even possible the RFVed sense was just a clumsy attempt at expressing one of the other senses I've just added. - -sche (discuss) 04:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


Scannos constitute a large portion of the limited number of Google Books hits this gets. I am doubtful enough citations remain to attest all four of the entry's senses. (Some scannos are of "man-woman" in phrases like "the ideal man-woman relationship", but others are of the entirely ambiguous designations "man-woman" and "woman-man" which I comment on here.) - -sche (discuss) 05:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

manwomen needs citing as well, or else it's a case of plural unattested. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:09, 15 July 2014 (UTC)



Supposedly modern (as opposed to Middle) English. I am doubtful. BGC hits are mostly scannos. - -sche (discuss) 05:40, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The OED has entries for the noun queem marking it as obsolete (and the latest cite from before 1500 suggesting that it's really Middle English). The adjective and adverb are less clear, with the OED saying "now rare" but including cites from regional English in some senses (some with the spelling weem or wheem, and a Scots cite from 1983 (New Testament in Scots). Dbfirs 07:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
I found a couple of uses for the verb and added citations for them. Not sure how old they actually are (one seems to use Middle English words/forms in an archaic fashion, so I suspect EME on that one); but the other is certainly Modern. Added tag. Leasnam (talk) 14:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
A couple more I added. One need only search after 'que(e)mest', 'que(e)meth', etc. to flush out the lave of them. There is also the variant quim. But I do think that the two entries should be merged, probably at queem? Leasnam (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I agree, merge to queem, with queme as alternative form of. Ƿidsiþ 19:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
I found another work which has the same poem about "the king she quemed"; it clarifies that the original was by Robert Mannyng (1275–1340) and that avenant, semblant and marvellich mean handsome, appearance and marvellously. Aside from those words, it seems to be an updated version of Robert's poem rather than a pure quotation, however, which in my understanding (see Talk:undeadliness) means it can be cited as English.
I have merged the noun and the verb at queem. Note that I have left the adjective at queme because queem does not currently claim that the 'ee' spelling can be an adjective. Also note that various senses still need citations.
PS, to save anyone else the trouble, I just went through every citation of google books:"queming" and google books:"queeming" and found nothing relevant; most hits were scannos of fre-quenting across a line break, some were scannos of querning. - -sche (discuss) 18:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)


Supposedly English. Has one citation, but it's apparently Scots. Google Books turns up Middle English, Scots and scannos. - -sche (discuss) 05:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

However, It wouldn't surprise me if this were attested in an entirely different sense, namely "eye dialect of fairly". - -sche (discuss) 05:45, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
The OED has entries for noun, adjective, verb and adverb. All marked as obsolete in English (though probably preserved in Scots) except for our noun sense which is "chiefly Scottish English and dialect". The most recent cite is from "N. Davis & C. L. Wrenn Eng. & Medieval Stud." (1962) but C Day Lewis used the noun in Time to Dance in 1935. Dbfirs 07:07, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


Seems to be Scots, but I do see a couple of citations of "umbesetting" from Dickens and Blackwood's [usually English-language] Edinburgh Magazine, so perhaps some of the senses are used in English. - -sche (discuss) 05:50, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The OED has entries for both the verb and the noun (umbesetting), but marks both as obsolete in English (latest cite from 1624). I would be surprised to see current usages outside Scots (where obsolete English is preserved as a novelty). Dbfirs 06:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Verb senses cited. The first sense’s second and third citations are a bit iffy, so IDK if those should count. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
Impressive! And indicative of an oddness Liliana and I discussed on RFD not long ago: Google Books apparently shows you different citations than it shows me (and shows me different citations than it showed Liliana on RFD). As I speculated then, perhaps it's finally doing what it promised, showing users "customized" results which are as (poorly) predictive of what I want to see as its autocomplete suggestions are. I'm not sure what sense "There is an umbeset moat" is using; if I sub in "surround", it doesn't make sense to me: "there is a surrounded moat". (Doesn't a moat do the surrounding, rather than being surrounded?) - -sche (discuss) 17:56, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I hazarded the guess that the author could be referring to something else surrounding the moat (the strip of cement? The wording suggests the strip of cement is the moat, but I’ve never seen a strip of anything being called a moat). It could be merely mistaken usage of the word, though. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:04, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
I would venture, 'There is a moat which is umbeset', meaning "there is a moat that is set-around" , a moat that surrounds. Leasnam (talk) 18:17, 19 July 2014 (UTC)


The one citation in the entry is the only one I can find. Note also the difference between the definition of this word ("claim one-thousandth of") and the definitions of all the words linked-to from the see also section ("reduce by X"). - -sche (discuss) 06:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


Needs formatting if OK. The only citation I can find is:

  • 1956, John Petty, Five fags a day: the last year of a scrap-picker, page 60:
    He would sink like an express lift and leap like a deer: at times he was almost flat on his back and when the hammer cracked he often appeared to be standing on his nose: like a backarapper he fizzed up and down and []

- -sche (discuss) 06:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Cited from a well-known work. This book confirms it is a dialectal word (Warwickshire) and not an in-universe term. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:16, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Curiously, several more uses turn up now than turned up when I checked Google Books for this prior to posting the RFV. I've now added one of them, which, together with the citation I mention above and the Tolkien citation, means this is now well cited. I've removed the RFV tag ("speedily passed" or "withdrawn", however one prefers to analyse it). - -sche (discuss) 18:43, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


RFV on the English section. There are currently two items in the English section:

  1. Alternative spelling of Nakba.
  2. A catastrophe; an event that results in great loss, sorrow, and misery. (Added in diff.)

For the proper noun sense, I ask for attestation of this capitalization.

The sole quotation currently provided for the 2nd sense is a mention, IMHO ('For Muslims, the capture in 1967 of the Temple Mount (Harem al— Sharif to them) stands as a nakba, Arabic for “catastrophe.”'). Searches: google books:"nakba", google groups:"nakba", nakba at OneLook Dictionary Search --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:51, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

The following quotations now present in the entry are mentions rather than uses, IMHO:

  • For Muslims, the capture in 1967 of the Temple Mount (Harem al— Sharif to them) stands as a nakba, Arabic for “catastrophe.”
  • While a "nakba" referred to an invasion by an alien (non-Muslim) power, often accompanied by mass looting, destruction, and population uprooting [...]
  • Our President is admitting that the war has been a nakba, a setback. 'I take full personal responsibility.' 'But not for long,' murmurs Mahmoud, in whose company I am watching this ultra-dramatic moment.
  • At the ceremony to donate the funds, Rafik Husseini, an aide to Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, referred to what happened in New Orleans as a nakba. (Italics in the original.)
  • Al-Quds, the largest Palestinian daily, described the collapse of Baghdad as a nakba (catastrophe). "This is not going to be the last nakba," it said in an editorial.

--Dan Polansky (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

"The capture in 1967 of the Temple Mount (Harem al— Sharif to them) stands as a nakba", "Our President is admitting that the war has been a nakba, a setback", and "This is not going to be the last nakba" look like uses to me. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 15:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
For the 1st one, with the important part highlighted by me in italics: "[...] the capture in 1967 of the Temple Mount (Harem al— Sharif to them) stands as a nakba, Arabic for “catastrophe.”. The sentence is explicit about referring to nakba as an Arabic word, not an English one; and it immediately provides the meaning, so the reader does not need to know the meaning of "nakba" (indeed, most readers don't).
For the 2nd one: The president is probably an Arabic speaker, and the book uses a romanization of an Arabic word, immediately stating the meaning of the word to the reader after a comma. Such a provision of meaning after a comma is IMHO a good telltale mark that the quotation cannot be reliably understood to be using the word to convey meaning.
For the 3rd quotation, when one takes the sentence mentioned by you alone, it really looks like use. But the sentence is immediately preceded by a sentence introducing the Arabic word "nakba". To me, seeing this as a use is questionable, while not as unequivocal as the other quotations. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Re the common-noun sense "a catastrophe": I share Dan's misivings about the citations which are currently in the entry. The 2013 citation makes clear that it is merely mentioning nakba, not only by its phrasing, but also by italicizing the term as an occurrence of a foreign word, not an English word. (Whoever typed the citations up in the entry did a sloppy job of it, because they didn't reproduce this italicization, and they didn't sort the quotations by date.) Likewise, the 1995 is a mention, and although the cited edition of the work (Societal transition to democracy in Mauritania) doesn't italicize the term, other editions do (e.g. Political Liberalization and Democratization in the Arab World). The 2014 is another mention, both in its phrasing and in that it italicizes the term. The 2003 citation is questionable, for the reasons Dan outlines. The 1998 citation, on the other hand, looks solid, and I have placed one other citation which I think it valid at Citations:nakba; notably, it uses the plural.
Re the "alternative capitalization" sense: in trying to cite the common-noun sense, I came across enough citations of lowercase "nakba" meaning "the Nakba" that I think I can cite it. I'll see...
- -sche (discuss) 17:12, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Update: I have moved the questionable citations out of the entry and into the citations page, leaving the one citation I thought was good and adding two more. - -sche (discuss) 17:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Both senses are now cited, I think. - -sche (discuss) 17:55, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "the/a present one of some sort", which I think refers to 'gift' not 'present tense'. Even so, both 'gift' and 'present' tense are présent. The Trésor de langue française informatisée list this (and the present tense meaning) as présent but doesn't list them as présente. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:32, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

teória sprisahania[edit]

Looks unattested (WT:ATTEST). --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Look it up on Google, there are multiple hits on Slovak sites. Peter238 (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Read the link WT:ATTEST. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Right. In that case, I don't have better sources than this. I took it from the Slovak Wikipedia. Peter238 (talk) 16:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


Suspicious; b.g.c gives hundreds of hits, but only capitalised in geographical names, and only a handful from the twentieth century. Only one hit for "tiberoons", meaning a shark species. Keφr 17:25, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a hoax but still better to give it 30 days if there's the slightest chance it isn't. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


English: electric bike

Ungoliant (falai) 02:56, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


Almost all of the results of google books:"misqueme" are quotations of The Plowman's Tale; one result is a different Middle English work quoted in The Index of Middle English Prose, Handlist VIII. Only one result is a book that is modern — and it's so modern that it was apparently e-published (and is therefore questionably durable), viz. The Mating Rituals of the Burning Giraffe: "'Aren't there any TV shows?' she suggested, but took that back herself after a moment's consideration, and before he could misqueme her again." - -sche (discuss) 15:48, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


Asturian sense of "Scotland". I'm skeptical that an Iberian Romance language would use the Gaelic name for Scotland; note that Escocia is also (much more plausibly) said to be the Asturian word for "Scotland". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I managed to find an Asturian use of Alba as an abbreviation of Alba de Tormes, but none meaning Scotland. Escocia, on the other hand, is easily citable. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


This doesn't even appear to exist, let alone be durably citable. Having said that, podad seems to be a Polish term of some kind (not in our entry), making searching quite difficult. This, that and the other (talk) 03:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

The creation edit summary says it all: (INTRODUCTION OF THE "PODAD"). This was added as a Wikipedia entry by a user whose only other surviving contribution there was adding a bunch of advertising copy to the entry for w:PowerSchool. Since podcasts were only invented a decade ago, filtering for books from 2004 or later brought it down to manageable size, and there was basically nothing- a couple of scannos for "iPodAds" in an example spreadsheet in books about MS Excel. I found only one hit on groups: here, and it's kind of equivocal. I can't be 100% sure that I checked everything, but it doesn't look good for the entry- which looks to me like an attempt to hype a commercial venture that got interwikied to us before anyone got around to deleting it. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)



  1. Using specious arguments or discourse.
    a plausible speaker

See Wiktionary:Tea_room/2014/July#a _plausible_ speaker uses specious arguments or discourse?

Chuck Entz (talk) 02:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

If a speaker says of someone else that He is a "plausible speaker, using sense 2, he is failing to endorse the truth of what the "plausible speaker" says. That is a kind of understated or polite criticism of the "plausible speaker" or the arguments made. Some dictionaries seem to have found that usage has elevated this kind of implication to the status of a pejorative definition. A collocation like "plausible liar" makes it difficult to determine whether plausible itself has the negative meaning rather than liar alone. I wonder what kind of quotations would give use evidence: something like "not true, but plausible"? DCDuring TALK 02:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Having looked at a few examples, even "not true, but plausible" doesn't assure us of plausible having negative rather than neutral valence, IMO. DCDuring TALK 02:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
Senses 2 through 4 were part of the original entry, created in 2004 by a user who was apparently mass-importing data to pad out the new dictionary. The second sense, especially, is not much better than random verbiage: what does "obtaining approbation" have to do with plausibility? What does "specifically pleasing" mean? It looks like the first sense was added because the other senses have little to do with the one meaning in widespread, modern use. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:53, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
To my surprise, the New Oxford Dictionary of English (2001) does have this: "(of a person) skilled at producing persuasive arguments, especially ones intended to deceive: a plausible liar. Assuming OUP are right, senses #2 and #4 to me also need verifying. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:51, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: The "obtaining approbation" sense fits with the etymology. The entry is from MW 1913, from which so many entries have been copied and remain without significant alteration. The ARTFL copy of MW 1913's definitions follows:
  1. Worthy of being applauded; praiseworthy; commendable; ready. [Obs.] Bp. Hacket.
  2. Obtaining approbation; specifically pleasing; apparently right; specious; as, a plausible pretext; plausible manners; a plausible delusion. Plausible and popular arguments." Clarendon.
  3. Using specious arguments or discourse; as, a plausible speaker. <-- 4 appearing worthy of belief [MW10]. Now the most common sense, and a good sense, rather than the traditional bad sense. --> Syn. -- Plausible, Specious. Plausible denotes that which seems reasonable, yet leaves distrust in the judgment. Specious describes that which presents a fair appearance to the view and yet covers something false. Specious refers more definitely to the act or purpose of false representation; plausible has more reference to the effect on the beholder or hearer. An argument may by specious when it is not plausible because its sophistry is so easily discovered.
MW 1913, following the practice of many dictionaries presents the definitions in the plausible, even probable, order of their development. We rely on the more prominent placement of the "obsolete" label.
I believe that all of the synonyms in all of the definitions reflect words that could be substituted for plausible at the beginning of the 20th century and earlier. From them one could inductively arrive at "the" meaning. For our style of definition, definition 2 seems to contain a contradiction: "specious" does not fit with the others (IMO).
I have no idea why definition 4 is formatted as it is and whose usage note it contains. The synonyms discussion seems to suggest that definitions 2 and 3 had been the prevailing senses. This fits with my finding of some modern philosophy (logic) texts that had the need to explicitly distinguish between "specious" and "possible"-type glosses of plausible. I don't really doubt that MW 1913 was accurately reporting 1-3 as definitions that were or had been in common use. I think this needs cleanup, to convert from "synonyms" lists to proper definitions using the current meanings of preferably unambiguous defining words or at least use of modern synonyms. This takes more than a hit-and-run effort, IMO.
Move to RfC. DCDuring TALK 12:49, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


Alternative spelling of Norcal, meaning northern California. I can't find any uses, but it is somewhat difficult to search for because of the asterisk. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 16:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


This better pass WT:FICTION. --WikiTiki89 17:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


There are citations at Citations:korephile, but these are mentions, not uses to convey meaning. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The 1998 one is a use. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Two more added. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:27, 22 July 2014 (UTC)