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 \| 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 for policy problems; request listings, questions and discussions.	Requests for deletion/Others add new \| history Requests for deletion for pages not in the main namespace, such as categories, appendices and templates.	Requests for moves, mergers and splits add new \| history Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.
{{rfc-case}} - {{rfc-cjkv}} - {{rfc-trans}} - {{rfdate}} - {{rfd-redundant}} - {{rfdef}} - {{rfe}} - {{rfex}} - {{rfap}} - {{rfp}} - {{rfphoto}} - {{context needed}}

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”

Templates:

{{rfv}}
{{rfv-sense}}
{{rfv-passed}}
{{rfv-failed}}

Shortcut:

WT:RFV

[edit] June 2011

[edit] ※

According to the entry, it is a Translingual symbol meaning:

contradiction

Is it, really? --Daniel 23:41, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

It's difficult to search for, obviously, but I've found one reference here. No idea how common this usage is though. 81.142.107.230 15:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's another reference. It's difficult to find our usual kind of citations. :/ - -sche (discuss) 20:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] priar

English: "A Spanish priest." All the results of google books:"the priar" seem to be scannos for prior or referring to a surname Priar. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:37, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually there are some lowercase uses, usually pre-1900. But what meaning they support, I don't know. Any other dictionaries have a meaning for this? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:59, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] erize

With the spectacularly unhelpful definition ‘to become erization’. Ƿidsiþ 16:36, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it might be something like "to take on an R-coloured vowel in pronunciation" (psst, linguists, that red link has been on Requested Entries for ages). I looked on Google Books and found one related match: "Not all word final nouns are subject to -erization in Standard Mandarin." Yep, with the hyphen. Equinox ◑ 16:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It might mean "to make rhotic", but it is difficult to tell. The contributor's other English efforts also need looking at. SemperBlotto 16:50, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] gandoo

Is the term real or real but with a different spelling? --Lo Ximiendo 19:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] steel guitar

If there's anyone familiar with guitars and stuff related to them, tell them about this. --Lo Ximiendo 15:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

This should probably have been a request for cleanup. Two senses added, information courtesy of Wikipedia. The guitar type sense looks cited, but I've found only one citation that seems to fit the playing method sense — though it might also fit a usage of the guitar type sense as 'music played with a steel guitar.' — Pingku^dimmi 12:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I think my request is resolved. Entry included? --Lo Ximiendo 05:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] draw a line in the sand

Rfv-sense: To provide a test of commitment to a cause that carries a high risk. In 1836, William B. Travis, commending the defenders of the Alamo, drew a line in the sand and asked those willing to remain and defend the Alamo to their deaths, to step across. Looks like just an example of the second sense (which was originally the first sense). ---> Tooironic 10:10, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

The point you raise is an RfD point. I have provided current citations that justify eliminating the "dated" tag. I found it easy to find examples of this sense. In the course of doing so, I found no examples of the now-second sense. Dictionaries that cover this only have one sense. We had three, now four. DCDuring TALK 12:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It's possible that the second sense (the one I originally wrote) is a literal application of the idiom, what do you think? ---> Tooironic 14:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

I can't do this kind of thing (making sense distinctions) without citations. All the senses seem plausible. I also believe that this can be a way of "challenging" someone to a fight. DCDuring TALK 15:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Citations are now in. It seems all senses are figurative, in one way or another. Possibly the "challenge" sense, if there is a separate sense, is influenced by the drawing of battle lines...? — Pingku^dimmi 16:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] becomable

becomable ? Word added by a recurring vandal on fr.wiktionary... Stephane8888 18:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I know of the vandal in question. But sometimes he (she?) slips up and creates a word that's attestable. Haha! --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I can see three uses on Google Books, for what looks like three different senses, one use seems to be for 'pleasant; pleasing', another for this meaning, another one that might be for this meaning too, in a sort of computing context. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] death star

“A direct-to-home satellite television satellite”. Also its alternative forms, and their various plurals. —Ruakh_TALK 15:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

That's dead simple

If satellite television, whether or not delivered by an American "death star," offers lower costs and/or higher benefits than do other media -- "Media and identity in contemporary Europe: consequences of global convergence" by Richard Collins, pp.20, ISBN 9781841500447
panelists also said cable operators' predictions that DBS would be "death star" are unfounded -- "Television Digest", Volume 30, page 17 (1990)
Canadian cable and broadcast systems and the Canadian government have reacted with alarm at this new competitor, known north of the border as Death Star, whose satellites' footprints cover most of the populous areas of Canada -- Cable TV: regulation or competition?, Volume 5 By Robert W. Crandall, Harold W. Furchtgott-Roth, pp.92, ISBN 9780815716099
cable TV incumbents—who fearfully referenced the technological entrant as the "death star"—undertook serious network expansion. -- Handbook of Telecommunications Economics: Technology evolution and the internet , pp.208, ISBN 9780444514233
'CBC climbs aboard "death star,"' proclaimed the Globe and Mail. Cable and network competitors were said to be reeling -- Rewind and search: conversations with the makers and decision-makers of CBC, pp.481, by Mary Jane Miller , ISBN 9780773513655
DTH or "Death Star," as it has been dubbed, is an extraordinary technology. A satellite produces signals strong enough, pp.75, "Understanding telecommunications and lightwave systems: an entry-level guide" by John G. Nellist, ISBN 9780471150329
Satellite TV has been called the "death star" because it poses an economic threat to the continued existence of cable companies. -- "Ink into bits: a web of converging media" by Charles T. Meadow pp.121 ISBN 9780810835078
The danger is not in the same league as the "Death Star," that delightfully emotive label which describes a proposed digital television satellite which is intended to beam 500 television channels to homes across America. -- "Understanding digital TV: the route to HDTV" pp.8 by Brian Evans ISBN 9780780310827

70.24.251.158 10:07, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Also

For Canadian television, this was brought home when, in recent years, some Canadian consumers began to subscribe to US direct-to-home (DTH-the so-called Deathstar) satellites that transmit directly into Canadian homes -- "Communications in Canadian Society" by Craig McKie, Benjamin D. Singer, pp.49 ISBN 9781550771183
In addition, a number of countries have launched their own satellites, including India, Indonesia, Brazil, Mexico, France, and China. "Deathstar" is what cable operators call GEOS, because the new DBS programming -- "Digital TV over broadband: harvesting bandwidth", pp.353, ISBN 9780240803579 by Joan M. Van Tassel
the CRTC will have no direct jurisdiction over multinational "deathstar" technology. -- "Karla's web: a cultural investigation of the Mahaffy-French murders", pp.240, by Frank Davey, ISBN 9780670861538
the cause for concern is the forthcoming "deathstar" DBS satellite to be launched in December 1993 by Hughes Communications. -- Cable vision, Volume 16, Issues 14-26 (1992)

70.24.251.158 10:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] kastoranthropy

Nonce word by Pynchon. Nadando 20:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] ACME

The etymology given is "Acronym of A Company that Makes Everything.". Can we provide some evidence of this? Also, if there is evidence, is that the source of just the Looney Toons incarnation or of the term as a generic company name in general. This is a term with a lot of folk-etymology baggage. - TheDaveRoss 10:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] shíyóu

I restored this on the grounds it has 57 Google Book hits. Since I can't read Mandarin, I can't say if they are all mentions or not. But I think speedy deletion is for entries that have no hits of any kind, and there are potentially valid non-Google Book sources, such as usenet discussions. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps we could use the wording Tooironic used - we need to include Mandarin words used in a running Mandarin text. A running Mandarin text in pinyin (toned or toneless) is not standard, used when proper input is not available. Would we create chat Arabic or Hebrew entries? Roman letters alone in standard Mandarin, often combined with hanzi are extremely scarce. We should not support abc123's agenda. --Anatoli 12:18, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

We should follow rules.

'“Attested” means verified through

Clearly widespread use,

Usage in a well-known work, or

Usage in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year.'

Such as shíyóu. Engirst 14:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Engirst, you are as usual, talking rubbish (sorry to be personal, but it's also accurate), how can this be in clear widespread use with only 57 citations? What is the well-known work? Where are the three citations? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

It refers to #3 (Usage in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year.) Engirst

Like I said, where are they? --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see here. Engirst 20:56, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, some of these seem to be in running Mandarin text. I can't read the language so I can't tell if they are mentions or not, but they don't 'look like' mentions. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Out of those hits only one of them is in running text in Mandarin [1]. Delete. ---> Tooironic 22:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] thriambus

google books:"thriambus" gets plenty of hits, but I don't see any in this sense. —Ruakh_TALK 02:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] rescue squad

Surely a squad is a group of people, not a vehicle? SemperBlotto 06:45, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

If rescue squad is so used, it certainly isn't SoP, though readily decipherable as metonymy or via some kind of implicature. DCDuring TALK 13:23, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia allocates a dab page (w:Rescue squad (disambiguation)) and this book has a mention. — Pingku^dimmi 15:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

[edit] July 2011

[edit] goniolatry

Another Pynchon invention. Nadando 20:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The word is ‘valid’ in the sense of formed according to existing bases. Anyway, I've copied the quote to the gonio- page, since I doubt there are three citations of this. Ƿidsiþ 16:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Can't it pass by being a nonce word in a well-known work? Pynchon is important. Equinox ◑ 14:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] frogging

"(internet) The act of repeatedly and rapidly entering and exiting chat rooms." May be real but I couldn't find anything with a quick Web search. Equinox ◑ 22:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] 2-up

Well, 1-up I can kinda understand... but this? -- Prince Kassad 13:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I know nothing about video games, but there's an unrelated sense used in printing. Here's a random example to give an idea: [2]

[edit] chantpleure

English: To sing and cry at the same time. A word maven's word, much more mentioned than used. DCDuring TALK 15:04, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It does sound a bit like a modern term describing the Medieval French love poetry I read (or have read in the past). I wonder if it exists in at least some form, either as a French noun or an English noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Well the French is chantepleure. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

It is probably citable in English in that spelling. DCDuring TALK 12:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] corniche

Rfv-sense: English: A luxury automobile, especially a Rolls-Royce Corniche.

I'd be surprised. DCDuring TALK 03:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] marttakerho

Definitions 2 and 3 are translated from the Finnish Urban dictionary. All the eight b.g.c. hits I found were about the formal meaning as a homemakers' club. Without definition 1, this entry was rather offensive to a martta, like defining a Lions Club meeting as "a get-together of old men who sit around a table, drink coffee and gossip". :-) Makaokalani 12:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiccionari

Tagged but not listed. Doubtful this would meet CFI. -- Liliana • 12:37, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no Occitan Google Books or Wikisource, so I'm not sure where one would verify any Occitan word. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

oldwikisource:Category:Occitan. —An gr 10:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Biquizionario

-- Liliana • 12:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] try

Rfv-sense: To tire. DCDuring TALK 22:49, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Might this be intended as the same sense as "to put to test" — e.g. "you're trying my nerves"? Equinox ◑ 20:37, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Chinglish

Rfv-sense: Spoken or written Chinese which is influenced by the English language. (also tagged its corresponding adjective definition)

Sure, it is technically correct, but is the word actually ever used this way? -- Liliana • 04:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm the one who wrote the original definitions and I don't think the second sense can be verified; what that definition is really describing is "Anglicised Chinese". ---> Tooironic 10:35, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] note

Rfv-senses for all of Etymology 1 section.

Utility, profit, advantage.
Affair, matter, concern.
An event, occasion.
Business, usually needful in nature; Expedition, undertaking, enterprise.
Conflict; Fray.

These may be vandalism. Webster 1913 has "Note, n. [AS. notu use, profit.] Need; needful business. [Obs.] Chaucer. " --Dilated pupils 11:47, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Not vandalism. These senses have been verified once before. All are listed in Century Dictionary 1906/1911. Leasnam 20:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that these senses have been verified. There are no citations. The Century Dictionary is a good source, but we don't accept authority without citation, even the OED. OTOH, we don't challenge such definitions wholesale. Perhaps the senses wouldn't have been challenged had there been a references section with a link to the online Century Dictionary. DCDuring TALK 20:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I should say they were questioned once before. Okay, I can see about adding some cites and a ref. Century is good at providing such, as finding them otherwise will be difficult due to interference from Etymology_2. Leasnam 21:08, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Could some or all of these senses by limited to Middle English? In practice, we usually are not as demanding for those. DCDuring TALK 21:16, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I will need to see and evaluate them one by one. I doubt that they are ME, as I am pretty confident that this word survived into the EME period. I am not able at the moment to look them up, but I will once I return home. Leasnam 21:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

The talk page links to the old discussion (here); it seems two senses (specifically "use" and "need") were doubted in May of 2009 and rfv-failed in November 2010 as uncited. (Can anyone think of collocations? I'll try "have note of" for "have need of", and "was of note" for "was of advantage" or "was of concern", but I realise that is also a collocation of the "reputation" sense.) By the way, if the senses survived into Modern English, they were also used in the Middle English period, right? Should we also have a Middle English section, or is it our tendency to for(e)go Middle English sections for words that have Modern English sections? - -sche (discuss) 02:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I have tagged the verb senses:

To use; make use of; employ.
To enjoy.
To use for food; eat.
To need; have occasion for.

So far, I have only found a Middle English use of the verb. I continue looking. - -sche (discuss) 03:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

We usually omit Middle English if there is Modern English, not by my preference. I expect that there are exceptions if there are senses that are dead or other radical differences. Having access to the OED helps. I just found out that the Middle English Dictionary is available online. It looks amazingly comprehensive. DCDuring TALK 09:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

A good source for fairly recent cites (year 1800+) may be obtained from the [dialect dictionary]. Leasnam 09:59, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Sense 5 contains the verb senses; and all appear to be primarily Scottish. Leasnam 10:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Excellent! Resources like that have helped us cite several dated terms before. This copy of Douglas' work has a glossary suggesting "note" also once meant "move" (let's not add that sense unless we can find it in literature), and it uses the word in several senses in the text; however, it also suggests that Douglas wrote in Scots, not English (and that the work was first published in 1553, but that's still in the Modern English era, so not a problem). I am looking through Spenser. - -sche (discuss) 17:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] acabame

Spanish noun meaning The End. Tagged in 2008, but not listed. --Mglovesfun (talk) 22:39, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

No Google Book hits in Spanish for "el acabame" or "un acabame". See also Matthias Buchemeier's edit summary. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:29, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this actually a verb imperative form that means 'finish me'? —CodeCa t 11:43, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

That would be a misspelling of acábame. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:47, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

For this noun, I knew el acabose [3] (literally, "the it finished"), but not el acabame. -Aleator 22:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] hummusiya

Doesn't seem to be used in English. Nadando 08:12, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] give it some welly

Sole sense given: To apply great physical effort to (something).

From the few examples I've seen, this seems to mean to "give some gas (to a car)". DCDuring TALK 00:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

This is quite common in the UK with this precise meaning. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:36, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Loads of quotes in G.books for all sorts of different situations that are not cars or motors. I also noticed "It likes a lot of welly". Could this be added to the definitions at welly?. -- ALGRIF talk 12:04, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Withdrawn. I had done a defective Google search that missed the fairly common usage. I added UK context and a car-specific sense which didn't fit the sense given. Did this originate from another idiom, or in sports? DCDuring TALK 12:19, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

It could be that the entry should be at a different form. For example, give it welly, though that form is unnatural and almost non-existent. In any event, this verb phrase not only inflects, but also has variation with "some" replaced by other determiners, as is typical with complex idioms incorporating nouns, such as those in Category:English predicates. A usage note for such variation might be better than a lot of redirects to show the range of possibilities. DCDuring TALK 12:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

I also notoiced put some welly into. A definition in an idiom dictionary gave do something energetically, though enthusiastically might fit some citations. A potted etymology in ELLE girl (!) connects the phrase to wellington boots and says it originally meant giving a powerful kick (in soccer) or pressing hard on the accelerator pedal (in car racing). — Pingku^dimmi 15:21, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] dampen

Rfv-sense: Dutch "to use the v-word". On WT:RFC#dampen, CodeCat and I couldn't work out what this meant, let alone cite it. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Can it mean to use vous instead of tu (or u instead of je)?? See [[w:T–V distinction]].—msh210℠ (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] sightseeing

Surely the adjective sense is merely a noun acting as an attributive? ---> Tooironic 04:20, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Certainly for a trip, as in the example. It's the same kind of construct as "golf tournament". Perhaps something else could be argued for "sightseeing tourists" (cf. operagoing)? Equinox ◑ 09:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

To me, both noun and adjective senses look like usages of the gerund. See Appendix:English gerund-participles. — Pingku^dimmi 09:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree. The example given under the adjective is attributive use of the noun (= sightseeing-trip). A true adjective use would be along the lines of: That man is a sightseeing fool! (= someone very enthusiastic about seeing sights), or We are a sightseeing family . Leasnam 19:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I added a cite for the adjective. Leasnam 16:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I note the tag has been removed. Am I to understand that one citation satisfies rfv these days? :) Besides which, I am not convinced this is a usage which excludes the gerund-participle, or even just the noun. One might talk about a golfing family, or the golfing fraternity, inferring that they habitually play golf. I don't think that means that golfing is a true adjective. — Pingku^dimmi 08:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] bouncebackability

RfVed long ago, but RfV tag was removed by creator of the entry. Some web use, but I didn't check all of the purported citations at Citations:bouncebackability. OTOH, whether or not citable, it seems to be evidence of the productivity of ability. DCDuring TALK 15:50, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

There seem to be enough citations that use rather than mention the word in google books:"bouncebackability". I propose this nomination is withdrawn, or the citations are manually added by the nominator. What was RFVed is the whole entry rather than a single sense. --Dan Polansky 14:01, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Too busy doing things I enjoy. DCDuring TALK 14:55, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

If you feel too busy citing RFVs, and too busy closing and archiving old RFD and RFV discussions, you'd better feel too busy adding new nominations to RFD and RFV. You are using someone else's resources to serve your purposes, without taking due part in carrying the cost. --Dan Polansky 15:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I get the hostility, but not so sure about the meaning. Assuming that you mean "too busy to cite" (virtually the opposite of "too busy citing"), I let those with superior judgment and knowledge who haven't participated as advocate in the discussion, close things. I tend to be an advocate. These roles seem quite incompatible to me. DCDuring TALK 17:15, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

My mistake with "too busy citing RFVs"; my English sometimes fails me. The roles of arguing a case and closing the case are not necessarily incompatible, but I'll leave this unargued, because of the following. Even if you forego closing nominations in which you have been involved (a poor idea IMHO), you may still be closing nominations in which you have not been involved. I still rest my case that you should better withdraw this nomination of "bouncebackability", as the thesis that there are no attesting quotations that meet CFI is no longer plausible per google books:"bouncebackability". --Dan Polansky 19:59, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, apparently, at least I understood you accurately.

I was posting an RfV that had been improperly removed long ago without there being properly formatted citations in the entry. The feuding admins simply abandoned the struggle, leaving the citations mess, which no one, including you, cleaned up, though the rfc tag was removed once the citations mess was moved to the citations page.
After sorting out the mess, the ill-formatted citations yielded 3 good uses, but spanning 20 days. Are there good current uses in durably archived media dated after December 10 or 12, 2004?
I'd be perfectly happy if we let Collins have an exclusive on the word.
I haven't noticed any rush to add translations to this.
If you don't like my work ethic here at Wiktionary, TFB. DCDuring TALK 21:29, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Wow. There's a whole article on this word, in the SKASE Journal of Theoretical Linguistics, publshed by The Slovak Association for the Study of English. (I can't vouch for it, natch.)—msh210℠ (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm getting a little frustrated trying to determine whether online news site hits are durably archived. Even the sites of major print newspapers do not make it clear whether the article appeared in print. The Guardian seems to be an exception. Are even BBC news articles "durably archived"? A link from The Times' went dead within two weeks of my finding it. DCDuring TALK 11:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] teethly

Not in OED. Is this nonstandard? Or could the obscure citations really just be typos for "toothy" or "teethy" (which is in the OED, meaning "well supplied with teeth")? -- · 04:57, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Mew

What? -- Liliana • 04:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

This should probably have been listed in rfd, as it can obviously verified for existence being a species in Pokémon. It won't satisfy CFI, coming only from one anime universe. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 05:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] high-heeled

Rfv-sense: Of or pertaining to ambitious women, in business or a profession, who wear or are assumed to wear high heels. The cafe has established itself as a venue of choice for high-heeled lunchtime meetings. —Google Books shows no results for ‘high-heeled meeting(s)’ and it sounds weird to me. Ƿidsiþ 10:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds plausible, but not everything that's plausible is actually in use. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:03, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Damn. I think this was me being lazy. On second thoughts, what I was looking at is quite probably metaphor to make a good soundbite. Plus some wishful thinking on my part. — Pingku^dimmi 18:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] hatefuck

Attestable as a noun? Google only returns a verb sense. -- Liliana • 18:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Don't think so. -- PoliMaster ^talk/_spy 18:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Try googling with the indefinite article prepended. It's rare, but used. --Ivan Štambuk 19:16, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Yosemite Sam

"(trademark) A fictional man who is a character ...etc." Needs to meet WT:BRAND. Equinox ◑ 09:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] wikcionarista

Can I RfV all language sections at once, or do I need to open up multiple headings for that? -- Liliana • 00:39, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, conversion script moved this from uppercase first letter to lowercase. Should it be moved back? And yes, citations would be a fine thing. --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] faute de mieux

Rfv-sense - noun definition (in an adverb section). SemperBlotto 16:41, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

I found a couple of noun usages (not this one though). I'm inclined to think of them as errors, but the shared sense, as much as there is one, is something like "the outcome of an action or decision accepted faute de mieux." — Pingku^dimmi 05:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] quadfurcate

Tagged in 2007, not listed. Equinox ◑ 16:46, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Sufficiently many bgc hits for the past participle, easy to find. What's the problem?—msh210℠ (talk) 17:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Microhoo

Moved from RFD. -- Liliana • 02:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I've just added four citations: one is a bit dubious because it's a mention rather than a use, but the others seem all right. Unfortunately all four are from 2008. Something outside that year would be nice. Equinox ◑ 09:24, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Well so far it isn't adequately cited yet as it fails the "spanning at least a year" criterion, but maybe someone will find other cites. -- Liliana • 19:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] wraught

Rfv-sense: (Australian, slang) deception; over-pricing. Moved from RFD. -- Liliana • 12:06, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Note also wraughted; listed as an adjective, it's clearly (to me, clearly) a verb form in the two example sentences. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:12, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] catataxis

Any takers? Mostly I can just see "www.catataxis.com". If OK, needs the correct plural, and the etymology moving to its proper section. SemperBlotto 13:28, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I've done the cleanup, but can't get enough hits with visible context to figure out the meaning. In some linguistic (or logical (?)) schemes parataxis and hypotaxis are coordinate terms. It may be a term of art in translation, especially machine translation. DCDuring TALK 15:37, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] e学习

[edit] e-xuéxí

Doubtful this is attestable. Google hits seem to be mostly scannos. -- Liliana • 15:04, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

it is definitely used in this mixed script form. I have modified its pinyin, however, as e-xuéxi as pinyin sounds nothing like how it's supposed to be pronounced. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 05:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Craftsman

—msh210℠ (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Should meet WT:CFI#Brand names. (See also WT:BRAND.) DCDuring TALK 16:14, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] TOYA

Possible, but note that google groups:"you're toya" gets a grand total of zero hits.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] autoeponym

Apparently from a 1992 paper, but definitely not used much since. PubMed may help.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:42, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] debtquity

Nothing obvious on Google book search. Needs a severe cleanup if OK. SemperBlotto 06:56, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It is probably best as an unlinked alternative form at the equally abominable, but more citable dequity. I only found one citation for this spelling at books, scholar, groups, and news. DCDuring TALK 14:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Commons

In the sense of WikiMedia. Out of context should suffice, no? DAVilla 17:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Is it a brand? DCDuring TALK 18:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I would highly doubt such a common word could carry a trademark. DAVilla 06:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Wikinewsie

Just independent citations will suffice, no? DAVilla 17:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

It's a common noun, and it's not a copyright or a trademark, it's just slang. Compare crackberry. --Mglovesfun (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] memoaccess

"(computing, rare) memory access" — nothing in Google Books, and the results in Google Groups seem to be only parts of a Web address and not running text. Equinox ◑ 21:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] firsthand

Rfv-sense: Brand new, as opposed to used or secondhand.

I am unfamiliar with this sense in the US. At best, it is probably a "cute" serial nonce from secondhand. DCDuring TALK 03:23, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] lygokinesis

"(fantasy, science fiction) The ability to manipulate raw energy, possibly enabling a character to fly, create force fields, or fire energy blasts." Nothing in Google Books; one result on Google Groups. Can this meet CFI? Is it from a specific media franchise? Equinox ◑ 22:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] anomalous

Rfv-sense: equivocal. DCDuring TALK 12:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Weird. Is someone getting confused with analogous? Ƿidsiþ 12:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, never mind. I thought you said equivalent. Ƿidsiþ 12:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] whacker

"A wannabe Black man". If it does exist, could it be related to wigger (from white + nigger)? Equinox ◑ 17:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Tredezillion

-- Liliana • 19:31, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] accountment

Rfv-sense: An action of accounting or taking something into account.

Century had "(rare) responsibility", which I have added. DCDuring TALK 23:40, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] roncus

Created by an anon as a Latin noun, I do not find it listed in any dictionary of Classical, Late, or Medieval Latin. There is an entry in Niedermeyer that suggests there might be a word roncus in Latin, but no quotation for that word is given, nor a definition, in Niedermeyer. --EncycloPetey 04:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps this [4] is where the anon found this? From googlebooks I could only find [5] and [6] and I don't know how relevant these are. Caladon 14:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

roncus is used by Apuleius in The Metamorphoses/The Golden Ass in book 1 (1.9, the part where Socrates talks about everything Meroe can do). I added the quotation to the page as well as a translation I found here, for lack of a better online translation. CeNobiteElf 11:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, looking for alternative spellings of the word brings up this w:False scad#Taxonomy and naming (not really relevant, but mentions the rhonchus and it's meaning), rhonchus and lastly Oxford English Dictionary states in the etymological information of rhonchus that it comes from "classical Latin rhonchus (also ronchus (2nd cent. a.d.))" and then later mentions Byzantine Greek word ῥόγχος and the Ancient Greek word ῥέγχος (also ῥέκχος). So roncus is probably just another spelling variant. CeNobiteElf 17:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Novarbo

Any takers? Caps? SemperBlotto 07:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps lowercase and Esperanto, see arbo. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] theftless

2 senses: (obsolete) artless, indiscreet; projecting an innocent appearance;

(obsolete) unlikely or unable to be stolen; inalienable, inviolable

Hard to find cites that clearly support either of these meanings, but there are a handful of older quotes, which someone may be able to decipher. It is easier to find support for the fairly rare sense of "without theft", as in "a theftless break-in". DCDuring TALK 22:24, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] loopie

Supposedly someone on an e-mail list. Related to "in the loop". DCDuring TALK 05:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] 良気

I cannot find this word in any dictionary, nor can I find it on the Internet. Haplology 18:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't speak Japanese, but there are hits on Google Search and Google Books. ---> Tooironic 23:21, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I sure don't have it either in my Shogakukan Kokugo Dai Jiten from 1988, nor in the other dictionaries I have to hand, but Google does give me over 11,000 hits (search for "良気").

That said, the first few hits that I looked into (all on the same site) use the kun'yomi ege, not ryōki, with the stated definition of:

「良気な」(えげな)とは・・・よさそげな、ないすふぃーりんぐな、思いも

This use of borrowed English ("ないすふぃーりんぐな" = "nice-feeling" transliterated into kana) in the definition makes me think the term ege is somewhat slangy.

Searching for 良気 with the specific pronunciation ryōki in either hiragana or katakana only produces hits regarding Japanese personal names, with no evidence I can find of use as a word.

That's not to say that ryōki is never used as a word -- manga are notorious for coming up with various neologisms based on kanji readings. But somehow I doubt that the peculiarities of comic book usage are enough for a term to pass muster for inclusion in Wiktionary.

What do others say? Is use in manga enough to warrant including a term here? -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 23:49, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] 갂

Tagged for speedy deletion, but does not seem to me to meet any criterion for speedy deletion. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

It does need to be cleaned up. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 23:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] transfluorescence

Any takers? SemperBlotto 06:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I've defined and cited a sense used in microscopy, antonymous to epifluorescence. "Plastic edge glow" seems fairly opaque, as definitions go. Someone might usefully create the category en:Microscopy, which has a few entries now. — Pingku^dimmi 09:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] lose the plot

Rfv-sense (verb phrase) To have one's results decline severely in quality or suddenly fall below an acceptable standard, especially when compared to past excellence. — Pingku^dimmi 14:33, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it might be a slight misread of the other two meanings, one can imagine that if a student loses the plot (sense #1 or #2) it might as a consequence lead to lower grades and whatnot, but I wouldn't call it a definition in itself. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] 矢#Japanese

Can anyone back up the chikau and tsuraneru readings for this kanji? I've never seen this used to spell either verb (usually written 誓う and 連ねる / 列ねる respectively), and none of the dictionaries I have to hand list it either.

For that matter, is there a specific policy on rarely-used ateji? -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 23:28, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

My dictionary (漢字源, ISBN 978-4053008893) gives all 3: "や/ちかう/つなえる" as the readings of 矢 (under 意読.) Haplology 23:17, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough; neither Shogakukan edition I have lists these readings (大辞典 and the 新装版), Daijirin doesn't list them, and Nelson's Japanese-English Character Dictionary doesn't either. Idoku are by definition non-standard readings, and as such are outside normal usage patterns and must generally be indicated by using furigana. Is there any consensus on including idoku? If we include them, would it be possible to indicate that such readings are non-standard? I'd hate for students of Japanese to unwittingly learn kanji in non-standard ways and then wonder why no one understands what they're writing. Just learning the Jōyō readings is enough trouble. :) -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 18:43, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

As an addendum, ateji usage can be wildly inventive, such as a request to formally name a child 騎士, usually pronounced kishi and meaning "knight", but to be pronounced Naito. Consequently, I don't think ateji should generally be included unless their use is pretty common / well-known. (Some other interesting examples in Japanese here) -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 21:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

To reply way too late, probably we should defer idoku readings until later until we have a high quality set of kanji pages with normal readings. I'd recommend modifying the kanji template to indicate idoku readings in the future. The dictionary I quoted is like the OED of kanji in that it has wildly rare stuff that nobody knows in the real world. If I'm not mistaken this is similar to the issue down at Japanese kanji entries and classical vs. modern readings in the Beer Parlour. Keep the good readings and build a fence around them Haplogy 02:54, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] palaver

RfV-sense: (informal) Disagreement

Not a sense found at OneLook AFAICT. OED? Cites? Other senses could use some confirmation, too. DCDuring TALK 00:02, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about the informality, but there are cites at google books:"no palaver with", such as [7] and [8]. (That's two.)—msh210℠ (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

And a third: [9].—msh210℠ (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] ƪ

Rfv-sense: A letter sometimes included in the Twi alphabet -- Liliana • 03:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

[edit] August 2011

[edit] status

Rfv-sense: (Canada, attributive, of a Canadian Indian) Registered under the Indian Act. This reads like an adjective. ---> Tooironic 01:56, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

How about now? Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 22:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think it's only permissible as an adjective meaning "registered...", though, as in "he is a status Indian". As a noun meaning "the state of being registered...", as in "what's his status?", I'm not convinced it merits a separate line from the general definition of "status". (Of course, then it is to be debated whether or not the "adjective" is only a noun used attributively, as you had wrote.) - -sche (discuss) 04:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hm, perhaps Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification_archive/2011#rainbow is relevant, as far as distinguishing nouns from adjectives. - -sche (discuss) 04:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] 予史実

I can't find this name on the Internet if I search for "予史実" "よしみ" except on this site or copies of this site. While the readings of the characters do spell out Yoshimi, it seems to be so rare that it would be a neologism. Google books yields 1 result but not a match for this name. There are so many endless ways to write names in Japanese that it seems to me that we should stick with easily attested ones. Thanks Haplology 08:59, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Might be an obsolete name. Jim Breen has it listed as a name, but doesn't source it in any way. (Jim Breen's dictionary, select Japanese Names (ENAMDICT) from the dropdown). This is the dictionary I use for most of my Japanese needs (as well as wt of course!). Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 22:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

True, might be. I have no way of attesting it myself other than Jim Breen's dictionary. In the meantime it's certainly conceivable so perhaps let's keep it and mark it as context|rare or obsolete? I don't know what would be best to do. Thanks Haplology 13:38, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd say, mark it as rare as I don't think we have an expert here to verify its obsoleteness, but rarity can certainly be subjectively determined. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 01:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner

Can this be attested? Just two hits on Google Books. ---> Tooironic 01:40, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It can if one relaxes the search slightly to Google democracy "two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner" (Books • Groups • Scholar • News Archive).

I don't know if we should consider it a proverb, which is the only basis for keeping it, unless we now just keep all metaphors. DCDuring TALK 02:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a "saying" more than anything else, and not even a particularly old one. See q:Democracy#Misattributed. bd2412 T 03:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that belongs on Wikiquote, not Wiktionary. — Robin 08:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Confer a camel is a horse designed by a committee. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree with DCDuring, I'm not sure we have a basis for keeping it, even if attested. - -sche (discuss) 01:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

There will be cases where Wiktionary and Wikiquote content should overlap. This is not one of them. bd2412 T 15:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Also, hardly any of our proverbs have any significant political content. I'm not sure that political content is a fatal defect, but I think proverbs are generally accepted as true and not controversial or partisan (or sectarian, for that matter). DCDuring TALK 16:49, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but 'relevance' is not an RFV issue, it's an RFD one. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] cash instrument

Rfv-sense: Any financial instrument whose value is determined directly by the market.

I don't think equities and long-term bonds are validly termed "cash instruments", but usage might surprise me. DCDuring TALK 15:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] hosemonkey

"A term of endearment which refers to fire fighters. Usually used by police officers or other emergency service officials." From Urban Dictionary apparently; also used as a user name by some Internet people (firefighters?). Equinox ◑ 19:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a word, and easily found under its alternate forms: hose monkey and hose-monkey. I added a cite for the firefighter sense, although I suspect it may mean other things as well? Leasnam 19:19, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] medician

All three senses. AFAICT, this term is mostly used in various science fiction works to convey a slightly alien flavor to the medical-style service providers in their fictional universes. DCDuring TALK 19:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

So, it's attestable then, in other words? Mglovesfun (talk) 08:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

I've reduced it to one definition and added two citations, more are easy to find. - -sche (discuss) 05:11, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] octaviate

Pretty rare; rarer than octavate, at any rate. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 20:38, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] copsed

Adjective. I think it is really just the past participle of copse#Verb (two senses). I haven't found evidence of adjectivity at Google books or at OneLook.com. DCDuring TALK 00:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] GOAT list

Any takers? Does seem to mean something (greatest of all time?). Needs formatting properly if OK. SemperBlotto 18:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I'd put it here: Appendix:U.S._Navy_slang. It's way too limited in usage, even if it's verifiable. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 21:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Googlenope

Journalist's invention. Nothing in Google Books and only one result on Usenet. Equinox ◑ 14:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

In Usenet terminology a nope was the opposite of a dupe: A dupe is an article arriving more than once, and a nope is an article arriving less than once (IOW it didn't arrive). If the Googlenope didn't make it into common use it was at least a good try, no patent nonsense. Of course good try wouldn't be the same as encyclopedic (or whatever wikt: considers as notable). –89.204.137.194 04:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I added it to WT:LOP. In the event it is cited and RFV-passed, it should be removed from the LOP. - -sche (discuss) 05:14, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

I created the entry, since I use this word and hear other people do. I like to add a link in online discussions for those that do not know it. --Jarekt 12:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 05:23, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] alicorn

Rfv-sense: "winged unicorn", added as a second etymology for alicorn. --EncycloPetey 19:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The New World Encyclopedia article on unicorn mentions that "the word 'Alicorn' can also be the name for a winged unicorn/horned Pegasus". For an actual example of it being used, "An alicorn. A winged unicorn. There aren't many, but sometimes a griffin and a unicorn will meet at a love spring - [...] then we have alicorns." Demons Don't Dream, page 61. --Goldenpelt 22:31, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Rich's Pegopedia says:

Alicorn the Unicorn's Horn. Some modern authors claim that the Alicorn is a term for the species of flying unicorns from the Latin words ala meaning "wing" and cornu meaning "horn," however, the ancient writers used the word to denote the actual horn of the Unicorn which purports to have magical healing powers when the tip is dipped into a body of water. In this respect the term alicorn may find it's roots in the Latin words alima meaning "of the sea" or alere meaning "to nourish" or even alius meaning "other source or knowledge" and, of course, cornu. (See: Cerapter, Unicorn).

So far, I've found three modern authors who claim this: Piers Anthony (Bearing an Hourglass), Piers Anthony (Demons Don't Dream), and Piers Anthony (Pet Peeve). Also, Andre Norton and Mercedes Lackey's Halfblood Chronicles use alicorn to refer to ferocious, wingless unicorns. ~ Robin 00:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] stalkować

Maro 19:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] purification

Rfv-sense. The removal of impurities, a refining process. How is this different from "the act or process of purifying"? We already list "to cleanse (something), or rid (it) of impurities" at purify. ---> Tooironic 22:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

So, RFD redundant isn't it? You're disputing that this sense exists? Mglovesfun (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not sure what you mean by "RFD redundant", could you elaborate further? ---> Tooironic 11:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I think the best option is to merge the senses. If no-one objects, I'll do this soon. Dbfirs 20:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Since no-one objected, I've just added "the removal of impurities" to the first sense. Is this OK? Dbfirs 22:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] amuse

Rfv-sense To fling dust or snuff in the eyes of the person intended to be robbed; also to invent some plausible tale, to delude shop-keepers and others, thereby to put them off their guard.

We are definitely missing an archaic or obsolete sense in the entry, and that dictionary sounds genuine, but Francis Grose (a satirist) seems to have deliberately picked just a low-life interpretation of the standard meaning at that time (1785). Perhaps we could move the direct quote from his publication to an example quotation, and give the more general older meaning (... divert attention, distract ...) -- I'll do this if no-one objects. Dbfirs 20:06, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I've added the other obsolete senses. I'm not sure that the satirical cite is useful. Dbfirs 23:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] steamie

Rfv-sense: a steam engine. Ƿidsiþ 07:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels

A proverb? Really? Seems more like a quote. And only 325 hits on Google Books. ---> Tooironic 14:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure what our standards are for proverbs (well, actually, I'm pretty sure we have none); based on your bgc search I'll say delete.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

60,500 results in quoted string Google search. The proverb/expression dooesn't sound nice but I agree with it partially. It may be my subjective opinion but many racists usually call themselves "patriots". Keep. --Anatoli 00:34, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I haven't done a statistical analysis, but I thought that the original quote (by Samuel Johnson) was "patriotism is the last refuge of a (or the) scoundrel". SemperBlotto 06:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

That apparently correct form is more common at both COCA and Google books. FWIW, whether or not correctly quoted, it is usually quoted with attribution. We have no principles of our own to call on. By some criteria in the literature of paremiology this might qualify. DCDuring TALK 10:52, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's start a proverbs appendix!Gtroy 21:29, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

With no offense to Samuel Johnson, his quotation hardly counts as a proverb. It's clever in its context, certainly, but that doesn't make it a proverb. —This unsigned comment was added by 198.80.155.7 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 10 January 2012‎ (UTC).

[edit] geo-volunteerism

No hits on Google Books. ---> Tooironic 14:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

A neologism without any doubt. Usage is attested in mainstream media though : Reader's Digest Asia - March 2010 - Geo-Volunteerism in the Philippines and CNBC - Nov 2009 - Online Maps: Everyman Offers New Directions. — Xavier, 00:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Mona Lisa

Rfv-sense: Any piece of art that is exceptional. In the example sentence It's a pretty picture, but it's no Mona Lisa., it seems to refer to the actual Mona Lisa, not a countable common noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:55, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Really? If it was referring to the actual Mona Lisa, surely the structure would be: it's not a Mona Lisa? ---> Tooironic 22:15, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

I would think "it's not a Mona Lisa" would be a clear example of "any piece of art that is exception", like *"she was speaking a German" is "she was speaking a German dialect or language, such as Plattdeutsch", whereas "he was speaking German" means he was speaking the actual language. I think the actual Mona Lisa would be "it's not the Mona Lisa", and I'm divided on whether "it's no Mona Lisa" genericises it or not. - -sche (discuss) 22:26, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

It's no Mona Lisa strikes me (a layman) as referring to the actual Mona Lisa. The construction exceedingly productive ("he's good at putting the right punctuation in his sentences, but he's no Victor Borge" etc.).—msh210℠ (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

IMHO it seems to be in line with ..., but he's no Einstein. type of comment, which makes the current Mona Lisa entry OK for me. -- ALGRIF talk 12:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Can "Mona Lisa" be used in a positive sentence as synonym to "a piece of art that is exceptional", like saying: "Mark Rothko's No. 61 (Rust and Blue) is a Mona Lisa"? If it cannot, I'd suggest that the term to be defined is not really "Mona Lisa" but "not a Mona Lisa" or "no Mona Lisa", which mean "not an exceptional piece of art". --Hekaheka 23:37, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Btw, in Elton John's "Mona Lisas and Mad Hatters" Mona Lisa definitely means something else than "exceptional piece of art". --Hekaheka 16:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Disney

A request for verification of the proper noun (Talk:Disney#RFV) gathered quotations of one sense; two senses failed and another needs a third quotation. After that RFV, a noun section and an adjective section were added. I'd like these verified as well. I have been looking for "Disneys" but finding scannos of "Disney's", and looking for "like a Disney" but finding what we (erroneously or otherwise) call "attributive use" of the noun ("like a Disney film"). - -sche (discuss) 21:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] beey

Couldn't find it on ggc or bgc after very, more, too, or the.—msh210℠ (talk) 23:51, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh, here's one: [10]. (Might be self-published, can't tell.) Needs (at least) two more.—msh210℠ (talk) 23:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] breaking bad

Hits on Google book search seem to be either for a US TV series, or for "breaking bad news" or "breaking bad habits". SemperBlotto 09:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Searching before 2005, excluding some common collocations like "bad news", "bad habit/s", and sifting through a lot of irrelevant hits led to enough citations. Break seems to mean "become" or "turn" (possibly more suddenly or with echos of the breaking of a horse, or of lucky breaks), so this is arguably NISoP. DCDuring TALK 11:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria I admit that I'm pretty ignorant about Wiktionary (I'm from en.wp), but several citations have been provided to show that this colloqualism has existed for over a century. I'm not terribly familiar with NISOPs, but I can say that if I simply heard someone saying something about "breaking bad" prior to the show and the explanation that I read of its etymology, I would not have pieced together its meaning. koavf 08:27, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

See also Here. koavf 06:40, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Elmer Fudd

Trademark; specific cartoon character with a distinctive voice (what an odd definition). Needs to meet WT:BRAND. Equinox ◑ 13:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Cited since January 1. I agree that the (much older) definition could be improved, though. --Daniel 13:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

"I sometimes think of T. S. Eliot as Elmer Fudd." This is hardly a citation for a dictionary term. It's just mentioning the specific cartoon character. I feel that way about most or all of the citations. Equinox ◑ 01:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] niece

Rfv-sense: a male homosexual person.

Tagged as disputed and commented out in this diff on 7 October 2005. Sense added in this diff on 29 April 2003. --Dan Polansky 07:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] busted

Rfv-sense - ugly.

I looked for "busted woman" in Google book search and only found "big-busted woman" and similar. SemperBlotto 15:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

You have to search something more along the lines of "her face is busted." Don't really use it as "busted woman." More along the lines of "Her friends are busted."

http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-of/busted
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=busted —This comment was unsigned.

Actually, those two phrase both get zero Google Book hits. Who uses this term, and where? Where can we find some actual uses (not dictionaries of made-up words). Mglovesfun (talk) 20:52, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I've found one clear use so far on Usenet, and one less-clear use. - -sche (discuss) 21:00, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

As you already know, a lot of words on wiktionary are not in other official dictionaries, they're fairly commonly used however and most of them still made it onto the site. If some wanted to be a jerk, they could put the verify tag on probably half of the slang words on this site. I don't understand why my links were not legitimate enough, it shows people use it. But since you are requesting more links, searched google for you:

While searching, it also made me realize there is another meaning for the term someone's face is busted. While googling I also came across a bunch of posts about someone's face being busted after getting into a fight. I hope this is enough evidence this word is actually used. Personally I hear it all the time (not that its going to convince you).--Bluesoju 13:41, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

We need the uses to be durably archived; Web pages can disappear without being kept, unlike books, which are stored in libraries, and then the citations would be dubious and unprovable. So the links you find need to meet WT:CFI (usually this means being in printed books or on Usenet newsgroups). Equinox ◑ 13:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm just curious, because I highly doubt a lot of these words on the entire site would be found in printed books. For example the term "ftw," Yet it's not disputed at all. Usenet however I can't really comment on since I never use it.--Bluesoju 05:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I've now added a Usenet citation for FTW. Equinox ◑ 16:25, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] balcony

Rfv-sense: large or projected breasts on a woman.

Sense added in diff on 3 April 2006. The sense is in Urban Dictionary, but not several other modern dictionaries. --Dan Polansky 18:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

It certainly seems like a metaphor readily interpretable in context. I thought it might be a consequence of translating a metaphor that might be idiomatic in other languages (eg, Dutch).

2005, Jan Blommaert, Discourse: a critical introduction, page 42:

As we walked out of the hotel, I asked her 'do you have such a nice balcony too?' The term for 'balcony' in our native language Dutch, 'balkon', is among other things a rude, deeply sexist male term used to refer to female breasts

But Partridge has it as US slang. I also found a usage of "balcony corset". DCDuring TALK 18:50, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] metatation

"The act of contemplating meditation itself, putting oneself outside the very state of meditation." Real? Not much in Books or Groups! Equinox ◑ 23:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] brand

Rfv-sense: (advertising) A product's attributes — name, appearance, reputation, and so on — taken collectively and abstractly.

I have added a sense built around "reputation", which may have been what was intended because the example would, IMO, better fit a sense like "reputation". Perhaps this is indeed a widely accepted sense in the world of advertising. DCDuring TALK 00:01, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

a) I think "identifying reputation" would add meaning.
b) would "a population" sound better than "some population" or is this just because I'm British :) —Saltmarsh^{talk-συζήτηση} 06:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

"Some" seems better. Thanks. Note that I have removed the advertising context for some senses, because the terms seems to be in widening use in business and politics and among employees in reference to themselves. I am not sure about the true extent of this widening. I think that "identifying" places more emphasis on the referring quality of a brand in this usage. Just as name means both one's identifying moniker and one's reputation, so too has brand come to have the same distinct senses. There are some differences in syntax: one has a "reputation for X"; one's "name means X". DCDuring TALK 10:51, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] jigget

While I do find jigget / Jigget on google.books, I do not find it with a meaning of "move in a jigging or jerky way". --EncycloPetey 21:26, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] laceum

Appears in our etymology of Spanish and Galician lazo, but not in the etymology given in the Diccionario de la Lengua Española. I don't find it in Latin dictionaries. --EncycloPetey 21:43, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

394 Google Book hits, should be possible to go through all of those in a month. A quick scan shows no hits for this, but rather violaceum and a few other words ending in -laceum, but not this. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Mario

Rfv-sense: A fictional Italian plumber who is a character of various video games by Nintendo. The translation table is needless, since if this Mario is an Italian, his name is obviously spelled Mario and not Mário in Portuguese. The Japanese transliteration belongs to the Etym.1 section or, should it be different for an Italian name, in the Italian section as a ====Descendant====.--Makaokalani 13:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] explicate

Rfv-sense: "to develop a principle, theory, etc." Seems redundant to the first one to me. ---> Tooironic 00:30, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] macaca

—Ruakh_TALK 12:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

The two citations in the Portuguese sections were written in English, so I moved them up. Etymology also seems wrong, I doubt this is via French macaque, surely it's just from Portuguese macaca and not from macaco as our entry says. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:55, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Canis domesticus

This is not (and to my knowledge never has been) a taxonomic name. --EncycloPetey 02:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks easily citeable. Possibly from Linnaeus and never officially adopted. It looks like Linnaeus intended it for the sheepdog. — Pingku^dimmi 03:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

But if it was never adopted, then it's not Translingual, and that's part of the issue. In what langauge(s) is it citable? If it's only in the one work of Linnaeus, then it's only Latin. But, if it's a one-off descriptive phrase in Latin, it may not merit an entry. --EncycloPetey 05:03, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] life child

"A person who has lived with his or her parents all the way to their deaths." The creator is rather notorious for adding his own inventions, so I don't have much hope for this. Equinox ◑ 20:31, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Delete moved to protologisms.Gtroy 19:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] hoggerpipe

From Webster 1913. "The upper terminal pipe of a mining pump." I cannot find this in Google Books outside of a single 1882 text by Henry Norris Copp, where it is defined rather than used. Equinox ◑ 22:35, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Found a seeming use in the wild for a two word version:
- 1969, P. S. A. Berridge, Couplings to the Khyber: the story of the North Western Railway, p. 295:
  
  In the chill of the night, a rat had sought the comparative warmth of the hogger pipe on the leading coach which, contrary to standing orders, some wayward shunter had not placed on the dummy.
This might be SOP for an as yet unadded defition of hogger. bd2412 T 17:54, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] financial doping

Only cite given for either of the two senses is for financially doped. It seems that contributor is trying to use a dictionary to record a concept. DCDuring TALK 11:30, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

[edit] September 2011

[edit] headshot

[edit] trance

For Polish section. Maro 21:32, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

And possibly many other English words given a Polish section by the same anon. SemperBlotto 06:54, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Like drum and bass... - -sche (discuss) 07:00, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Here's a list. Some (even all) of these may be valid; I haven't checked yet: trance, ~~house, techno, dubstep, eurodance, gamepad, joypad, Xbox, iPod, iPhone, iBook, iMac, podcast, podcasting,~~ HP, FIFA, MacBook, ~~Apple, Microsoft, Macintosh,~~ Tottenham, Wimbledon, CAF, CONCACAF, AFC, UEFA, Barcelona; also these Polish words: Gandawa, freestyle'owiec, freestyle'ować, fristajlowiec, fristajlować, podcastować, esemesować. - -sche (discuss) 07:32, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

See also Talk:bitch fight, contributor seems to be basing this on an Internet forum, or several Internet forum. I've explained one of the dangers of this, it would allow users to get their own coinages on here. Another danger might be that a term is used between a few dozen people, but not used outside of them. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I looked for the genitive form of the words + muzyka (to weed out English hits): "trance" is used in forums, but not durably archived ones; "house" is attested (4–5 Google Books hits); "techno" is probably attested; "dubstep" is attested (1 book, several Usenet posts); "eurodance" might be attested (1 book, maybe someone can find two more). - -sche (discuss) 07:59, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Gamepad, joypad, Xbox, iPod, iPhone, iBook, iMac, podcast and podcasting are all also attested, as are Apple, Microsoft and Macintosh. - -sche (discuss) 19:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Headshot is also attested; I just cited it. - -sche (discuss) 19:34, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

headshot is RFV passed. Thanks, -sche! —Ruakh_TALK 18:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
trance is apparently RFV withdrawn by requester. I've added {{rfquote}}. —Ruakh_TALK 18:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] abroad

As noun. It is apparently only used in this sense in the term near abroad, which is one calque of a post-Soviet Russian term, referring to now-independent countries that were formerly part of the Soviet Union. Is it used as a noun in any other collocation? DCDuring TALK 21:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I think it might be possible to find enough hits for this to qualify (as non-standard), for example

"I am a xenophiliac; I love abroad" (The parliamentary debates (Hansard).: House of Lords official report)
"I am not, however, a xeno- phobe: obviously, abroad has some good ideas — arranged marriages, violent revolutions and so on." (New statesman society, Volumes 3-4)

Fugyoo 06:10, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

And apparently King George V is known for saying "~~Aboard?~~ I hate abroad" Fugyoo 06:12, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

What, when the stationmaster said, "All aboard"? The character of Uncle Matthew in Nancy Mitford's Love in a Cold Climate said, "Abroad is unutterably bloody and all foreigners are fiends", which is as much of a noun use of an adverb as "Today is a good day to die". —An gr 06:54, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

"Used abroads" seems to be a category referred to in philately. — Pingku^dimmi 07:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

It could come down to analysis as well; is "go abroad" different to "go home". Do we have an adverb sense of home? Mglovesfun (talk) 08:38, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] abacus harmonicus

It seems to be mention mostly. Many of the mentions seem to suggest it is Latin. Cites in either English or Latin would be nice. DCDuring TALK 23:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] kanganomics

Nothing in Google Books or Groups. Equinox ◑ 19:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] situational awareness

Citations needed or just sum-of-parts? · 21:01, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks very SoP to me. Definition is "The maintenance of alertness regarding one's surroundings while multitasking in an emergency medicine environment". If you drop the "while...in..." clause then it's thoroughly obvious. So I suppose we need citations to show that this only applies to medical multitasking situations! Equinox ◑ 21:04, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

...which it clearly doesn't.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:13, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I never said it only applies to emergency medicine. I am however only interested in adding EMS terminology so I added the EMS definition of SA here. The term is also used to knowledge in the military, criminal justice, self-defense, martial arts, and in survival situations. Basically in any situation where you should expect your circumstances could change into a situation that may be alarming or deteriorating you use SA to keep on track of what is going on and hopefully you know what to do when X happens and when X does happen your fight-or-flight gives in quickly. In any case the emergency medicine definition is correct and supported by "Emergency Care and Transportation of the Sick and Injured, 10th Edition" Make sense? Not opposed to anyone adding in additional definitions but it is not my goal here.Gtroy 00:53, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

The point is, if it's not specific to emergency medicine, and the true definition is just "The maintenance of alertness regarding one's surroundings", then it just means "situational" + "awareness", and isn't an idiom, so doesn't warrant a dictionary entry. (But I'm obviously open to an explanation of why it does warrant a dictionary entry, if you believe that it does.) —Ruakh_TALK 01:07, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't know the proper term to explain it and am not good with the names of the parts of speech, call me crazy but I know wikis help you along and I know that the OED was literally written by crazy people in sanitariums so I believe there is a place for me here. I am 100% certain situational awareness is a word it is not just situation + awareness, I do know that "Be aware of your surroundings" should not be here because it is more of a sentence. I don't think it is an idiom but it is a word. Maybe if I use it in a sentence. "Keep situational awareness in mind on all convoys at all times." "As EMS we know that maintaining situational awareness helps prevent injury and maintain scene safety." Does that make sense now? And it is specific to emergency medicine (EM) it is a topic of study in EM and a term used very often. If we followed old school grammar rules it would be hyphenated or compounded. It is used in military and rescue basically.Gtroy 02:03, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Gtroy, above you just said "I never said it only applies to emergency medicine", and now you're saying "it is specific to emergency medicine". So, which is it? Oh and "As EMS we know that maintaining situational awareness helps prevent injury and maintain scene safety." sure, but that's not a reason to include it in a dictionary. When I'm stripping wallpaper I know that ladder safety is important, so what? Just look up ladder and safety. Move to RFD. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:09, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

This might be stirring already-muddy waters, but my general sense is that I've heard "situational awareness" used as a sort of set phrase in specific contexts. Others deemed it idiomatic enough to include in the online Eijirō JA-EN dictionary, for instance (link). -- Another 2p for the pot, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 17:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not a matter of which one is it. It is a word the covers several areas, but furthermore it has a more specific EMS definition. ladder safety as far as I know is not used as a word but a phrase or part of a sentence. situational and awareness looked up separately do not meet the needs of someone trying to learn what situational awareness is. It is a noun. You either have SA or you don't. It is a word you would find in a glossary in any military manual or SOP and the same goes for fire science, criminal justice and ems. Maybe most people don't use it but it is part of the sociolect for EMS as you very well know.Gtroy 20:08, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You're not providing any evidence to back this up, you're just asserting it. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Wrong, I am citing Emergency Care and Transport of the Sick and Injured (10th edition) by the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons, you can do your own research. You may also check the UCMJ and wikipedia or do a simple google search. This proves I am not making anything up. This term is specialized paramilitary and emergency medicine terminology, and you cannot disprove that.Gtroy 23:41, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

But in each occupation or field of endeavor or "context" it is, from a dictionary PoV, just different aspects of a situation that one is supposed to be aware of. That a specialized occupational/field-of-endeavor glossary defines the term in a glossary does not indicate to me that the term is necessarily dictionary-worthy.

On the other hand, you might want to compare your term with some of the multi-word entries in Category:en:Linguistics (eg, conceptual metaphor) to see whether the arguments against inclusion of situational awareness are applied consistently in all occupations/fields of endeavor. DCDuring TALK 00:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

This word is a noun it is a specific idea, situation+awareness does not work. You can not be situation and aware, but you can have situational awareness.Gtroy 18:32, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

What?! By that token we should have an entry for slightly sleepy, because you can't be "slightly" on its own. Equinox ◑ 18:35, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Gtroy seems to be so sure that situation awareness doesn't work, he/she's created an entry for it. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

So does the army teach people about being "slightly sleepy"? What about EMS?Gtroy 20:38, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I propose that we have the general definition here (or just delete both entries as SoP), then add specialist usages, where much more is read into a phrase than it actually means, to an appropriate appendix. We shouldn't confuse the meaning of a word or expression with the ideas that are associated with that word or expression in specific circumstances. Dbfirs 16:25, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

That's fine, but I think the one and only definition should end with especially in military and emergency situations.Gtroy 05:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that is it widely used in those disciplines, but far from exclusively. As far as I can see, the term just means awareness of the situation, and various disciplines interpret the meaning in different ways. This doesn't imply that the words actually mean something different in each discipline, just that the things one should be aware of differ according to the situation. Dbfirs 10:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] beater

Rfv-sense copycat. I can't see it in any other online dictionary, and I have never come across it. SemperBlotto 21:27, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I hear it very often used to express frustration over someone who plagiarized their idea or imitated their style. It is slang and I don't know if it has been used in printed works.Gtroy 21:45, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I can't think of a way to search for this that would avoid the other meanings of beater. Maybe something like "you're such a beater", would that work? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:21, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure, maybe "He is such a beater"?Gtroy 20:36, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't understand this sense if I saw or heard it. Could you cite any actual usage that makes clear the extra sense as a synonym of plagiarist? Dbfirs 10:16, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] stone#Adjective

The definition is "Complete, absolute, of the highest degree" but I think that's only an adverb. You might say "stone free" but "free" is an adjective, and you wouldn't say "stone freedom" or "stone happiness". "Stone deafness" maybe... Fugyoo 17:14, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

I think stone deafness is meant to imply deafness comparable to that of a stone. However, there are numerous instances of the term being used in combination with "fox":
- 2002, Jocko Weyland, The Answer Is Never: A Skateboarder's History of the World, p. 71:
  
  Ellen Berryman is a stone fox and I wouldn't mind meeting her.
- 2004, Lisa Scottoline, Everywhere That Mary Went, p. 43:
  
  Even the ugly headset doesn't mar her good looks. Lustrous red hair, a perfect nose, the sexiest pout in legal history. Brent is right. Delia is a stone fox.
- 2008, Lorna Landvik, The View from Mount Joy, p. 3:
  
  Standing at the urinal, I read the first graffiti to mar the freshly scrubbed wall or the school bathroom: Viet Nam sucks and Kristi Casey is a stone fox.
I don't know of any collocations other than "fox" with which this term is used in this way. bd2412 T 22:20, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something (not too unlikely) stone fox looks like an idiom to me, rather than a sense of stone. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Some other collocations of stone that need to be encompassed by our definitions include stone cold (adjective and adverb, stone cold sober, stone cold dead), stone sober, stone drunk, stone blind, stone crazy, stone dead, stone silent. Clearly, it is sometimes an intensifying degree adverb, probably emerging from similes like silent/dead/blind/cold/sober as a stone, each of which were worded in a way common in English: "N Adj", meaning "Adj like a(n) N" or "as Adj as a(n) N". "Ice cold", "fire engine red", "snow white", "rock solid" are among the more common examples, but I don't think that most of such constructions are truly idiomatic. In any event the construction is highly productive. IMHO, it is only in those cases for which the simile interpretation seems unsustainable that one could say that "stone" has become an adverb. DCDuring TALK 15:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] harlista

Protologism? Should it be capitalised? SemperBlotto 20:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this would pass... in Spanish! To confuse matters further, on Usenet there's a user whose username is Harlista. Overall I reckon there are three uses in running English text, but fishing them out might be quite hard. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Here are some citations for Harlista:

Production of the Alfredo de Villa film Harlistas: An American Journey was completed in 2011 and it debuted on the Latin cable television channel Mun2 in May, 2011. Link: http://www.harlistasfilm.com/

The debut of Harlistas: An American Journey was listed in the New York Times on May 27, 2011 Link: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940CEFDA143CF934A15756C0A9679D8B63&scp=1&sq=harlista&st=cse

The story of the Cuban Harlista community is the subject of the 2010 documentary film Cuban Harlistas by Italian director Guido Giansoldati Link: http://www.cubanharlistas.com/main/?PHPSESSID=mqlpjj2gapitt1t9q4bb4ck39t8jfq6a

The term Harlista is used by Harley-Davidson on the Latin section of its website: http://www.harley-davidson.com/en_US/Content/Pages/harlistas/harlista.html?locale=en_US&bmLocale=en_US

The January 2011 issue of Cycle World magazine (page 52) has a feature article titled "Harlista Buena Social Club" that details the efforts of Cuban Harley-Davidson owners to maintain their motorcycles during the trade embargo with the United States.

The question was raised as to whether the word chould be capitalized or not...since the word is based on the name Harley (short for Harley-Davidson), I think the cap is appropriate.

[edit] TACOS

Needs citations. — [Ric Laurent] — 11:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Emergency care and transportation of the sick and injured, 10th edition. p 457 "TACOS can help the EMT understand the underlying conditions a patient may have that could be complicating the chief complaint."Gtroy 19:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok, what are you putting it here for? Anyway, there should be three. — [Ric Laurent] — 20:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

That citation sounds good. --Mglovesfun (talk) 23:32, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

directed at Mglove: Mglove, is there a requirement for three citations or a desirability for them, Mglove? =)Gtroy 04:38, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, as per WT:CFI, you need three citations to keep a word.--Prosfilaes 07:03, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] sex-text

Has one citation, needs more — [Ric Laurent] — 11:06, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Do citations for "sex text" also count for "sex-text"? How about this one for example: US PROSECUTOR 'SEX TEXTED' VICTIM [11] Fugyoo 11:49, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

IMO yes, it would be silly to differentiate between the two. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems most people usually say so on here and so do it, its the most minor of semantical dilemmas.Gtroy 19:43, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd be pretty surprised if this weren't attested. As it stands, if we combined the verb senses with the {{ambitransitive}} tag, there would be three citations. --Mglovesfun (talk) 23:37, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

You lost me there.Gtroy 04:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

OK I've combined the verb types and added another quote. The noun sense still needs some, I guess. Fugyoo 09:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] ferno

I can only see Ferno (capitalised) in Google books. And that seems to be a trademark. SemperBlotto 09:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Has been deleted. - -sche (discuss) 05:25, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] stryker

I can only see Stryker (capitalised) in Google books. And that seems to be a trademark. SemperBlotto 09:20, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I've cited "stryker frame", in lowercase. - -sche (discuss) 05:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] corradiate

RfV-sense for "To converge at a point; to focus."; the OED [2ⁿᵈ ed., 1989] has "To radiate together; to unite their rays.". — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 09:32, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Are these so different that we can't just reword it slightly? Since it's in the OED, I'm assuming you're not refuting its overall existence. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:42, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

No, I only request that the different sense that we have be verified. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 21:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

... Perhaps: to diverge from a point? Dbfirs 09:48, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

It could do with such a second definition. Coleridge seems to use it to mean "to shine together". SemperBlotto 09:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I've just read the Coleridge and Neale citations, but I'm having trouble interpreting exactly what either of them meant. I agree that there does seem to be a sense of togetherness. I've added a general sense, but is it too vague? Dbfirs 09:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Can anybody understand Coleridge these days? Anyway, I shall try to provide some citations and also attempt to improve the definition(s). SemperBlotto 10:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] LOC Computing sense.

Rfv-sense for the computing entry. Def given is - (computing) A unit of data equal to 20 TB, the approximate equivalent of the contents of the US Library Of Congress. It's listed as an initialism, but no explanation of what the letters mean.--Dmol 10:30, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

TB almost certainly = terabyte. As for LOC, it probably stands for Library Of Congress. This unit of data volume is very probably restricted in its use to humorous contexts, if it is used at all. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 21:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Is 20 TB an established value for this? I think it was an LOC blog post that pointed out that that number isn't even wrong, since the LOC stores mostly analog data. Just counting the roughly 7 million books, 20 TB gives you 3 MB a book, which is on the high side for just text but very low for including images, like for an HTML version. Archive.org has scans of many books, and a seventh a GB is on the small side for raw scans, which would make the LOC have at least 1,000 TB, books alone.

Okay, that was a little off-topic. But "LOC of data" turns up nothing in Google Books and one quasi-relevant hit in Google Groups, which isn't on Usenet. If cited, I'd like to see in the cites some evidence that it means specifically 20 TB; the Slashdot.org discussion hit used it that way (though one responder objected), but the forums.bitcoin.org use didn't.--Prosfilaes 22:59, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the term LOC, as a unit of data capacity, was coined by Michael Dertouzos (MIT). The definition is given in Cosmic rays: essays in science and technology from the Royal Institution: "The Library of Congress is the largest library in the world and he estimated that all the textual data it contains to be about 100 terabytes, which corresponds to about 200 million books. This is 1 LOC and it is about the same as the storage needed for all the 100 billion personal photographs probably taken world-wide last year. It would probably take about 10 000 LOCs to store everything ever written, printed, composed, and performed in all the cultures on earth (...)"

As for the exact value of one LOC, despite Michael Dertouzos defines it as 100 TB, there doesn't seem to be a consensus in popular culture. w:Library of Congress#Using the Library says 10 TB (no source though), some on Slashdot say 10 TB or 20 TB, David G. Luenberger in Information science says 20 TB, etc. Personnaly, I would stick to the original definition of 100 TB.

IMO, this sense of LOC should also be tagged as {{dated}} because it was mostly of use 15 years ago when terabyte was an uncommon unit and did not express anything to the layman (so is petabyte today). At that time, the standard hard disk capacity used to top at a couple of gigabytes. Today, the TB has become a common unit and the LOC is almost only used humorously on Slashdot — Xavier, 11:24, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] სომეხი

Rfv-sense for "plagiarist". I'll let this hang here for a month and then delete. --Vahag 00:27, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Rfv-failed. --Vahag 12:38, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Clinton bond

There are a few uses on Google Books and Groups, though capitalised and not with this meaning. - -sche (discuss) 00:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Caps were obviously wrong so I've taken the liberty of changing them. Equinox ◑ 20:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

The entry needs major cleanup and wikification as well. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 01:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] fundament

I'm rfving the sense "anus". Talk:fundament has another user questioning this sense. User:SemperBlotto responded by quoting the OED, but I'd like to see some citations. If it can be cited, is this really an integral part of the "The part of the body upon which one sits" sense, or do context and usage provide a clear distinction?--Prosfilaes 11:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Google books "up the fundament". Fugyoo 11:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
OK cited I think. I'm not sure whether the sense of "anus" or "buttocks" is more fundamental (as it were) but if there are separate senses at ass there should probably be separate senses here. Fugyoo 17:44, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
This should be merged with the ‘buttocks’ sense; they're not really distinct. Ƿidsiþ 06:50, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Keep separate senses, per Fugyoo, and for the same reason butt distinguishes between buttocks and "the whole buttocks and pelvic region that includes one's private parts". Citations speak for themselves and I hardly see buttocks instead of fundament in those sentences (I'm not a native English speaker, though). If you finally chose to merge the senses, at least cite the different meanings: buttocks and anus. — Xavier, 15:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
I think it should be kept separate. For one, looking at the citations, up the fundament is primarily archaic; searching on post 1950 for "up the fundament" got me primarily a bunch of reprints of older books. (Searching for just kick fundmament got a few reprints itself, but more from the 1930s instead of 1730s.) I did add a 2008 erotica citation.--Prosfilaes 00:17, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] galericulate

Wearing a hat... or something... It does seem to be in Johnson's dictionary, but has anyone used it elsewhere? Equinox ◑ 20:09, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I do hope our dear Mr. Johnson would find himself anispeptic, frasmotic, and even compunctuous to have caused such pericombobulation. Now where did I put that plate of sausages... ;) -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 07:20, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
: After relinquishing to fatigate our collective intelligence, I did some more serious poking about and found that this is apparently a typo -- the proper spelling should be galericulate, deriving from Latin galericulum, diminutive of galerum (“a cap or helmet”). C.f. google:"garlericulate"+-wiki vs. google:"galericulate"+-wiki. Assuming the common pattern of English "-ate" words deriving from Latin past participles, the closest gloss would probably be "capped" rather than the rather odder phrase, "Covered, as with a hat." -- HTH, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 18:21, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

The IP user that added the term did not apparently actually track down Johnson's spelling. The reference to Johnson on the page just links through to the EN WP article about Johnson's dictionary. This link is to a scan of the page showing that the entry in Johnson was indeed spelled galericulate, without that first "r". I'm moving the page shortly to fix this. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 06:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

All Google Books hits seem to be of dictionaries. But there are so many of them that I think this should be kept as a "dictionary only" -term. --Hekaheka 22:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] equivalate

There are four senses shown. The meanings seem to be partially redundant. There are no citations and no OneLook dictionary besides us and UD has the word. UD has but one sense. We need citations. DCDuring TALK 23:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Given the definitions found from a quick Google search, I'm baffled as to what was wrong with the perfectly serviceable word equate that would prompt someone to come up with a term as tortured as equivalate... -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 00:10, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Who knows? But the adjectives equal and equivalent can be distinguished, so it is not much of a stretch to think equate and equivalate could be distinguished. DCDuring TALK 03:29, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree; if no other difference is intended, equivalate is probably intended to carry the connotations of equivalent. (Also, IFYPFY.) I doubt some of the senses, though. - -sche (discuss) 19:18, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] kamehameha

Rfv-sense - If the Dragon Ball sense is limited to the Dragon Ball franchise, wouldn't that fail CFI?

And as a side note, shouldn't the Hawaiian king's name be moved to init-capped Kamehameha? -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:11, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Moved the king's name to Kamehameha.

For the remaining sense, google books:かめはめ波 only finds two hits that are not clearly Dragon Ball contexts, [12] and [13]. Both are actually the same text, so this really only counts as one possible cite for the かめはめ波 entry in addition to the many found in Dragon Ball contexts, giving us only two. If no one can find more, both かめはめ波 and kamehameha should go. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] nakakapagpabagabag

I can only find one durably archived cite for this. -- Liliana • 17:21, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] shilly-shally

Rfv-sense: To procrastinate.

There may be overlap with the other senses, but this does not capture the term IMO. But perhaps someone can find cites than unambiguously support this in contrast to vacillate and dawdle. DCDuring TALK 17:56, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] pumping lemma

This needs citations so the definition can be confirmed or improved. DCDuring TALK 18:00, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I had a class about this a while ago, so it definitely exists. :) —CodeCa t 00:54, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I propose the nomination is withdrawn: the term's existence is easily attestable in Google books. The definition needs some work, but appears at least in part correct. --Dan Polansky 14:22, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I propose that the definition (which is available at WP) be withdrawn and replaced by {{rfdef}} so that a descriptive definition supported by citations is added. Or else we could abandon the strictures we have in practice on prescriptive definitions. The opportunities this would afford for contributors to provide helpful advice on how to use words would be endless. DCDuring TALK 19:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Cited. Equinox ◑ 19:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I wish I could infer the meaning from the citations. DCDuring TALK 19:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

You've looked at Pumping lemma, right? I'm not sure that this is something we can easily convey in a general-purpose dictionary because it requires some basic knowledge of formal languages. The same goes for various esoteric mathematical concepts that are best defined in terms of symbols and equations (we have some entries whose definitions contain more of those than of English text). Equinox ◑ 20:00, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

It is often difficult or impossible to extract a definition of a mathematical term from mere uses of the term that do not define the term. The quotations of use make the definition plausible at best. Non-mathematical words seem to be in a similar position, though: the quotations provided for them often make the definitions plausible rather than providing information sufficient for a full confirmation of the definitions. Mathematical definitions are not so much prescriptive as stipulative: a mathematical article typically first defines a term specific to it and then uses it as defined; the uses do not make definition extraction possible, as they rely on the definition provided before. Such an article does not tell people how they should use the term; instead, it declares how the authors intend to use the term in the article. When a term is used consistently by several authors, it is dictionary-worthy, I think, and the attestation of the term consists in providing three uses from articles or books such that the article or the book also defines the term, albeit in a different sentence. --Dan Polansky 07:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

If terms are stipulative in their most common and serious use, what value do we add? Otherwise, you have summarized why such entries might not really fit in a reference that purports to be descriptive. Perhaps we can work from multiple authors' definitions and preserve a figleaf of descriptiveness. In any other use, how can anyone be sure what is meant? Is it one particular definition, some kind of transferred meaning, usage as an example or metaphor? The normal methods of inferring meaning from usage seem particularly hard to apply. I would argue that such "stipulative" definitions simply do not belong in Wiktionary. DCDuring TALK 11:42, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

The added value of having mathematical definitions in Wiktionary: It is true that the definitions of mathematical terms are already available in many articles that use the terms. Nonetheless, it is nice to have one repository of all the definitions. Furthermore, some articles leave some specialist terms undefined (such as "set union" or "partial order"), assuming they are part of the background knowledge of the readers of the article.

Descriptive vs prescriptive: A stipulated term is actually used with its stipulated meaning in the sentences that do not define the term. By defining the stipulated term in align with the definitions provided in the articles that both define and use the term, Wiktionary provides a definition that fits the way the term is actually used. Thus, Wiktionary does not tell how the term should be used. By paying attention to the actual use rather than the use that someone would like to see, Wiktionary is descriptivist rather than prescriptivist. Put differently, even if the definition of a term is not extracted from quotations of use but rather from definitions of the term, it can still be a definition that matches the actual use of the term. --Dan Polansky 08:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] zettalitre

[edit] zettaliter

Likely not attestable, if so replace with {{only in|{{in appendix|SI units}}}}. -- Liliana • 03:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe we agreed that would be the default position for these SI units. All of them should redirect to the appendix unless attestation is provided. bd2412 T 03:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
- If unattested, yes. Let's give it a chance. --Mglovesfun (talk) 08:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
  - I think we can afford to be tighter with these terms because we have the appendix. Someone looking up almost any SI prefix/unit combination will be taken to the appendix, which explains what all the prefix names and unit names mean, so the definition they seek will be provided. Therefore, we lose no information by requiring CFI-worthy attestation before allowing the existence of the individual entry. bd2412 T 17:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I found no usable hits for zettalitre and only one for zettaliter. - -sche (discuss) 09:04, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] cs

English initialism sense. SemperBlotto 16:50, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] gongus

Supposedly Latin for gong. Not in my dictionary. Not in Latin wikipedia, wiktionary or wikisource. SemperBlotto 19:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it's New Latin, perhaps very neologistic, but it might be attestable. But don't ask me where. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:53, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Broken English

Judging from b.g.c, this doesn't seem to be restricted to Torres Strait Creole; it can be found in Caribbean and certain certain other contexts as well. Cites would be needed to figure out what the actual definition is, though. -- Liliana • 21:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Or, maybe, it is just broken + English capitalized, which refers to broken English just about anywhere. If that's the case, this should be deleted. --Hekaheka 03:01, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, delete unless it's a specific proper noun for some dialect or pidgin. Equinox ◑ 19:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Piet

Rfv-sense: (programming languages) an esoteric programming language whose programs are bitmaps that look like abstract art. Needs independent cites, I think. -- Liliana • 21:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Unsupported titles/Double period

Rfv-sense: (Internet) punctuation to end a sentence or phrase, similar to ., except that it often connotates an unfinished or incomplete thought, something that someone wants to say but can't, or a gloomy or resigned feeling. -- Liliana • 22:00, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

It is an illiterate version of "...". I suppose it exists. I am not inclined to try to attest it. I can't believe it has the subtle connotations given above. Equinox ◑ 18:58, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] hotter than a fresh fucked fox in a forest fire

Google books hits indicate that the expression is about as likely to be said with "as hot as" as it is with "hotter than". bd2412 T 00:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] mediablast

Equinox ◑ 04:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] packup

"To pack up; to prepare to leave." Inflections packuped and packuping seem very improbable and do not appear to meet CFI. Equinox ◑ 04:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a missing space to me, and that's the assumption I'd make if I saw this "word" in print, but I'll be interested to see if there are any genuine cites. I haven't fully caught up with the modern fashion of concatenating small words, in fact I still spell "to-day" with a hyphen as I was taught! Dbfirs 12:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Enough Google Books hits to cite it as a noun... everything that looks like a verb seems to be a scanno. Fugyoo 00:06, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Can't be a verb as its inflected forms would make no sense. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 23:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] motted

Not in any dictionary. Doesn't look much like a noun. Any takers?

841 raw google hits for "motted skin" but I think the pertinent question is "Did you mean "mottled skin?" Fugyoo 23:55, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Another gtroy (talk • contribs) entry. If this is valid, then it's very very regional. Maybe Gtroy would care to tag it as such? Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 23:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

There are many pages on the Internet where mottled and motted coexist (eg. "Ice blue motted background with brown mottled dots", or "For sale - Mottled Japanese bantam hatching eggs (...) Here for Auction is 6 Pure Black Motted Japanese bantam"). Seems like a typo to me, but a rather current one and it may deserve a {{misspelling of}}. As for the "emergency medicine" tag, I'm rather doubtful. — Xavier, 00:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Added a bunch of citations

Yes there are 3 non-scanno citations now for the "mottled" sense so {{misspelling of}} seems best to me. Fugyoo 06:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Let's just assume that all usages are scannos and typos except for W H Auden's usage in 1947 where he deliberately made up the word "motted" to mean "having a motte". Since no-one else picked up his new coinage, it doesn't deserve an entry does it? We could add a note to the mis-spelling entry. Dbfirs 21:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

made some big changesAcdcrocks 01:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for identifying the scanno, but, in view of the obvious scanno (8kin) in one of your chosen cites, what makes you think that "mottled" was not intended in all of them? Dbfirs 08:22, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Any objection if we follow Fugyoo's advice and make it {{misspelling of}}? Dbfirs 22:09, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

In the absence of any cites that make sense, may I go ahead and treat this as a Common misspelling of mottled.? Dbfirs 23:16, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] dunker

Internet slang verb: to take vengeance for a wrong. Equinox ◑ 13:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

It's the only contribution of 208.11.8.3 (talk • contribs). Mglovesfun (talk) 18:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Isn't a dunker a chicken nugget or a bbq wing, anything than can be dipped in a dipping sauce?71.142.74.66 04:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Zoloft

From RfD, needs citations meeting WT:BRAND criteria. -- Liliana • 20:35, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

This example shows that WT:BRAND is inadequate for Wiktionary's complete coverage of syntactic objects (terms) that have a meaning, pronunciation, and etymology. "Zoloft" is used more commonly to refer to the drug by its users than "sertraline". Furthermore, "Zoloft" gets pronounced in a way that I can only guess at as a non-native speaker. In RFD, I would vote keep. In RFV, I ask that the nomination is withdrawn. In BP, I would ask that WT:BRAND gets scratched and claim that the alleged risk of commerical spam relating to brand names is absent, and that each brand name can be defined in very neutral terms, as, for "Zoloft", "the anti-depression medicine sertraline", which does not say anything about how great, efficacious, or side-effect free or helpful the drug is. --Dan Polansky 07:44, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I would imagine this trademark is easily widespread enough to meet WT:BRAND. Equinox ◑ 11:17, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] foreign-debt

Moved from RfD -- Liliana • 20:38, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Most results at google books:"foreign-debt crisis" are actually for foreign debt crisis, but sufficiently many are for foreign-debt crisis, including [14], [15], [16], and [17].—msh210℠ (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] kol çekmek

Mg put up a tag for verifying the definition. The original creator of the entry just posted what looks like a citation or ref to dictionary in the discussion section. Can another Turkish speaker confirm its validity? Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 23:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The Turkish Wiktionary says it can mean either to sign (a document) or to insult someone using the arm and hand. —Stephen ^(Talk) 13:37, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] shitly

rfv entry. Note the usage notes: Shitly is almost never used. I giggled when I saw that. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 01:51, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I've found two in Google Books:

Sadly and shitly [sic] as it sounds, Lieutenant Perkins was killed more by accident than anything else.

Told how many he had killed, he had commented: 'I must have been shooting shitly.'

Fugyoo 07:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not promising when you can only find two and one of them needs a [sic]! Equinox ◑ 20:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Another example is this: 1 see no good that comes of standing shitly shatty, and letting the girl nurse herself with hopes of what must not be. - It seems to be something that the author just made up (along with shatty), presumably meaning not standing properly. I have heard of people using shittily, but never shitly. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 20:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Surely that's a scanno for "standing shilly-shally"! Equinox ◑ 20:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah I've checked all the Google Books candidates, also Google News Archives. I've heard it used myself, and I'm fairly sure it could be cited from Usenet by someone who knew how. Fugyoo 21:07, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is indeed a scanno -- have a look at the actual scan here on Google Books, and it's clearly shilly shally, with no mention at all of shitly. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 21:11, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Here is another one that is not a scanno : [18] ("I don't think he visualised a shitly spurt of divine anger"). FWIW, there are many citations on Google Groups. For example, search for "shitly designed", "shitly managed" or "shitly run". — Xavier, 00:22, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Cited, using the the Usenet searches Xavier suggested. - -sche (discuss) 01:33, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

This is moot now since the citations added are all adverbs, but regarding that cite in Google Books, are we sure that's not a typo or printer's error? It's the wrong part of speech, for one -- shitly would seem to be an adverb, but "a shitly spurt" would require an adjective, which would be shitty instead in this context. -- Ta, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:23, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Portuguese: albo

I believe this is a misspelling of alvo, but I'm no expert in Portuguese orthogrphy. Matthias Buchmeier 12:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Mewtwo

Moved from an older RFD discussion (June 2011) per vague consensus. Note it's also a trademark so should potentially have to meet WT:BRAND. Here is an abbreviated summary of some RFD comments (but please see the whole conversation rather than rely on this): "Creature from fictional universe. Like having an entry for Xann, protagonist of 1980s video game Terminus, or Dumbledore, wizard from Harry Potter." (Equinox); "We do have Charizard and Pikachu cited, though." (Daniel Carrero); "Yeah, RFV" (Msh210); "It's common practice, but perhaps erroneously. Something which is not dictionary material can still be attested" (Mglovesfun). Equinox ◑ 20:02, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

FWIW WT:BRAND says "A brand name for a physical product should be included if it has entered the lexicon." A Mewtwo isn't a physical project. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Appendicize the lot of them. This !vote goes for all Pokemon below also. bd2412 T

[edit] Charizard

Trademark; specific character from the Pokémon range of children's toys. Needs to meet WT:BRAND. Equinox ◑ 20:04, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Meowth

Trademark; specific character from the Pokémon range of children's toys. Needs to meet WT:BRAND. Equinox ◑ 20:06, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] red link

Rfv-sense: verb. Unlike the noun, this doesn't really seem to be in use. -- Liliana • 03:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I know I have seen it used, but I doubt it will be possible to provide CFI-worthy citations. bd2412 T 04:10, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Heck, *I've* used it, but only in the past-tense hyphenated form red-linked -- "[term] is red-linked," etc. But, as you say, this is not exactly CFI-worthy. :) -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 06:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Would we be able to find CFI-worthy citations for the noun as well? Assuming that the numerous wikis are sufficient to attest widespread use, the verb red(-)link can be found there, for example : w:Wikipedia:Red_link ("use the “what links here” function to determine how many times the subject has been red-linked"), illogicopedia.org ("Articles That Can't Seem To Stop Red-Linking Celebrities"), Petrucci Music Library ("please refrain from red-linking it"), Wikipedia_talk:Red_link ("You should red link the names for which you want people to write articles"), etc.

BTW, I've added an {{Internet}} context. Perhaps {{Wiktionary and WMF jargon}} would be more appropriate? — Xavier, 23:53, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

bluelink and blue link may also be worth querying. Equinox ◑ 23:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] versionitis

Protologism? Caps? SemperBlotto 06:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Fixed caps and cited. Equinox ◑ 13:28, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

The word 'versionitis' appears 37 times in Google Books. A regular Google search returns about 6,560 results. W4X7R4 04:17, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] T字尺

123abc. -- Liliana • 12:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

There are some Google Book hits which match the term, just I can't read them, so someone else will have to. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

A quick look at Google Images turns up 1,700 hits, a lot of which are pictures of a carpenter's square. (Note: even with SafeSearch set to "strict", one of the top image hits is still NSFW.) The characters are plausible for this meaning too (literally, "T-letter ruler"), and I could tell what it was without knowing much Mandarin just from my Japanese background. I'd be very surprised if this one is not just what it says on the tin. :) -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ugh. 丁字尺 (N.B. 丁 is not T) seems to be the standard term and gets a lot more image hits. The only Google Books hit for T字尺 where you can actually see the text is a scanno for 丁字尺 [19] (note the little hook on the bottom of 丁) so there's no way of knowing if the other Google book hits are scannos or not without getting hold of a physical copy. I think this should be marked as a misspelling or non-standard version at best. Fugyoo 19:35, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Non-standard / misspelling sounds like the way to go. This Baidu entry for 丁字尺 explicitly lists "T形尺" as an alternate name, so it's not far to go to see how someone might use "T字尺" as yet another alternate. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 20:47, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

In Chinese character 丁 (dīng) and Roman letter T are used alternatingly when one needs to express the T-shape. Look at 丁字 entry (T-shaped). 丁 (dīng) is the preferred way and 丁字尺 (dīngzìchǐ) is used 10 times more often than T字尺 (T-zìchǐ), although it is a synonym. Not all shapes based on Roman letters can be rendered using hanzi, though, so it is a good example how words can be formed in Mandarin, so eg. Y字, X字, etc. are all valid (i.e. Y-shaped, X-shaped, etc.). 字 (zì) means "character" or "letter". --Anatoli 23:23, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Anatoli on the alternate use of 丁 and T. Another good example is T字路口/丁字路口 (three-way junction or T-intersection). I grew up with 丁字路口 but I have seen T字路口 used. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 23:36, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Please archive this (I'm not sure how this is done). I think the discussion is over and the tern is verified. --Anatoli 03:25, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this should be closed until there are 3 citations. Fugyoo 08:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Meta

Can this be cited to meet our brand name criteria? -- Liliana • 13:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] non-governmental organization

Rfv-sense: An organization that does not receive any money from government. Tagged but not listed. -- Liliana • 19:59, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Observation: these are referred to as NGOs and the word quango comes from it. Equinox ◑ 23:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

delete sense, as receiving some support money from a government does not necessarily make an NGO a non-NGO. In fact, many NGO's do valuable work e.g. in charity while receiving considerable funding from governments. It's more important whether the government influences the policies and decision-making of the organization. At least this is what Wikipedia says. Keep the translations in trreq-table, as at least most of them are also applicable for the second definition. --Hekaheka 05:21, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Do some users consider "quango" to be not a hyponym of this term, but a coordinate? DCDuring TALK 12:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this is likely just a mistake. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] American Muslim Mission

Does this meet company name criteria? -- Liliana • 23:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Weirdly, WT:CFI says (with my very literal interpretation of it) that company names need another meaning to be included. So this needs another meaning. Hmm. That won't happen. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:31, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

What is so weird about this implementation of the slogan that WP is not an encyclopedia? DCDuring TALK 12:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, I mean Ford will pass as it's also a surname. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:20, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Is this a company name? Our definition doesn't say so. —Ruakh_TALK 04:17, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Academy Award

Uncited. See WT:BRAND and #Academy Awards above. DCDuring TALK

Citations:Academy Award. Cheers! bd2412 T 16:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
- Is this sufficient? bd2412 T 22:31, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Academy Awards

I would like to see some citations that illustrate how this meets WT:BRAND. DCDuring TALK 20:00, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems ok for me. Search for "two academy awards" for example either on Gbooks or on Gnews: no ™ or ® postfixed and most sources are not affiliated with the registrant. — Xavier, 00:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see any citations in the entry or on the citations page. DCDuring TALK 00:49, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this just the plural of Academy Award, which is well cited? bd2412 T 01:41, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any citations in [[Academy Award]] either. Having citations that meet WT:BRAND would enable us to see what its transferred meaning is. If one is only interested in its referent, we do have a sister encyclopedia for that. DCDuring TALK 11:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, here's one:

2009, Christina Wilsdon, Animal Defenses, p. 35:

Going limp and lying still works well for many animals, but a few species deserve Academy Awards for their death-feigning skills.

Cheers! bd2412 T 01:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

That's one. DCDuring TALK 11:52, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

1992, Vanity Fair, Volume 55, p. 74:

Then, all of a sudden, out of the blue, he wins a bunch of Academy Awards and becomes America's sweetheart, and he's making tons of money, and George Bush is calling him every day to play golf.
1997, Terry McMillan, How Stella Got Her Groove Back, p. 225:

They still make each other smile and they each brag about how smart and talented and wise and tender the other one is and how lucky each is to have met the other and they actually look happy and if it's a front then I say both of them deserve Academy Awards for their splendid performances.

Two more. bd2412 T 22:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Amtrak

From RfD. Needs to meet company name criteria. -- Liliana • 20:34, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

"Amtrak" is attestable and this is RFV: I propose this nomination is withdrawn. Try RFD for "company name criteria", which is an unvoted-on and contested piece of CFI. --Dan Polansky 20:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Obviously verifiable as a word, and "all words in all languages" takes precedence over anything else. SemperBlotto 07:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Not so. It's a proper name. Not a word in a language.

With your reasoning, we'd have to include any utterance that's been recorded three times, wouldn't we? —Michael Z. 2011-12-14 18:00 z

[edit] Citibank

From RfD, needs to meet company name criteria. -- Liliana • 20:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

"Citibank" is attestable and this is RFV: I propose this nomination is withdrawn. Try RFD for "company name criteria", which is an unvoted-on and contested piece of CFI. --Dan Polansky 20:51, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Obviously verifiable as a word, and "all words in all languages" takes precedence over anything else. SemperBlotto 07:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Largest bank in the wordMindingmybusiness 18:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

RE "all words in all languages", what language do company names belong to? Serious question. Do they all belong under the ==Translingual== heading? So far as I can tell, en:Sony is es:Sony is ja:Sony is fr:Sony is de:Sony is zh:Sony ... ad infinitum (or at least nauseum). -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 19:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Tough one, line of one CFI says "all words in all languages" but then the rest of the document explains which words to include and not include. The section on company names which hasn't been voted on as it predates voting on WT:CFI issues (unless someone can show me otherwise) directly contradicts "all words in all languages" by saying "Being a company name does not guarantee inclusion. 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." So CFi simultaneously supports keeping and deletion. And people wonder why I say I hate the document! Mglovesfun (talk) 22:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Dropping "WT:CFI#Company names" fixes the issue with CFI. --Dan Polansky 19:10, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

That is only your opinion: please stop stating it as fact. Some of us think that the editors of every major "real" dictionary (in print, by scholars) have got a reason not to include them, and it may not just be lack of space. Equinox ◑ 19:16, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

MG says that "CFi simultaneously supports keeping and deletion"; I have said that the issue [mentioned by MG] gets fixed by dropping "WT:CFI#Company names", which is a fact--a true statement. Put differently, MG has pointed to a contradiction in CFI (a contradiction that is there as long as "Citibank" is a word), and I have stated how that contradiction can be removed. --Dan Polansky 19:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Some editors (SemperBlotto, Mglovesfun, yourself) apparently think that company names are "words". I, however, do not, and so do not see a "contradiction" here that needs to be "fixe[d]" or "removed". —Ruakh_TALK 21:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's test the theory that we should drop the CFI for companies. Here are six companies formed in 2008, each of which meets the CFI for "words" in terms of having been used in print three times over the span of a year since their "coinage" (citations for most are available on their respective Wikipedia pages): tenKsolar, Stemgent, Curotek, enStratus, Gamerizon, Tapulous. Are these "words" that should be defined in our dictionary? bd2412 T 16:50, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

For one thing, to drop CFI for companies in its current wording is not to include any and all single-word company names. If you drop CFI for companies, names of companies get regulated by the section for names of specific entities, which correctly states there is no consensus on inclusion criteria for these. Current section for company names is not based on consensus, and yet is in CFI, a poor state of affairs.

For another thing, if we decide to include all attestable single-word company names, then the listed company names get included, assuming that you are correct in that they are attestable. If someone thinks these are too ephemeral, we may tighten the attestation requirements for company names in such a way that a span of not three but ten or twenty years is required. Nonetheless, I see no problem with including "Gamerizon" as long as it is attestable. Furthermore, I do not see what makes you say that "Gamerizon" is attestable per WT:ATTEST: google books:"Gamerizon" and google groups:"Gamerizon"; from what I can see, "Gamerizon" fails to meet WT:ATTEST; I do not know what durably archived sources could be used for attestation. --Dan Polansky 17:11, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] OBE

Rfv-sense: 3-(3-hydroxy-benzoyloxy)-8-methyl-8-aza- bicyclo(3.2.1)octane-2-carboxylic acid. I am not a chemist by any means, but this looks suspect to me as I can't find it on Wikipedia or on Google anywhere. -- Liliana • 00:28, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

According to the NCBI, all these terms are synonyms:

OBE
meta-oxybenzoylecgonine (i guess this is where OBE comes from)
3-(3-hydroxy-benzoyloxy)-8-methyl-8-aza-bicyclo[3.2.1]octane-2-carboxylic acid
(1S,3S,4R,5R)-3-(3-hydroxybenzoyl)oxy-8-methyl-8-azoniabicyclo[3.2.1]octane-4-carboxylate

Plus others. Something close to w:benzoylecgonine which has something to do with cocaine. — Xavier, 06:53, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] snoodge

"(informal) A small amount or distance. Move that camera over just a snoodge." Not seeing it in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 13:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Closest I can think of it smidge. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] hitjob

"A personal attack." Not much in Google Books and what there is might be referring to a "hit" or paid assassination. Equinox ◑ 23:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Try Google news archives, there are "hit jobs" and "hitjobs" which refer to newspaper articles, films etc designed to attack political figures. Fugyoo 23:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

[edit] October 2011

[edit] prosopopesis

Any takers? (Wikipedia article did not exist) SemperBlotto 07:28, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Appears to be very rare indeed, but it is now cited. It appears that this word never gained wide acceptance even among parapsychologists. Ordinary folks would probably call the phenomenon "personality change". --Hekaheka 09:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] sectionary

Word exists, but I'm pretty sure that the definition is wrong. (from Gtroy sockpuppet) SemperBlotto 07:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I wonder where G Troy gets his ideas from. The word relates to section in the sense of "a separable portion of any collection or aggregate of persons" (e.g. in a party or country). Dbfirs 21:47, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] pelvic lines

It means something, but I'm not sure it means "The visible indentations made by the ilium marking the threshold between the navel and the thighs on fit people." - -sche (discuss) 08:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

More rubbish from Gtroy sockpuppet - I would delete it. SemperBlotto 08:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
- Nah, maybe we can figure out what it (really) means. - -sche (discuss) 08:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete. I assume he means the "illiac furrows", colloquially known as Apollo's belt. I've never heard "pelvic lines" used for these as a formal term, although it does make an adequate informal description. --EncycloPetey 18:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] 𐌾𐌿𐍄

If this term is "not attested", why do we have it? -- Liliana • 18:33, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Almost every grammar of Gothic lists the form, so even if it's not attested in Gothic corpus as such it's still mentioned a lot. And if we don't have it, what should its inflected forms have as their definitions? 'Accusative of...'? —CodeCa t 18:40, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

If it's unattested, let's deal with it the way we would any unattested form, in an appendix. This one wouldn't be too tough to handle. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:49, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

@CodeCat: Comment. Personal pronouns are so irregular and oddly-behaved in so many languages that it often doesn't make sense to treat any of them as "inflected forms". With nouns and verbs, we postulate an abstract lexeme and choose a lemma form (e.g., there exists an English noun whose singular is human and whose plural is humans, and we choose human as the lemma form), but with pronouns I'm not sure how useful that is. You are apparently postulating an abstract "second-person dual pronoun" lexeme and choosing its unattested nominative as the lemma; but one could just as well postulate, say, an abstract "second-person pronoun" lexeme and choose its singular nominative as the lemma. I don't know Gothic, but it seems like it makes just as much sense to just treat each pronoun as a separate word; 𐌹𐌲𐌵𐌰𐍂 (igqar), for example, could be something like "{{non-gloss definition|The second-person dual genitive pronoun}}: of you two." (And that's already more or less how it is currently defined.) —Ruakh_TALK 15:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

It's a bit dangerous to use the possessive forms as examples in this case. Possessives in the Germanic languages (as in Latin) are special and don't behave the way other genitives do. They inflect for gender and number based on the noun they modify, like adjectives do. So, the genitive of a personal pronoun is arguably more an independent lemma than the genitive of any other word. —CodeCa t 17:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] cross-wikti request

I'd like to ask your help to check these languages. A user that has been blocked at nl.wikt (adding incorrect stuff) has decided to continue at lb.wikt. He/she is mostly adding translations in a wide variety of languages, apparently using machine translations, copy-pasting from Wikipedia, and guessing... :( Curious 08:24, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

So we know which entries to help check: what username(s)? It might be easier for us to go through their Special:Contributions than to go through that category. Do you have an admin on lb.Wikt who can block the user? I see Briséis, but Briséis seems to have been inactive since 2006. - -sche (discuss) 09:19, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Global sysops can block on lb.wikt, which includes me. Who is that user? -- Liliana • 13:44, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Right now, it is user 81.164.36.115, but his/her IP changes periodically. These are all the same user:

81.164.36.115
81.164.38.34
78.20.201.99
78.20.198.19
94.226.99.140
94.224.7.202
94.226.96.186
94.226.98.252
78.20.201.224
78.20.198.62
78.20.192.159
78.20.197.252
78.20.196.167
78.20.193.63
78.20.192.35
78.20.197.170
78.20.193.203

Just examples, there are probably a lot more IP's that belong to this user. I can't say all his edits are wrong, he has good edits too, but overall his edits contain a lot of errors. He has no idea about the languages he's working on, he's just copy-pasting and using machine translations. Curious 20:35, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Because he's translating these languages into Limburgish, I don't know if any of us could do any better than him at checking his translations (because we could only use the same machines to translate out of Limburgish, to see what he was saying the English/German/etc words meant)... :/ - -sche (discuss) 04:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Time Sharing Option

needs to meet WT:BRAND criteria -- Liliana • 18:25, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Could be deleted, but not per WT:BRAND and its "A brand name for a physical product should be included if it has entered the lexicon", italics mine. --Dan Polansky 07:34, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Under the literal, letter-of-the-law Polansky reading, as it is not a physical product, WT:BRAND does not apply. Just as WT:BRAND should not, under that silly reading, apply to Citibank, Lufthansa, Macy's, Google, etc.

Under a common-sense reading in accord with our pre-Polansky practice WT:BRAND applies. Which reading is to prevail? DCDuring TALK 13:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The assertion that it is part of common sense to read "physical product" in such as way that banking institutions and airlines are companies that provide their customers with physical products seems curious indeed, if not outright disingenuous. You have been repeatedly pushing such a reading of "physical product" that "brand name of physical product" and "brand name" become synonymous. If these expressions should be read as synonymous, you goals can be achieved by editing CFI by replacing "a brand name for a physical product" with "a brand name", which you are free to try to achieve in a vote. I imagine you might even gain consensual support for such a change of CFI, while I am going to be one to oppose this. But your creating a vote is unlikely to happen, as you have created not a single vote and not a single poll. I support a complete removal of WT:BRAND from CFI, if alone for the sake of inclusion of attestable brand names of pharmaceuticals. The implied assertion that there is any pre-Polansky practice in RFV as regards WT:BRANDS is left without proof. From what I recall, various deletionists including yourself have been trying to send all sorts of things they can find as needing to meet WT:BRAND in RFV, but only with moderate success. Editors other than me have repeatedly been looking at the "physical product" part of WT:BRAND in the RFV process. --Dan Polansky 13:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Cited at Citations:Time Sharing Option, without any effort to meet WT:BRAND, which only applies to brand names of physical products. --Dan Polansky 14:12, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

OK. You want literalism? I hereby invoke physics to note that all information products are necessarily embodied in signals that have physical reality. This would seem to include all financial services and information services. Accordingly, WT:BRAND applies to all such brands associated with such products, as it did under pre-Polansky practice. Similar arguments can be made for transportation, electricity, government and religion, some requiring more effort than others and some of which may be rebuttable. DCDuring TALK 14:26, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

You do realize that "physical product" stands in contrast to "information product", do you? You do realize that you are pushing wrong arguments, right? All that you need to do is remove "physical product" from CFI's WT:BRAND; why don't you do that? I do not know exactly what you mean by "literalism" other than a refusal to "interpret" the wording of the rules by editing it before application as you see fit. Your implication that "physical product" is a term synonymous with "product" or even "product or service" or even "entity" seems implausible. --Dan Polansky 14:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

As to the results of your efforts with respect to proper nouns of various stripes, we have ludicrously incomplete coverage of toponyms and brands, on which no user would or could rely. Very few seem to be rushing to do more than insert entries for their home village and similar toponyms. DCDuring TALK 14:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

We have low coverage of all sorts of classes of information, including Slovak entries. No one is proposing to delete Slovak entries because of that. Wiktionary is a largely incomplete project; live with it. --Dan Polansky 14:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Move to RFD. I think Dan Polansky is right that WT:BRAND doesn't say it applies to this term, and I haven't seen so much as a BP discussion about generalizing it to nonphysical products. However, this term is a name of a specific entity, so as I understand it, no policy requires that we keep it or that we delete it. So we can choose to keep this entry unconditionally, or delete it unconditionally, or delete it unless it meets the same requirements as terms that are covered by WT:BRAND. In that last case, of course, we'd move it back here; but the initial decision should be made at WT:RFD. —Ruakh_TALK 15:01, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Previous discussions of BRAND (mostly by the same contributors) Talk:PowerPoint, Talk:vi. - -sche (discuss) 18:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] OP

Rfv-sense: (wiktionary) open proxy -- Liliana • 18:49, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

"op server" has lots of Google hits (rfv removed) —Saltmarsh^{talk-συζήτηση} 08:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

RFV returned; the Web is not durably archived. There could be a valid Google Books hit for "op server", but all I'm seeing is junk. I didn't check Google Groups.--Prosfilaes 09:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] katagelasticism

"The joy of laughing at others." Only in word lists? Equinox ◑ 15:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 05:26, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] horse armor

Rfv-sense: (video games, derogatory) Purchasable downloadable content that provides only cosmetic effect, with no actual enhancement to gameplay or to player stats.

This could prove to be challenging to attest. I've looked through groups, but the results are meager at best. -- Liliana • 11:41, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Full story here. Apparently, this Horse Armor extension has become a running joke. Indeed, people regularly refer to it as a game extension pack that's not worth to buy. But it's far from being a common noun; most often, I find it capitalized (Horse Armor) and/or between quotation marks.

Some examples, though :

destructoid.com: "Skyrim DLC to feel like expansion packs (no horse armor)"
mcvuk.com: “Right now, when you mention downloadable content, someone will mention a horse armour joke, and we need to get around that”
joystiq.com: "What they should have done is put all of those costumes in one pack and sell it for 5 bucks as opposed to each costume costing a dollar because right now, it's just another horse armor: over-priced costumes that really add nothing to the game."
computerandvideogames.com: "This is little more than another horse armor scam."

Without any doubt this term serves as a humorous insinuation but I'm not sure it deserves an entry in a dictionary. — Xavier, 23:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

We have specific rules about what we include; see WT:CFI. One of them is that it needs to be durably archived; printed text or Usenet, as a general rule of thumb. If I found those cites in print or on Usenet, I'd probably list those as valid citations.--Prosfilaes 01:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

The uses in print are specific to that one Oblivion mod. I'm not seeing evidence from Google Groups that it's been lexicalized, but someone might if they really dug.--Prosfilaes 01:59, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] up gazes

[edit] up-gazes

moved from RFD. The base form says "plural not attested", so how come these exist? -- Liliana • 12:57, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Basically, the user who created the entries changed his mind. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] assalamu alaikum

Is this an actual English term? -- Liliana • 17:45, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

How do we decide if it's English or code-switching via citations? Is finding 3 of them enough? Fugyoo 08:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Finding citations is at least a first step. See also Talk:wa alaikum assalam. - -sche (discuss) 02:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] disabuse

RFV for the second, Scottish sense, viz. "mar, spoil, misuse" (used as an intensive of abuse). It's in the NED (1896) and in the OED (1989), but their only citation of that sense is the first edition of John Jamieson's two-volume Supplement to the Etymological Dictionary of the Scottish Language (1825), with the text "Disabuse,..the term is also used Aberd., as signifying to mar, to spoil." — a clear mention, rather than a use. Can we go three better and verify this sense? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] paperflyer

Paperflier failed RFV, and as Equinox says, this one is suspect, too. I see one good Usenet hit for "paperflyer", and one book with a German word "Paperflyer". - -sche (discuss) 04:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] ACME

I imagine a general sense (which we do not have at the moment) meets CFI, but the sense currently in the entry needs to meet BRAND and/or FICTION. - -sche (discuss) 06:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The general sense might also belong at Acme. 109.155.174.230 18:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Pepé Le Pew

Needs to meet BRAND and/or FICTION. - -sche (discuss) 06:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Road Runner

Needs to meet BRAND and/or FICTION. - -sche (discuss) 06:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Tasmanian Devil

[edit] Tasmanian devil

Needs to meet BRAND and/or FICTION. My RFV of "Tasmanian devil" is of the proper noun, not the common noun (the real animal). - -sche (discuss) 06:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Taz

Needs to meet BRAND and/or FICTION. - -sche (discuss) 06:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Tweety

Needs to meet BRAND and/or FICTION. - -sche (discuss) 06:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Wile E. Coyote

Needs to meet BRAND and/or FICTION. - -sche (discuss) 06:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Only WT:FICTION IMO, not a "brand name of a physical product", it's not physical in any way at all. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

WT:BRAND should evidently be changed to cover non-physical products and services. Many everyday brands are not tangible. Equinox ◑ 13:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

It seems so obvious that one would think that this broader coverage must have been what was intended, as it is hard to find a legitimate basis for a lexicographically significant distinction between a service mark and a trademark. In fact, I would naively expect [[WT:BRAND]] to include names that were not registered as either kind of mark, such as dbas, commercial jingles, and, possibly, political counterparts and words and catchphrases used for propaganda.

As to this case, it is almost certain that the character has been used for the sale of merchandise under license, which would seem to make WT:BRAND as now (mis)written literally applicable. DCDuring TALK 14:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Find Wile E. Coyote merchandise here. DCDuring TALK 14:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm sure I could go to Toys R Us and buy Wile E. Coyote, or a Wile E. Coyote. (Arguably, the fictional character and its various images and representations are a single dictionary sense.) The trademark broadly covers the name and image, including physical products, and so the entry should meet all of our relevant criteria.. —Michael Z. 2011-12-14 16:55 z

[edit] Finnair

Under what basis did that pass the 2007 RfV? Certainly not by company name (or brand) criteria, as all the cites seem to fail that. -- Liliana • 13:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about the 1983 cite, but the other two seem to meet WT:BRAND, as it has been and should be applied to services, notwithstanding literalist interpretations. DCDuring TALK 13:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Are the cites really worse than say e.g. those of Mountain Dew, Volvo, Qantas, Air France, Lufthansa, Aeroflot, Alitalia or Ford? I think we should be much tougher with all brand names. I would not mind deleting these all, but it doesn't make much sense to pick the companies one by one for discussion. --Hekaheka 14:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

For the brands associated with products conventionally deemed "services" (all of which literally and necessarily have some physical element), the present issue is the applicability of WT:BRAND. For the most literal-minded, I would be surprised if Finnair did not offer "Finnair" coffee mugs and flight bags for sale. DCDuring TALK 14:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

All words in all languages (it's a word). SemperBlotto 14:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Why do we even have WT:CFI if such a simple slogan eliminates the need for any thought? DCDuring TALK 14:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

"All words in all languages" isn't the only sentence in CFI. As it happens, the other sentences narrow that initial criterion. Liliana asserts that this term does not meet those subsequent criteria. Therefore, someone must prove that the term does meet those criteria. (All of those relevant criteria, not just the broadest, first criterion.) - -sche (discuss) 18:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

My understanding is that CFI is for "terms" - multiple words separated by spaces or punctuation. Is that not the case? SemperBlotto 18:35, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

"Idiomatic phrases" is just one of the main headings on that page. "Terms" was introduced to be a broader term than "word", including both MWEs and simple words, even those spelled solid and without hyphen. As to this entry, there is a section on "Names". For a time, the principal exercise the page received was for MWEs. DCDuring TALK 18:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The fifth (or so, depending on how one counts) sentence on the page is "A term need not be limited to a single word in the usual sense": "term" is defined to include more than just single words, but it certainly still includes single words. - -sche (discuss) 19:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say it would be better is CFI didn't contradict itself in several places. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:43, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we could have a straw poll in the BP, where everyone could vote on each subsection of CFI, "I like this pretty much as-is", "I would change this" (eg if someone would change the criteria for brand names, but still have special criteria for brand names), or "I would remove this" (eg and have no special criteria for brand names). Then, we can put the sections a majority dislikes onto the (vote) chopping block, and vote on changes to the sections a majority wants to change, if there's any consensus on how to change them. Has that been done before? - -sche (discuss) 07:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Couldn't hurt. Might help. Certainly better than votes built on lack of consensus. This may turn out to be close to a w:Constitutional convention (political meeting) in its importance. DCDuring TALK 12:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I think we steadily are reforming CFI, just it's a slow process! Since I've been editing, since 2009, our approach has just been to ignore bits of CFI and sort of 'pick and choose' our favorite bits. Which is really a necessity, since it contradicts itself. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] pestre

pestring and pestred are slightly easier to find, but pestres and pestre are extremely rare. I can not access an Oxford dictionary so I do not know if this truly existed or not. --Pilcrow 18:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

I've added one citation of "pestres" to the one you already found of "pestre". - -sche (discuss) 19:07, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] cam quất

tagged but not listed -- Liliana • 04:24, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] dog's bollocks

Rfv-sense " A colon followed by a dash (:—). " Fugyoo 23:22, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Was added by usually reliable contributor Mzajac (talk • contribs), who is Canadian, and the definition is marked 'British', and I've never heard of it. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:10, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

OED only has 1949 citation of Partridge's dictionary, and calls it “rare.” Apparently Partridge thought the phrase originated in typographer's slang. Can't find any real citations. Sorry. —Michael Z. 2011-12-14 17:43 z

[edit] exagramme

Rare form of rare exagram. British? Any takers? Equinox ◑ 02:13, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

All of the hits on Google books are French. --Pilcrow 02:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Soft redirect all of these to Appendix:SI units as below. bd2412 T 20:07, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] zeptogramme

British, rare, blahblahblah... the fact is that nobody has used it in writing. Equinox ◑ 02:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Only one English hit on Google Books and no English hits on Google Groups. This is liable for speedy deletion, I’m afraid. --Pilcrow 02:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Soft redirect all of these to Appendix:SI units, and add some content there about prefixes and suffixes commonly used in other languages. bd2412 T 19:40, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] zettagramme

British, rare, blahblahblah... the fact is that nobody has used it in writing. Equinox ◑ 02:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

No hits on either Google Groups of Google Books. I will be disappointed to see these spellings deleted. --Pilcrow 02:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not a spelling issue: even zettagram is probably not attestable. We've had previous discussions about these "theoretically acceptable but not actually used" units. Equinox ◑ 02:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I've found two and only two cites for zettagram, if you want to have at it.--Prosfilaes 19:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Soft redirect all of these to Appendix:SI units, and add some content there about prefixes and suffixes commonly used in other languages. bd2412 T 19:41, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] -astic

Rfv-senses: "2. Used to place emphasis on certain adjectives or noun adjuncts used as adjectives" and "3. Used to indicate something that can be considered fantastic or fantastical"; not sure what common procedure is for verifying affixes but especially sense 3 sounds dubious. — lexicógrafa | háblame — 16:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I think those senses are covered at -tastic. SemperBlotto 21:19, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] achromia

The whole entry is really suspect.

First of all, there's a Translingual entry at the very top. I highly doubt any medicine terms can be properly considered "translingual", since languages like Chinese obviously won't use these. In the page history, it can be seen this used to be an English term - we should return to that.

Directly below is a Latin section, but the etymology gives it as a New Latin term. Was this ever used in Latin proper? -- Liliana • 13:43, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

If both fail RFV, we can revert back to Visvisa's initial version, which is just plain 'English'. Latin only needs one citation as a dead language, for the translingual, not sure how to cite it. Would three citations in any language suffice? And if it therefore passed, wouldn't the Latin be redundant to the Translingual? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

In Wiktionary I thought "translingual" just meant "several languages", not "all languages". There are thousands (probably) of "translingual" definitions for Chinese characters, even though these characters are obviously used in only a very small fraction of the world's languages. 86.179.116.3 13:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

There was some discussion (which I can't find right now) about replacing all of pizza with a single Translingual section, since it is used in quite a lot of the world's languages. This suggestion was rejected for several reasons. We should probably do the same here. -- Liliana • 13:57, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] repulsion after orgasm

Moved from RFD. -- Liliana • 05:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 05:29, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] coterie

Rfv-sense: A communal burrow of prairie dogs.

Dictionaries do not have this sense. Added by an anon in this revision. --Dan Polansky 08:42, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

google books:coterie "prairie dog" yields, for example: "A characteristic feature of all prairie dog species is coloniality. Black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus) colonies are organized into family groups, called coteries, which are harem-polygynous units." — Xavier, 23:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] freash

Rfv-sense: "Refreshing or cool but freaky". the "dated for of fresh" definition is unchallenged. Tagged but not listed. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] bigger (singular noun)

I can't think of a way to use this noun sense ("someone bigger than oneself") in the singular. Fugyoo 10:37, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] calva

I just created the English entry, going on the the information given in w:Calva; however, the OED has no entry in any sense for calva, so I bring our new entry here for verification. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 11:45, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be moved to the Spanish section. There may be different varieties of the game. According to the Diccionario de la lengua española of the Real Academia Española the game consists of trying to hit the upper part of a log with pebbles. --Hekaheka 21:14, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Wham-O

Moved from RFD, needs to meet company name criteria -- Liliana • 20:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] aluminum shower

Only cite given is a mention and not a use. -- Liliana • 23:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

It looks like a live metaphor to me, but cites might correct that impression. DCDuring TALK 00:28, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

I can find cites for rain aluminum#Verb. Also, consider the following:

2006, Charles Stross, Accelerando:

There are no airliners roaring in and out of Kai Tak anymore, no burnished aluminum storm clouds to rain round-eyed passengers on the shopping malls and fish markets of Kowloon and the New Territories.

I found usages of aluminium shower, although only one was actually visible, from somewhat earlier. — Pingku^dimmi 06:17, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Is it satisfactorily cited now? The entry now contains 6 quotations (2 mentions and 4 uses) spanning the period from 1978 to 2009. · 16:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Is there any amount of citation of a live metaphor that can make it includable? DCDuring TALK 17:16, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, DCDuring, I admire your work and love you like a brother, but I'm pretty sure that WT:CFI trumps your musings about the includability of live and dead metaphors (and, in any case, I would find it unreasonable to exclude "live" metaphors from lexicons--The whole contemporary English language is "live".) · 05:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

... but in that case we would end up with every possible sentence eventually, just because someone used it somewhere in a metaphorical way. Dbfirs 23:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] God botherer

Rfv-sense: New Zealand, and atheist. Was originally speedily deleted, but I suppose it might be valid. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

If it is real (big "if") then it definitely should not be the first definition. SemperBlotto 16:19, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
- Rearranged definitions, moving definitions involving bothering others first, and putting the questionable definition last in line. I've done a few googles but have yet to find a confirmation for this sense. ~ Robin 11:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] ᄃᆞᆯ

Let this pass your mind: the Baekje language existed from 20 BC to AD 700. Korean writing was invented in 1443. Guess what doesn't fit in there... -- Liliana • 18:53, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 07:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] stur

Rfv-sense English - to motivate. Looks like stir to me. SemperBlotto 07:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] dropped

Rfv-senses: both adjective senses. For example I think the cricket sense is always the verb 'drop' used in the passive voice. Like 'he was dropped', 'he had already been dropped'. You can say a 'dropped batsman' but the batsman can't be 'more dropped than' or 'very dropped'. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, one batsman could be dropped more often than another. (but yes, they are probably just uses of the past participle) SemperBlotto 16:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Something like the 'most dropped batsman in history' is not different from 'the most attacked house in history'. Still feels like a verb form to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  
  Do I understand correctly that not only a ball, but a batsman can be dropped? That is, a dropped ball leads to a dropped batsman? Can one say "He dropped X twice today", where X is a batsman? If so, there would seem to be a missing cricket sense of drop#verb. DCDuring TALK 17:57, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
- Not quite - a batsman is said to be dropped when a fielder drops the ball. "X was dropped on 15 but went on to score a century." SemperBlotto 18:56, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
  - I think the verb drop does merit a cricket sense, as when the batsman is dropped, he's not literally suspended from a height and then dropped, the ball which he has hit is dropped. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
    - Added to drop. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:06, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] abfallverzögern

Must be an incredibly rare verb if it gets only 150 hits even on Google Web, and none on Books or Groups. -- Liliana • 21:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 05:30, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] accorporate

Listed in Appendix:English dictionary-only terms, should not occur in main namespace -- Liliana • 03:17, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] millenarian

Rfv-sense: of or pertaining to a thousands years. Ƿidsiþ 07:07, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] hot hotdog

A hotdog in a bun - but a hotdog is already in a bun - isn't it? SemperBlotto 13:20, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

According to the def, this one is covered in gravy. Equinox ◑ 13:25, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems unsupportable from cites to me. Ƿidsiþ 13:31, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Seems unlikely that we'll get three citations which definitely or very likely refer to this; most of the time they'll just related to a hot dog of a warm temperature. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:33, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Fwiw, google books:"hot hot dog" OR "hot hotdog" gravy|steam has no relevant hits.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:01, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Delete per this is bsLucifer 05:11, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] doggo

Is this attestable outside the set phrase lie doggo? The entry itself says no. -- Liliana • 14:22, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] hare-brained

Rfv-sense "thoughtless or inconsiderate". Senses with verification not requested are at [[harebrained]].—msh210℠ (talk) 19:05, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] recombobulate

Speedily deleted as protologism. Seems to exist (both senses), but I don't have time now to seek cites. I hope to tomorrow.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Hm, someone else has cited the transitive sense, and provided one cite for the intransitive. I can't seem to find any more of the latter.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] lornly

Tagged but not listed. -- Liliana • 12:55, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

At least three of the first ten hits on Google Books are valid; every else seems to be 'forlornly' written over two lines with a hyphen. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:28, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] wing

Rfv-sense: Part of a huge room. Tagged but not listed. -- Liliana • 13:13, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] 4tw

Tagged but not listed. Myself I have never encountered this one. -- Liliana • 19:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] soup

Rfv-sense x 4:

To provide soup or a meal.
To dine on soup, to eat soup.
To soak up liquid or sauce from a dish with a piece of bread and eat it.
(informal) To improve something by making it more powerful, elaborate or impressive (Cf. soup up)

The first three are plausible, but it would definitely be nice to know if they are current or dated or literary. The last informal sense may not exist apart from soup up. If it is deemed worthwhile, then we should make sure that this page has an etymology reflecting the "influence" of supercharge on this sense. DCDuring TALK 00:53, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

The third one may be getting confused with sop. 81.142.107.230 15:56, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] ironic

Rfv-sense: Both coincidental and contradictory in a humorous or poignant and very improbable way.

It is about time that we get citations for this persistently inserted and never cited sense (and variants). DCDuring TALK 03:18, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

This reference isn't already good enough?: [20] L3lackEyedAngels 20:07, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

No. That is somebody's Weblog. Equinox ◑ 22:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

It's not somebody's weblog. It's The New York Times' Art Beat and Bob Harris, "a 13-time “Jeopardy!” contestant and a television writer", wrote the post in question. That said, we also have this passage, as quoted here from the fourth edition of The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language:

The words ironic, irony, and ironically are sometimes used of events and circumstances that might better be described as simply "coincidental" or "improbable," in that they suggest no particular lessons about human vanity or folly. Thus 78 percent of the Usage Panel rejects the use of ironically in the sentence In 1969 Susie moved from Ithaca to California where she met her husband-to-be, who, ironically, also came from upstate New York. Some Panelists noted that this particular usage might be acceptable if Susie had in fact moved to California in order to find a husband, in which case the story could be taken as exemplifying the folly of supposing that we can know what fate has in store for us. By contrast, 73 percent accepted the sentence Ironically, even as the government was fulminating against American policy, American jeans and videocassettes were the hottest items in the stalls of the market, where the incongruity can be seen as an example of human inconsistency.

I've already added this reference to irony and ironic. L3lackEyedAngels 03:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'm going to call this one as ~~RFV-Passed~~. L3lackEyedAngels 18:41, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

But it isn't though. But I see what the sense is trying to explain. So-called misuses of the term ironic for things that are coincidental but not ironic. I was going to quote the sense of ironic to you, but it isn't there. Actually I think irony and ironic need some work. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

OED online has under irony 2. fig. A condition of affairs or events of a character opposite to what was, or might naturally be, expected; a contradictory outcome of events as if in mockery of the promise and fitness of things. (In French ironie du sort.) They say nothing about "proscribed" but then, being British, they probably don't care about American heritage all that much... --Thrissel 16:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] fasque

Rfv of the adjective section; one of the senses was tagged years ago but not listed. The noun is only fas + -que, which means it should be deleted, according to the usage note in [[-que]]. - -sche (discuss) 04:39, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Not in my dictionary, nor in Lewis & Short. Noun sense should be deleted according to our norms. SemperBlotto 07:14, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
- FWIW I oppose deleting such compounds. Has there been some consensus on this?—msh210℠ (talk) 16:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
  - They aren't really compounds, they are words with a clitic particle attached to them. The Romans themselves considered -que to be a separate word, because they abbreviated Senatus Populusque Romanus as SPQR. —CodeCat 20:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
    - As with German "Nouncompounds" and Hebrew words with clitics, I think we should have these because an English speaker (English Wiktionary's audience) will not know where to break up the word so will look up the whole thing. (I know that view's unpopular here, but I thought I'd state it again in the context of these Latin words, since they've come up and I haven't mentioned it in their context before.)—msh210℠ (talk) 21:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
      - I understand that point of view, but suffixes like this could be added to almost any word, which means there is an almost infinite amount of possibilities. Latin is not the only language with sentence clitics, they also exist in Finnish, Gothic and many other languages. And what about words in scripts that don't use spaces, like Chinese? If the combination fas+que is idiomatic in Latin then it should of course be kept. But we have a policy of judging the idiomaticity of a phrase in its own language rather than in English, and unfortunately it is the case that in some languages, some compound words may not be idiomatic. Many polysynthetic languages can form compounds almost without restriction, but I doubt we can have an entry for every single combination of verb, subject and object in those languages, even if they would all be single words. —CodeCa t 21:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
        
        Re "which means there is an almost infinite amount of possibilities" and "an entry for every single combination": Well, we'd only include attested ones. Re Chinese: No, my view as stated above applies only to languages which have spaces between words (for some value of "words").—msh210℠ (talk) 22:03, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
        
        Prefixes like un- can be added to almost any English word. Were Latin a polysynthetic language, I might be more sympathetic to your argument, but it's not.--Prosfilaes 00:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] a la minute

What language is this term in? French, English, or both? --Lo Ximiendo 23:20, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

À la minute this is a copyright violation of [21] so your question is moot. Fugyoo 03:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I cleaned up the copyvio, but the two senses still need to be verified. - -sche (discuss) 04:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] politically correct

Rfv-sense: the first definition, "incorrect". Should it be "correct"? If so, should it be {{&lit}}? Also the etymology, "first cited 1973": we have a citation from 1793, so is the etymology a typo, or should it say "the second sense is attested since 1973"? - -sche (discuss) 02:58, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Contributor has given a citation saying 'not political correct' and basically confused herself. In other words, I agree with everything you just said. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I, too, agree. I have reworded sense 2 a bit. Please review. DCDuring TALK 17:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't the first definition too narrow? It limits the usage to 18th century US politics, but I think the term may still be used in the literal sense, as e.g. in "It's not politically correct to suggest that the climate change might depend more on cosmic phenomena than on the actions of Man." --Hekaheka 09:04, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

A while ago I have changed the definition for political correctness to "avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude or marginalize or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against". Then politically correct is "exhibiting political correctness". It's not about mainstream but minorities. --Anatoli 11:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The example in the first sense is about going with mainstream, as is my example above in this discussion. --Hekaheka 12:53, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

I see. Sorry, I wasn't attentive. --Anatoli 12:58, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Archimedes

Rfv-sense: (computing) An early RISC personal computer. Moved from RFD, needs citations meeting brand name criteria. -- Liliana • 03:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

See its citations page. SemperBlotto 07:11, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] fuck

Rfv-sense: "A large amount." The example sentence uses fuckload which is a separate word. If it does exist, which it may, I'm not sure it could be called a noun. Something like "I made a fuck of money" would demonstrate this sense, something like "I made a fuck ton of money" doesn't seem to justify a noun, and probably not this definition either. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:28, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I have heard fuckload used in this way as Gloves has demonstrated, but not fuck. It just doesn't go with the flow of the sentence. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 21:25, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Do they perhaps mean "a fuck of a lot of money" (same construction as "a hell of a lot")? Equinox ◑ 21:32, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] angiograph

I have commented out the previous definition - which said that it was a sphygmograph, which I feel sure is wrong. An "angiograph" shows blood vessels whereas a "sphygmograph" shows blood pressure & pulse. —Saltmarsh^{talk-συζήτηση} 09:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] product

Rfv-sense: (uncountable) A hair product, a hair care product – a preparation used to style hair and offered for sale.

This was on RfD, and while most of the people voted keep, they also raised doubts on the existence and validity of this sense. -- Liliana • 12:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I was browsing google books for this kind of usage, and I found it for other cosmetic products including makeup, nail varnish and even the gunk they inject during plastic surgery. Didn't seem to occur in other contexts - seemed to always be from the supplier's or seller's POV. Fugyoo 00:26, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Disney World

Moved from RFD. As a registered trademark, it needs to meet our WT:BRAND criteria. -- Liliana • 12:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

The current wording (which we do propose to change) does say 'of a physical product', and I don't think Disney World can be called a product. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Pollyanning

[edit] pollyanning

I assume this would be a two-component misspelling of Pollyannaing, which might be a word. DCDuring TALK 02:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds more likely, or even Pollyanna-ing. I find the juxtaposition of "a" and "i" very odd. In any case, we need citations if we are to keep any form. Dbfirs 12:52, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure that any one form of the participle meets CFI. For example, some find the oddness to require a hyphen. I'm not really sure that this kind of conversion is worth a separate section, ie, Pollyanna#Verb. The Pollyanna entry seems to be encyclopedic in its second sense, which might belong in an etymology section if we were better about including sense evolution in our etymology sections. DCDuring TALK 13:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You know when I first added this entry I added, pollyann with the conjugated links to pollyanned, pollyanning, and pollyanns, I have heard all of these used and I in fact had cited pollyanning thrice if any admin would be kind enough to dig it up please.Acdcrocks 09:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I've moved the entry to Pollyanning, but I think it still fails because the quotations do not support a single part of speech. - -sche (discuss) 01:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] atheism

[edit] atheist

Previous discussion: Wiktionary:Tea room#atheist, Talk:atheist, Talk:atheism.

I think RFV is a good way of verifying all senses of both words (although I've only tagged some senses). I argue that I've cited the first, narrow sense:

[[atheism]]: The belief that no deities exist, and the absence of other religious belief.
[[atheist]]: A person who believes that no deities exist, and who has no other religious belief.

I've found examples of "atheism" being contrasted with "Buddhism" (showing that it is distinct from non-theistic religion), and of it being contrasted with agnosticism, and of it being shown to be a belief that deities do not exist (as opposed to only an absence of belief in deities). (I could add more citations that discuss at length that Buddhism and atheism are distinct, as opposed to merely using the words.) - -sche (discuss) 08:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

In addition to that narrow sense, we all seem to agree that a broader sense exists. Currently, there is at [[atheism]]:

The rejection of belief that any deities exist, with or without the claim that "A deity exists" is false.
The absence of belief that any deities exist. (Atheism in this sense includes the two previous senses, as well as the worldview of those (including children) who have never heard of deities, and of those agnostics who do not believe any deity exists.)

This is a splitting of what I wrote at [[atheist]]:

A person who does not believe that any deities exist, but who does not necessarily believe that no deities exist. (An atheist in this sense includes the previous sense, as well as a person (such as a child) who has never heard of deities, and as well as an agnostic who does not believe any deity exists.)

Which is my attempt (however insufficient it may be) at wording the broad sense (which includes the previous sense) which we all seem to agree exists and which Widsith worded (at "atheism"):

"The absence of belief in the existence of a god or deity; sometimes more strongly, the assertion that a god or gods do not exist."

Let's see if JimWae's split ("rejection"..."absence") is supported by citations. I do not doubt that "atheism" and "atheist" are used in a broad way, as a catch-all for all lack of belief in God (and I do suspect it is mostly monotheists who use the word in that way), probably including (at least sometimes) agnosticism. I'm actually having a little trouble finding citations, though. (The narrow sense crowds the broad sense out of my searches.) - -sche (discuss) 08:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Well here's one from a book I'm reading right now: “You don't have to be brave or a saint, a martyr, or even very smart to be an atheist. All you have to be able to say is “I don't know”.” — Penn Jillette, “God, No! : Signs you may already be an atheist and other magical tales”, p. xiii.

It wouldn't be hard to find cites from Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. I'm on it. ~ Robin 15:12, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Attested on Citations:atheism and Citations:atheist. ~ Robin 08:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

The next, broad sense is cited, but not necessarily convincingly so; some citations seem very mention-y.

[[atheism]]: The absence of a particular religious belief (or belief in a particular deity).
[[atheist]]: A person who does not have a particular religious belief (or belief in a particular deity).

Is the sense cited already? If not, can it be cited? Is it a sense? Discuss. - -sche (discuss) 08:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Attested for athiest. ~ Robin 06:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Attested on Citations:atheism and Citations:atheist. ~ Robin 08:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Lastly:

[[atheism]]: Disregard for moral obligation; wickedness.
[[atheist]]: A person who shows disregard for moral obligation, or is immoral or wicked.

I couldn't find examples of such a sense, but it's plausible old writers would use the word in such a way, and Dbfirs said in the Tea Room that the OED had examples spanning hundreds of years. - -sche (discuss) 08:09, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Attested atheist by following three OED citations from the 1600s. ~ Robin 18:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the OED's citations support their sense. "Thou damned Athiſt, thou incarnate Deuill, That doeſt deny his power which did create thee" seems to be accusing someone of actual atheism — of overtly denying that there is a god. Consider that it continues: "That Pharoa like dar’ſt aske^[sic] what fellow’s God? Eſteeming ſacred Scriptures, to be vaine: And that the dead in earth ſhall make abode, and neuer riſe from out their graues againe."

The 1656 citation is also ambiguous. "But a wicked man is an Atheiſt. An Atheiſt is taken two waies, for him who is an Enemy to the Gods, and for him who believeth there are no Gods : which all wicked men do not." That could be distinguishing someone who in behaviour is "an Enemy to the Gods" from someone who actually "believeth there are no Gods", I suppose. Another source translates Zeno's line "But the bad man is an atheist. Now there are two kinds of atheists; one who speaks in a spirit of hostility to, and the other, who utterly disregards, the divine nature; but they admit that all bad men are not atheists in this last sense." - -sche (discuss) 20:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

AFAICT, the quotation calling Eli's sons "atheists" supports this sense very well, though. - -sche (discuss) 20:36, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean. It is difficult to split the entry into distinct senses when actual usage shows a continuum. Dbfirs 21:37, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi, this is my first foray into editing on wiktionary, so I am not quite sure how this works - what is actually meant by citations in this context? That someone has used in some manner, even if it not the manner which held wider acceptance? This seems particularly problematic in the case of blurring the lines between atheism and agnosticism, a line which seem fairly consistently upheld in serious treatments of the subjects, see for example EB's entry on Atheism here which contrasts atheism and agnosticism with "An agnostic, like an atheist, asserts either that he does not know that God exists—or, more typically, that he cannot know or have sound reasons for believing that God exists—but unlike the atheist he does not think that he is justified in saying that God does not exist or, stronger still, that God cannot exist." Thanks! u n☯mi 15:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I think the real difficulty is that at the time of usage the distinction between the terms was not clear. For many English speakers centuries ago, atheism implied a lack of morality, so accusing someone of being an atheist was also an accusation of immorality. There are some people in the US and elsewhere that still use the word in that way. —CodeCa t 16:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

That is not quite was I was referring to, I was more concerned about the text obscuring what Kai Nielsen spells out above. u n☯mi 22:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not quite sure which is the most appropriate place to hold the discussion, but this seems like it - I previously commented on the thread in the tearoom, I'll crosspost here for transparency:

Let me just say that I have found few 'serious' sources that entertain the notion that atheism and agnosticism are not distinct and mutually exclusive, indeed many sources explicitly contrast them. I think that a source of unnecessary confusion has arisen regarding the meaning of "reject", "belief", "disbelief" and "denial" - my understanding is that they are all used to signify knowledge claims. Some sources spell that out when they develop the subject further, such as ( emphasis mine ):

Concise Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy 2000

Atheism is the position that affirms the nonexistence of God. It proposes positive disbelief rather than mere suspension of belief. Since many different gods have been objects of belief one might be an atheist with respect to one god while believing in the existence of some other god. In the religions of the west - Judaism. Christianity and Islam - the dominant idea of God is of a purely spiritual. supernatural being who is the perfectly good. all-powerful. all-knowing creator of everything other than himself. As used in this entry, in the narrow sense of the term an atheist is anyone who disbelieves in the existence of this being, while in the broader sense an atheist is someone who denies the existence of any sort of divine reality.

Encyclopedia Britannica Online

atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings. As such, it is usually distinguished from theism, which affirms the reality of the divine and often seeks to demonstrate its existence. Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable.

I think that this misunderstanding regarding what rejection and denial means in this context stems from failing to factor in noncognitivism - which states simply that "God exists" does not express any proposition at all, which I think we should agree does not yield "with or without a belief that no deities exist". This is my first foray into wiktionary, so I am not quite sure on how this works, do we build established sources such as dictionaries, encyclopedias and scholarly work ( with discussion of course ) or do we build from more or less random citations in primary sources? u n☯mi 22:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

◄ Let me just interrupt here to say that in 10 seconds I found hundreds of thousands of 'unserious' sources entertaining that notion. ~ Robin 23:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

No, please don't edit my posts. Yes, you can find 'unserious' sources for a range of things, we don't go putting them into dictionaries without qualification either. u n☯mi 01:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I shall continue not to change a word of what you wrote. So, if I can so easily find a couple hundred thousand "agnostic atheists", I'll bet you $20 I could also find a fair few durable sources explicitly stating that the two are not mutually exclusive. ~ Robin 03:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

And I will bet you $200 that I can find more, of equal or higher quality that either use them in the sense, or state explicitly, that they are mutually exclusive. Deal? u n☯mi 04:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I think you and I have divergent ideas about what constitutes source "quality". ~ Robin 12:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

A descriptive dictionary does not stress about the quality of the sources; we're documenting the language as it is used, not how it is theoretically supposed to be used.--Prosfilaes 04:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

We define words in the way that people actually use them. Given that Isaac Asimov changed from using agnostic to describe himself to atheist without any change in the underlying belief, I don't think the distinction is as clear as you claim.--Prosfilaes 04:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Like I said at the outset, I am not quite sure how things work here, but I do note a definite lack of mention of character traits attributed to either "liberal", "conservative", "democrat" or "republican" which I don't doubt the internet can a wealth of material for, etc. I also note that usage which yield a neologism seem to labelled as such. I think that it might also be worthwhile to consider jargon and ( though I prefer Hanlons razor ) language planning. Contemporary scholarly users of atheism as a neologism, or a revived paleologism if you prefer, generally admit to it, such as

Michael Martin

If you look up "atheism" in a dictionary, you will probably find it defined as the belief that there is no God. Certainly many people understand atheismt this way. Yet many atheists do not, and this not what the term means if one considers it from the point of view of its Greek roots. In Greek "a" means "without" or "not" and "theos" means "god." From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view characterized by the absence of belief in God.

and

Anthony Flew:

The word 'atheism', however, has in this contention to be construed unusually. Whereas nowadays the usual meaning of 'atheist' in English is 'someone who asserts that there is no such being as God', I want the word to be understood not positively but negatively. I want the originally Greek prefix 'a' to be read in the same way in 'atheist' as it customarily is read in such other Greco-English words as 'amoral', 'atypical', and 'asymmetrical'. In this interpretation an atheist becomes: not someone who positively asserts the non-existence of God; but someone who is simply not a theist. Let us, for future ready reference, introduce the labels 'positive atheist' for the former and 'negative atheist' for the latter. The introduction of this new interpretation of the word 'atheism' may appear to be a piece of perverse Humpty-Dumptyism, going arbitrarily against established common usage.[2] 'Whyever', it could be asked, 'don't you make it not the presumption of atheism but the presumption of agnosticism?'

Other nontheists have clarified the problems with this such as Theodore Drange:

Sometimes the use of the term "atheism" to mean "lack of theistic belief" is supported by an appeal to etymology. For example, Martin, in the book mentioned above, says the following:

In Greek a' means without' or not' and theos' means god.' From this standpoint an atheist would simply be someone without a belief in God, not necessarily someone who believes that God does not exist. According to its Greek roots, then, atheism is a negative view, characterized by the absence of belief in God.[4]

This argument is rather unsatisfactory for at least two reasons. First, it is not completely clear that the correct translation of the Greek prefix "a" is "without." It might also mean "no," in which case "a-the-ism" could be translated as "no-god-ism," or "the view that there is no god." Note that there is no "ism" in Greek. Second, even if the etymology of the word "atheism" did indicate that it once meant "without belief in God," that is still not a good guide to current usage. It is quite common for words to acquire new meanings over time. It seems far more important what people mean by a word today than what it once meant long ago.

...

My conclusion here is that no good case has ever been made for using the word "atheist" in the sense of "one who is without belief in God."

In this essay, I shall use the term "atheist" in its (more common) narrow sense. Martin draws a distinction between "negative atheists," who are without any belief in God, and "positive atheists," who deny God's existence.[5]) Applying that distinction, it could be said that I (and most people) use the term "atheist" in the sense of "positive atheist." It should be noted that all positive atheists are automatically negative atheists, which may sound somewhat peculiar when those expressions are used.

In place of the expression "negative atheist," I shall use the term "nontheist." That seems to be a better term (than "atheist") for capturing the more general concept of "one who is without belief in God," for several reasons:

(1) Almost everyone who employs the term "nontheist" already uses it in the given way.

(2) As indicated in dictionaries, most native speakers of English use the term "atheist" for the more definite concept of "one who denies that God exists." It is desirable that we abide by common usage and it is foolish (and probably futile) to try to reform people's usage of terms.

(3) It would be more natural to call infants and fetuses "nontheists" than to call them "atheists."

(4) It is desirable to have a system in which the familiar three classes, theists, atheists, and agnostics, are mutually exclusive, and that would not be possible if the term "atheist" were instead used for the more general concept.

I should note here that anyone who cares to look up the actual etymology of atheism in the English language will see that the Greek source is atheos and that theism is actually a back-formation from atheism.

Drange then goes on to use "noncognitivist with regard to God-talk" for the position "'God exists' expresses no proposition whatever.", wiktionary has the position under ignostic. It is somewhat relevant to note that when both Martin and Flew expand on why their definition strikes them as appropriate it is with exactly the noncognitivist position as its centerpiece.

This is important because Kai Nielsen, who, it should be noted, is a prominent atheist philosopher, includes the noncognitivist position as atheism writing quite emphatically:

The more typical and less paradoxical and tendentious claim is that utterances such as “There is an infinite, eternal creator of the universe” are incoherent and that the conception of God reflected in such a claim is unintelligible, and in that important sense the claim is inconceivable and incredible—incapable of being a rational object of belief for a philosophically and scientifically sophisticated person touched by modernity. It is this that is a central belief of many contemporary atheists. There are good empirical grounds for believing that there are no Zeus-like spiritual beings, and as this last, more ramified form of atheism avers, if there are sound grounds for believing that the nonanthropomorphic or at least radically less anthropomorphic conceptions of God are incoherent or unintelligible, the atheist has the strongest grounds for rejecting belief in God. Atheism is a critique and a denial of the central metaphysical beliefs of systems of salvation involving a belief in God or spiritual beings, but a sophisticated atheist does not simply claim that all such cosmological claims are false but takes it that some are so problematic that, while purporting to be factual, they actually do not succeed in making a coherent factual claim. The claims, in an important sense, do not make sense, and, while believers are under the illusion that there is something intelligible to be believed in, in reality there is not. These seemingly grand cosmological claims are in reality best understood as myths or ideological claims reflecting a confused understanding of their utterers’ situation.

Which quite frankly is the bitchslaps of bitchslaps. What he also states as simple fact is that:

Atheism is also distinguished from agnosticism, which leaves open the question whether there is a god or not, professing to find the questions unanswered or unanswerable.

...

An agnostic, like an atheist, asserts either that he does not know that God exists—or, more typically, that he cannot know or have sound reasons for believing that God exists—but unlike the atheist he does not think that he is justified in saying that God does not exist or, stronger still, that God cannot exist.

I'll admit, I have no idea why the people who do [stuff like this] even pretend to not be protecting theism in their attempts at diluting the meaning of atheism, I suppose Hanlons razor is probably even more appropriate here. It is remarkable how indistinguishable new-age-atheism has become from the worst of theism in its lack of intellectual curiosity and oblivious ignorance. u n☯mi 08:34, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

In the edit you question, I reworded those definitions to correct inaccuracies and obviate qualifiers which were overly encyclopedic for dictionary definitions, and either redundant of the usage notes or more appropriately illustrated by quotations beneath them.

You ascribe dishonest motives to me. If I were disposed to do likewise, I might suggest that since you will never be able to meet your burden of proof, you instead seek to misrepresent an unassailable position of nonbelief without evidence, taken by a majority of self-identified atheists, into a straw man doctrinaire converse belief you can argue against. But let's try to AGF, shall we? ~ Robin 12:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

People self-identify as all kinds of things they don't have the slightest relation to all the time. Here is a hint: while No True Scotsman might be a fallacy, so is calling your self the King of Scotland when you are a Kakwa. u n☯mi 13:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

"No True Scotsman" seems an apt label for a fallacy of declaring that soft atheists are not "true" atheists. ~ Robin 14:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

You will never fully comprehend just how predictable you are for your softness. You may, however, at some point come to realize that exchanging one dogma born of ignorance for another is no great advance. If fear of theistic arguments leads you to seek shelter in an "unassailable position of nonbelief without evidence" then you have already conceded. Huxleys agnosticism holds the position of nonbelief without evidence - but it is not proving unassailable, at least not against credulous masses of youtubers and those holding both the weakness of character to desire a symbol for its significance and weakness of mind to not realize what lent it. I'll leave you with the last word and:

What is wanted is not the will to believe, but the will to find out, which is the exact opposite. —Bertrand Russell, "Skeptical Essays", 1928

u n☯mi 18:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

Um, what exactly was the argument again?

Wiktionary is set up to be a descriptive dictionary, as I've been given to understand, rather than prescriptive -- i.e., we should build entries that describe how people actually do use these words, rather than entries that prescribe how people should use these words.

With that in mind, I must admit that unomi's extended theological / philosophical arguments above lose me.

As best I can tell, for the purposes of a dictionary entry here at Wiktionary, some people use atheist to mean 1) "someone who believes that no deity exists", while others intend 2) "someone who believes that a specific deity does not exist", and still others use the term to signify 3) "someone who has no particular belief that any deity exists". This appears to be fully covered, even in other and more specific senses, by the current definitions given on the atheist page.

Now what exactly is all the extensive quoting above intended to illustrate? This is Wiktionary, mind you, not Wikipedia. C.f. WT:WWIN. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:43, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Suffice to say that those senses of atheist which Unomi finds objectionable have been extensively attested in Citations:atheist going back centuries.

Incidentally, Unomi, you assumed wrong. Contra your parting diatribe, I'm not one of those soft atheists you deride. So much for my predictability. ~ Robin 19:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] mulligan

Rfv-sense:

Mulligan stew.
A second chance.
(informal) A unit of measure equal to 62.5 milliliters, or 2.5 shots, of alcohol.

Moved from RFD, where it was claimed that only the (non-tagged) golf sense actually exists, and the others apparently don't. -- Liliana • 16:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I have heard the second-chance sense used, mostly by golfers, but outside the context of golfing. It is reasonable that someone would understand this broader use. I think it might even be "widespread use", but citations are always good. DCDuring TALK 22:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I've cited the chance and stew senses.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I actually happen to have heard and personally used this term in the card game w:Magic the Gathering. Taking a mulligan means to shuffle your initial hand back into the deck and draw for the second time, but one less card than the initial draw, should you get a bad hand. This complies with the second definition: A second chance.. I also believe that this usage is indeed taken from its usage in golf. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 20:59, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The unit of measurement is off, anyway -- one shot is 1.5 ounces in the US, or 44.36... ml. Rounding up for easier math gives us 45 ml. 2.5 shots would be 3.75 oz or (roughly speaking) 112.5 ml, or more exactly (when converting from 3.75 oz) 110.9... ml.

I have no idea where this 62.5 ml measurement came from. Any bar serving shots of only 25 ml would not stay open for very long. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] power bottom

There is strong disagreement on the meaning of this term. IMHO it means a submissive bottom and all the quotations support that, especially if you read through the whole page or paragraph in the books they come from. I have heard it used to mean a dominant bottom, however that is a separate sense, and IMHO is it has not been substantiated. Another user has repeatedly edited out the definiton that matches the sources, and later added the sources to the unattested meaning so that it had three or more, then blocked me claiming I was edit warring. Whatever. So I would like others to chime in their opinion.Acdcrocks 21:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm reminded of a scene from It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia where the gang goes back and forth about what such terms mean, but I wouldn't consider it a reliable source of information. ~ Robin 22:35, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

2003 June 2, Sohn, Amy, “Who's On Top?”^[22], New York Magazine, ISSN 0028-7369:

Some bottoms call themselves “power bottoms,” which means they take pride in bottoming and are extraordinarily picky about the anatomical endowments of their partners. “A power bottom,” says Stan, 38, a literary agent, “is somebody who can take it pretty easily and likes it a lot. I know a guy like that who’s only topped four guys in his life. I said to him, ‘That’s one per decade!’ ”
2006 October 30, bud, durban, “Power Bottom Appreciation Day!”:

In case you've been living under a rock, a Power Bottom is a man who enthusiastically takes it up the butt. He enjoys it, never winces, is an aggressive participant, and usually begs for more. They are a national treasure and must be shown proper gratitude.

~ Robin 22:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Troy, you're just a troublemaker. As far as your claim that the original definition of a dominant bottom is "unsubstantiated", look at the very first quotation which reads: In one phrase, power bottom means, "Shut up and lie down. I'll take care of the rest." None of your quotations suggest anything different. In fact, none of them really say anything about the dominance of a power bottom or not. Periooooood — [Ric Laurent] — 22:47, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Ric, the point of this forum is to avoid trouble and engender consensus and cooperation. It is unsubstantiated, all the quotes I added clearly indicated a submissive bottom, or at the very least a bottom that enjoys rigorous anal penetration on his end (no pun intended). There are not three quotes to represent a dominant bottom, therefore that definition is no substantiated. That is my point exactly, a power bottom is not a dominant sexual partner, he is a submissive one, whether it be in BDSM or in sex, a power bottom or power top, the power is a modifier meaning more, bottoms are the passive sexual partner so a power bottom is even more passive partner. You're gay you should know this. Now that some power bottoms like to take charge is true but that is typically called a bossy bottom. I think you are being unreasonable and territorial since you created this entry and don't want to admit a mistake nor let me add the more common usage of this term.Acdcrocks 09:28, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

None of the quotes you added make any indication of the submissiveness of anyone on either side. Fact. The only quote that indicates whether a power bottom is dominant or submissive is the one I added, and it's VERY clearly pointing to a dominant bottom. The bottom is "in power" hence the name, power bottom. (I should make it known at this point that I don't expect a response from this user unless someone overturns my permanent ban of him. For the record, I've banned him for being a persistent troublemaker/drama queen.) — [Ric Laurent] — 12:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

This looks like an RfD candidate. Power is used attributively in this general way with many words. It is most commonly an intensifier. In some cases it converts a word usually conveying implications of weakness or insufficiency into something stronger or more adequate. DCDuring TALK 14:51, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

No it's its own word, power+bottom=a strong butt, if the average person were to analyze it, and although power bottoms (good ones) can have a muscular buttocks that is not what the term means nor is it used that way. Not question at hand is that power bottom means a submissive bottom in addition to a bossy bottom.71.142.73.25 20:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] November 2011

[edit] 3qorz

I wonder what sort of attesting quotations can be provided for this entry. Some searches: google books:3qorz, google groups:3qorz. --Dan Polansky 08:57, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I seem to find more with 3Q得orz, such as [23] and here. —Stephen ^(Talk) 09:47, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

"I seem to find more with 3Q得orz", which makes perfect sense, particle 得 (de) is used to form resultative verbs, so 3Q = thank you, "Orz" looks as a prostrated person (to prostrate = 五体投地). The phrase 感谢得五体投地 is made the same way - "thanking you as to prostrate myself". In 3Q得orz the "orz" part is non-verbal, it's like a picture. --Anatoli 10:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Isn't this sum-of-parts anyway? Can 3Q and orz not be attested separately? Fugyoo 10:51, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

(after an edit conflict)I doubt it. "3Qorz" and "3Q得orz" could perhaps be considered synonyms, 3Q or 三Q (三 = 3) can be used separately but "orz" not. In fact, in one of the quotes above the meaning of "orz" is described as an emoticon (表情符號), not a word, as it is not a very common term or "symbol". --Anatoli 11:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I've never heard of or seen anyone use this. Phrases using 得 to form resultative verbs are probably in most cases sum of parts (can't think of an exception right now). Hbrug 10:56, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

User:A-cai has created it. He is from Taiwan, so it may be used in Taiwan? --Anatoli 11:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

This is pretty common Internet slang, I'm surprised you haven't seen it before Hbrug. Unfortunately I don't think it's attestable according to Wiktionary's CFI since we seem to rely solely on archivable sources. ---> Tooironic 22:09, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It's what the Chinese call w:Martian language/w:火星文. Essentially it's a series of symbols used in Internet slang that are otherwise not understandable by the everyday crowd. This one is.. unfortunately.. valid and easily citable as an Internet slang term. Obviously I haven't lived in China for a long time, so I am not quite versed with the Internet culture that's present there. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 21:47, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

They must be separated to 3q and orz. The latter is probably from Japanese internet community. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] implement

Has “Etymology: From Scottish English or Scots implement (“fulfill”)”
Unreferenced for one thing, and it doesn't look like a Scottish word to me, more like Latin. --Jerome Potts 03:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand the sentence. It is not Scottish Gaelic, it’s from Scots. English-speaking Scottish lawyers coined the word about 200 years ago for use in law with the meaning of to produce or cause fulfillment (as of a contract). It was a time when Classical education included lots of Latin and Greek. In Latin, the word was implementum (a filling up), from impleo (to fill). —Stephen ^(Talk) 03:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Which definition is being disputed here? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:21, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It is the Etymology 2 section (which currently relates only to implement (verb)) which was queried. FWIW, OED's first cite of implement (verb) is some legal-speak in Scotland in 1806, as Stephen says (OED doesn't differentiate between English English, Scottish English and Scots). However, they also show (Scottish legal) use of implement (noun) to mean fulfilment from 1764 - 1868.

I suggest firstly, that the verbal use probably developed from that usage of the noun; secondly that that noun usage is not so very different from the Late Latin implementum (= a filling up); thirdly that the more common uses of implement (noun) are cited in OED from 1454, but with no obviously-Scottish English/Scots cites till after 1850, 80-odd years after the Scottish-legal use to mean fulfilment, by which time there had been much more cross-fertilisation between Scots and English English.

Since the Scottish legal meanings (both noun and verb) are much closer to the original Late Latin than any of the earlier English English meanings, it is strongly arguable that they came to English via Scots, rather than developing from the previous English usage...for which, unless someone finds a cite, there is no evidence of use in Scotland at that time.

So I would suggest keeping Etymology 2 separate from Etymology 1, but extending it to read "From Scottish English or Scots implement (“fulfill”), from Late Latin implēmentum (“a filling up”), from Latin impleō (“I fill up”)" thus noting it as a separate import. OED do not, and would not, make that distinction, because they treat Middle English, Scots and Modern English as one language, but since we do treat them separately, it is appropriate for us to do so. Of course it would be great if someone could research old cites to add evidence to confirm this (unfortunately, I haven't time to research further myself at present) but with a meaning so much closer to the Late Latin than any of the English meanings, and since lawyers of the time would be familiar with Latin, it seems fairly sure.

I note that Semperblotto has already removed the RFV tag. I agree with Stephen and him, and if no one objects, in a day or two I shall extend the Etymology 2 as I proposed above. --Enginear 03:52, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it does appear that Scottish lawyers "reinvented" the word with a slightly different meaning. The OED recognises the continuum from southern English to northern English to Scots, but since Scots now has the status of a separate language, and Scotland has always had separate laws, that proposal sounds reasonable. Dbfirs 21:30, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] have a pop at

I know this phrase (and so does OED -- with earliest cite 1881!) in the UK slang sense of verbally attacking, but I'm not confident that it is used in the senses mentioned here, ie (implied) physically attack and attempt sex. I wouldn't be surprised if those uses are developing, but unless they can be cited, I suggest clarifying that sense 1 is verbal attack, and removing sense 2. --Enginear 02:25, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Take a pop at is another form. Consider a new sense at pop. Equinox ◑ 15:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Seconded. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Having said that, that doesn't make this RFV obsolete; if the senses can be attested, the same citations can be used at pop#Noun even if have a pop at later fails RFD. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:46, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Fox

Rfv-sense: An epithet for Michel Foucault.. Moved from RFD. Needs to be cited, I suppose. -- Liliana • 00:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] arfarfanarf

Noun and adjective. I see one Groups use for the adjective, no Books. Neither for the noun.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I hope this passes, because it's just too funny to be deleted! —CodeCa t 19:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] verlegen

Rfv-sense: spoiled (food), deteriorated (from standing too long), stale. Tagged but not listed. As a note, I haven't ever heard of this sense either. -- Liliana • 20:40, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

I found a mention of a verb verliegen in an old dictionary: http://www.kruenitz1.uni-trier.de/xxx/v/kv04108.htm —CodeCa t 21:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] crawk

Rfv-sense "A radio announcer who imitates animals". Seeing it in interesting-word books but no uses. But that's based on searching for "crawk" radio. Other searches may turn something up.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Definitely wrong definition because "crawk +radio +announcer" has zero ghits. I can find some evidence for a definition of "animal imitator", but not sufficient to justify an entry. Perhaps someone knows where the idea came from? Dbfirs 09:16, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] monsterise

Possibly not attestable: google books:"monsterise", google groups:"monsterise". If attested, then it should be at least tagged as rare.

Current definitions:

To make another into a monster
To give another very bad reputation

--Dan Polansky 08:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

A quick search on the spelling with a "Z" (google books:"monsterize", google groups:"monsterize") shows 10x and 5.5x more common use, respectively. google scholar:"monsterise" finds one single citation, while google scholar:"monsterize" finds 25 hits. -- HTH, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:59, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Majorly attestable dude!Lucifer 01:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] WikiLove

This one could be a close call... -- Liliana • 05:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete not in widespread use outside of one websiteLucifer 04:29, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

keep: It's a word. And, moreover, it's widely used (986 000 Google hits). And not on a single website (but, even if used on a single website, including it would be justifiable). Lmaltier 08:46, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

This isn't a vote. It is a request that someone provide valid attestation. DCDuring TALK 13:02, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't get as many hits as that, and the ones I've looked at all seem to be one website or about that website. One website is not sufficient (anyone can create a website and add silly words), but if others are talking about it, then it becomes borderline, and if they continue talking about it then maybe we should include the word. There seem to be several senses and capitalisations. Dbfirs 09:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You can try Google Books, you'll find printed attestations. But contesting that this word exists seems preposterous. Lmaltier 18:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't it have to "exist" outside of its point of origin, and have three attestations over more than a year? I don't think this does. This is just a feature of one single website, its kindness shown on wikipedia or wikimedia projects only. It's not used anywhere else.Lucifer 23:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The few Google Books mentions seem to be all about the Wikimedia foundation, and some just have the "word" in quotes or as part of a URL. I'm not convinced that it satisfies our CFI, but if someone can find independent citations, then I might be ... Dbfirs 09:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Of course, citations are about Wikipedia, what would you expect? Would you delete platypus because all citations are related to this animal? Lmaltier 20:11, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that most of the very few claimed citations are in Wikipedia, and most are mentions, not usages of the word. I don't think the platypus has its own website, but if it had, perhaps it would have the word platypuslove. If this word began to be used elsewhere, rather than just mentioned, then it might, eventually, meet CFI. Dbfirs 22:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

If it were a made up neologism I would but it is not and platypus meets the CFI for many reasons, not to mention there are tons of different sources for platypus.Lucifer 21:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] blud

I think it's real (it's a form of blood, i.e. kin) but doubt it's attestable in print. Equinox ◑ 21:28, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

How about converting to an eye-dialect entry? Fugyoo 23:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] bled

As preceding.—msh210℠ (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] billy

"(UK) shortened form of silly billy. Why did you eat my bacon, you billy?" Added by Top Cat 14, known for adding supposedly UK-specific terms that nobody has heard of. Equinox ◑ 21:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I've never heard it used here in the UK. (I suppose someone, somewhere, probably uses the shortened form as a family joke, but that wouldn't make it dictionary material.) Dbfirs 08:13, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Never heard of it. Delete. SemperBlotto 08:24, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] feminacentrism

Three separate senses, yet this is not even CFI-attestable in one sense from Google Books. It also reads like a bitter man trying to criticise women under the veil of scientific terminology. (He also created this: [24].) Equinox ◑ 11:36, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Reading that made me really sad. Sorry. -- Liliana • 01:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I found it kinda funny actually, but if taken seriously it could be very offensive, nevertheless if people are actually using fembot to describe a "talking points but otherwise ignorant feminist automaton" perhaps that is an additional {{pejorative}} sense worth adding?Lucifer 03:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] cuntbucket

We lack the full complement of attestations for this form, ie, citations of cunt bucket don't count as attestation. DCDuring TALK 12:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

They should.Lucifer 00:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

No they shouldn't, or I could create a new entry app le and ap-ple and say they existed because of apple, when they clearly don't exist! Equinox ◑ 00:12, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

See WT:COALMINE. DCDuring TALK 00:13, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Coalmine works only in one direction. It says that if a spelling with no space is attested, then it counts towards the version with a space. But it doesn't mean that anything that is attested with a space counts towards a form without it. —CodeCa t 01:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Cited via Usenet. Equinox ◑ 12:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

What is Usenet and how does that count as a citation?Lucifer 23:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

They are on-line newsgroup e-mail postings that are deemed to be durably archived at multiple sites, in contrast to proprietary groups such as Yahoo and Google have. They are a subset of what is available at Google groups. It is a very good source for many types of current slang. DCDuring TALK 00:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Cool, how do you access it?Lucifer 01:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Try here. DCDuring TALK 02:36, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] 悲観主義

I doubt that 主義 is a suffix as it's listed here and in a couple of other entries. What does everyone else think? Haplology 16:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Can't speak for Japanese, but it is a suffix in Chinese. The word in Mandarin is 悲觀主義. ---> Tooironic 00:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Are we verifying the existence of this term? --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, actually the existence of 主義 as a suffix instead of just as a noun. Haplology 13:18, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Ya, 主義 shows up as a suffix for lots of things that are -isms in English, such as 悲観主義 (“pessimism”), 楽観主義 (“optimism”), 社会主義 (“socialism”), 共産主義 (“communism”), 資本主義 (“capitalism”), 不条理主義 (“absurdism”), 超現実主義 (“surrealism”), 実存主義 (“existentialism”), etc. etc. I believe this suffix is still productive in linguistic terms, meaning you can coin new words with it, such as 青空主義 (“blue sky-ism, open air-ism”), which I just pulled out of a hat and which currently generates over 1,300 hits at google:"青空主義"+の, or アイスクリーム食主義 (“ice cream eating-ism”) with 0 hits at google:"アイスクリーム食主義"+の but which is still wholly understandable by Japanese readers, albeit ridiculous. (NB: replace "ice cream" with other foods to generate some Google hits, such as google:"果実食主義"+の ("fruit eating-ism", maybe "fruitarianism"?) or google:"菜食主義"+の for "vegetarianism".) -- HTH, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:49, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. In the dictionaries I have with POS listed, it is listed only as a noun, but if it meets the definition of a suffix, then a suffix it must be. Haplology 04:22, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I think Wiktionary editors might be being influenced by the fact that -ism is a suffix in English. We've established above that it behaves like a suffix but I don't think we've proved your dictionaries wrong - not everything that quacks is a duck. Fugyoo 00:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Oo, sorry if I gave the impression that I don't think 主義 is a noun -- I do agree with Hap's dictionaries (and my own) that list it as a noun. I just wanted to point out that it's also a suffix. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

That's right, 主義 is also a suffix, even if it's derived from a noun. The term exists and the etymology is right. It's used in all CJKV languages (Korean: 주의, only in Vietnamese (chủ nghĩa) it's a prefix, not suffix. --Anatoli 00:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, 主義 is definitely a suffix, as it is a translation of -ism. It has also become a noun just like ism, though. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] legendrization

Needs 3 cites as usual. The given cite seems to be something in mathematics (perhaps made up for one paper) and may not match the given definition. Equinox ◑ 00:42, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The mathematical term is capitalized - it means making something Legendrian (as in w:Legendrian knot). SemperBlotto 08:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] hot chicken sandwich

Per RFD. DAVilla 04:33, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Food Network : [25]
Recette.qc.ca: [26]
Scores: [27]
Yelp: [28]
Joeys: [29]
Lakeside: [30]
Shut up and Eat: [31]

This is a traditional Canadian dish. 70.24.245.198 08:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Not sure that we can accept any of these citations; a few are definitely worthless. Some use the phrase in no context so do not demonstrate meaning, one is in French. Many actually contradict the meaning we have in the entry; saying it can be made with turkey or duck also, probably none of them are durably archived. Many of them could conceivably just be a chicken sandwich which isn't cold. If it's so traditional, why isn't the term used in any books? Can't we rustle up some cookbooks or something? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

That it can be replaced by duck or turkey, indicates that "hot chicken sandwich" is a specific article, for which you can substitute a different meat, but for which the other parts remain the same, otherwise it'd be a hot turkey sandwich, if it were only a chicken sandwich that was hot. Here's a bgc link: [32]. If you walked into a diner, and asked for a hot chicken sandwich, it'd be a sliced bread sandwich with chicken in the middle covered with "hot chicken sauce" and sometimes peas. It would not be any other kind of chicken sandwich. One of the menus in the previous links shows a picture of the hot chicken sandwich to go with the item, showing a sliced bread chicken sandwich covered in gravy and peas. Ofcourse, the problem is that everyone knows what a hot chicken sandwich is around here, and menus just say "hot chicken sandwich". Here's the big chicken restaurant chain, with one of it's home products, "hot chicken sauce" with a picture of a hot chicken sandwich on its package [33] and another source of hot chicken sauce [34] with another photo of a traditional hot chicken sandwich. And from St.Hubert's menu: [35] , and Scores menu: [36] , the Swiss Chalet menu is less illuminating, because everyone knows what a traditional hot chicken sandwich is... [37] ; this supermarket ad for hot chicken sauce shows the traditional hot chicken sandwich [38] on the can.

70.49.124.157 09:33, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] leazn

A word in "Dutch Low Saxon", whatever that is. -- Liliana • 14:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Um, Dutch Low Saxon and w:Dutch Low Saxon both exist.--Prosfilaes 06:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Cool, and what does the Wikipedia article say? "From a diachronic point of view, the Dutch Low Saxon dialects are merely the Low Saxon dialects which are native to areas in the Netherlands" -- Liliana • 09:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I assume you are looking for citations rather than just switching the header to Low German. It would seem reasonable to propose {{nds-nl}} for deletion. If nothing else, it's a nonstandard name, it should start gmw for 'West Germanic'. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:43, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] family dissident

One who hates his/her family or opposes their religious beliefs. Is this another User:Tedius Zanarukando protologism? These two senses are not what it appears to mean in the relatively few results in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 14:57, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] podunk

Speedy deleted by SemperBlotto, deletion disputed by User:Purplebackpack89. The only cite given in the entry is for the capitalized form. --Yair rand 17:46, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

If it is OK, then "Of or pertaining to being" needs to be removed from the definition (which them needs to be wikified). SemperBlotto 17:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

You could've removed it yourself in the time it took to delete it (with a wholly inappropriate QD rationale, I might add) and then post the comment saying it should be deleted. And podunk is different than Podunk...the former is a common adjective, the latter a common adjective. True, the former evolved from the latter; but they're different parts of speech. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 20:04, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The three necessary mentions have been added. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 20:40, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The OED marks the word as US and colloquial. Should we do the same? (I don't think it would be understood on this side of the pond.) Is the derivation from the Podunk river, or from the Native American tribe? Dbfirs 20:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

I've read it came from the Podunk region in rural Massachusetts, which in turn is named for one of the two things you mentioned. If you have access to the OED definition, would you be so kind as to add it under quoted? Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 21:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The OED has "Of or designating an obscure or insignificant town; out-of-the-way, small-town, provincial; insignificant" for the uncapitalised word. It also has some cites, but we already have some of our own. Dbfirs 22:55, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

This appears to have been cited now (not by me) and looks all right. Equinox ◑ 22:27, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

This is verified so keep it here.Lucifer 22:32, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] manita

Chiranthodendron pentadactyllon. Apparently this is the "Mexican devil's hand tree"...? Equinox ◑ 01:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] weighth

Dated form of weight. Suspect they are typos/scannos in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 01:57, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Uno, dos, tres. --Pilcrow 02:00, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I still think they are typos/scannos. Does any other dictionary have this? Equinox ◑ 02:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I'd say it's a mistake on the analogy of height, which etymologically is high + -th and which used to have heighth as a common alternative form. But weight is not from that suffix (at least, not unless you go really far back). On the other hand, in the books cited by Pilcrow, weight is used consistently apart from those individual sentences, so they're probably typos. Ƿidsiþ 08:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, just errors. I can also find cites for "weighth" when "eighth" was intended, but I don't claim that this is an "old spelling"! Many (but not all) of the mis-spellings I've found are by authors for whom English is not their first language, but perhaps we could have a "mis-spelling of" entry? Even "really far back" in the word's thousand-year history, there was never a spelling weighth, not even in Anglo-Saxon! Dbfirs 22:30, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] avwa

"Common" misspelling of au revoir. Equinox ◑ 02:39, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

If it's "common" then it is certainly hiding itself well! Dbfirs 10:08, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] rowrbazzle

"An exclamation used by the characters in Walt Kelly's comic-strip "Pogo"." This is not a "definition" but some kind of usage note. So what does it mean, and can we cite it, bearing in mind the rules on fictional universes? Equinox ◑ 02:41, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] parelius

Shouldn't this be parhelion (Latin parelion)? Also, definitions should not begin with "When" (unless they are to do with time). SemperBlotto 08:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Certainly makes more sense, though I'm not sure how to explain the first quote. Sorry about the poor definition, it was late, and I had nothing but the two quotes, and another definition online (which I can no longer find) that said parelius was latin for "like the sun"

Actually, a google search this morning for parelius and sun produces (amongst others) this and this and this, and a better definition: "a mock sun"--T. Mazzei 14:05, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Not that I'm an expert, but at Wikipedia it claims "Some Greek nouns may be declined as normal, Latin nouns. For example, theātron can appear as theātrum." Could this be the case for parelion / parelius?--T. Mazzei 05:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] xylopolist

"A seller or purveyor of fine woods." May be a dictionary-only word. Equinox ◑ 18:43, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

OED has "rare a timber-merchant.", but quotes what looks like a book about words. However, a second definition (A musician or leader of a band) and a spurious etymology has now also been added. They look wrong. SemperBlotto 08:27, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

~~RFVing that second sense too~~. Removed incorrect ety. Equinox ◑ 11:39, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I've now determined that he got the second sense from a word quizbook in the format "a barber is 1. a hairdresser, 2. a kind of shirt, 3. a breed of dog", i.e. it was deliberately false in the book. Removed. Equinox ◑ 18:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I've been had, boo! :(Lucifer 05:05, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] wonderfuller

Is that really a word? I was under the impression that it wasn't. Maybe continual misuse has led it to be Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 02:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

No shortage of citations from Google Books. Just mark it as archaic or nonstandard. Fugyoo 04:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I think also "rare" since many of the (limited) hits in bgc seem to be deliberate mis-usages. Dbfirs 08:51, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete cause it has to do with wonderfool, right?Lucifer 23:46, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] backshadowing

Plausible? --Enginear 06:04, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Plenty of results for the word in Google Books. Definition looks plausible. This was a word I encountered and added to Requested Entries a while back. Equinox ◑ 11:41, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] boneshaker in sense A deeply horrifying or suspenseful experience

I couldn't find this meaning in a quick search --Enginear 06:33, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Not on the first 5 pages of Google Books. Fugyoo 07:01, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] galactic

"Of enormous size". A galactic battlecruiser might be big but it's only galactic because it travels in the galaxy, right? Equinox ◑ 13:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't know and since they don't exist I don't think it matters. It can only mean "like a galaxy", although in fiction it can mean whatever the writer wants, seek out examples of such and you will find your answer.Lucifer 10:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It was just an example. And fictional words do matter, or we wouldn't have entries for unicorn or ogre. Equinox ◑ 10:49, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Those don't exist?Lucifer 23:42, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, but the meaning seems to be transferred, at least informally. Can we attest the usage outside blogs etc? Dbfirs 20:47, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

(later) ... Quite a few dictionaries, including the OED, seem the have the transferred sense of "huge", so I'm sure someone will find some good cites. I don't want to just copy the four OED cites. The OED also has the slightly older sense of "illustrious". Dbfirs 20:54, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy Gonzales

Fictional character (proper noun sense). Needs to meet WT:FICTION and possibly (since it's a trademark used for various products and media) WT:BRAND. Equinox ◑ 18:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I disagree that this or the rfv above need to meet WT:BRAND. --Yair rand 23:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I can find cites for this meaning a person who was driving too fast, and have heard it used as a nickname for someone who works, walks, etc. too fast.

Also:

2006 (Aug), "Showcase: Fujifilm FinePix F30", HWM, page 106

Its beautiful F-Chrome color mode and Speedy Gonzales operation speed are thick layers of icing on the cake.

--EncycloPetey 05:49, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Sawyer

Fictional character. Needs to meet WT:FICTION. Equinox ◑ 18:40, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I've heard it used to describe someone's behavior.Lucifer 05:25, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] law

Rfv-sense: A one-sided contract. DCDuring TALK 01:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I have never heard law used in this manner. bd2412 T 03:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I suspect that's a cynical definition of the usual sense of law (viewing it as a contract between two parties, the government and the governed, but imposing obligations only on the latter), rather than a neutral definition of a distinct sense. —Ruakh_TALK 03:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with both of the above. I expect that there won't be citations, but I would welcome them. We have lots of attempts to add tendentious senses, whether one with some usually negative valence, some superspecialization, or one that embodies some specific cause-and-effect mechanism (a theory about how the world works). Generally the senses are just wrong, but sometimes there is an actual sense behind it. In this case, is there a class of downtrodden English speakers who actually use the word this way? I doubt it, but.... In the meantime, the entry needs work to fill in missing senses. DCDuring TALK 15:38, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] tribbing

The sole absolutely horrible citation needs to be replaced by three that... well, don't suck. — [Ric Laurent] — 03:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't find much, but this term is really used, it's the verb for tribadism and I vouch for it.Lucifer 05:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, if it's a verb (and the usex shows verb use), perhaps it shouldn't be under a ===Noun=== header? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 06:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Google Books: "She loved tribbing and knew that this was going to be a great experience. Roxy was not disapointed because once their pussies were together, Helga was like an animal hunching hard and groaning."
Lesbian Sex Tips, Tricks & Techniques has a chapter about tribbing (on google books, p. 73)

There are also some hits in Google News archives. Fugyoo 10:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear -- I'm not refuting that a noun sense exists, but rather wondering why the usex for the noun is in fact a verb form. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 16:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Because it's Troy. He has yet to learn a lot of the terms used here. — [Ric Laurent] — 18:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I didn't create this entry, its clearly a noun entry for what is in reality a verb, all I did was expand the entry with a cite.Lucifer 19:00, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Lol I apologize for that, the original creator (Chuletadechancho (talk • contribs)) of the entry added that usex. It looked like your style of writing, and you've made a number of similar slips. Anyway, the "quotation" you added is still atrocious. It'd be nice if it had some good ones. — [Ric Laurent] — 20:14, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I really appreciate that, I hope we could keep getting along in this manner and that makes sense, the subject matter is my forte which is what piqued my interest in the first place. That was the best citation I could find, I know dictionary defs are bad, and that they are usually copyvios so I tried an except approach. This is definitely a legit term, I guess there is a mountain of man on man action in literature but lesbians don't seem to have to much sex in print, or I'm not good at finding it, I think both are likely as I am allergic to lesbians and only like girly girl heterosexual girls.Lucifer 10:24, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] maihem

This just looks like a misspelling to me. — [Ric Laurent] — 12:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

It's the Anglo-French spelling according to the Online Etymology Dictionary. —CodeCa t 22:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Our etymology section for mayhem lists some similar spellings, but we still need citations — [Ric Laurent] — 22:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Just following redlinks here, not crazy about obsolete english here.Lucifer 10:29, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds plausible as an obsolete spelling, I'll look into it before the end of the day. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems to specifically refer to maiming (mayhem sense #3), for example in this legal glossary first published in the 19th Century. --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The OED just treats it as an obsolete spelling, without attaching any particular sense to that spelling, though the fact that the "i" spelling comes from French law suggests that a legal interpretation will be more common. Dbfirs 17:14, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Is there a good sources for old english and old spellings in general?Lucifer 23:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] cum junkie

Requested at RFD, but not done. Frankly this is a waste of time, you're not going to find a quotation indicating that this means "person that uses their sexuality to obtain luxuries", because that's not what it means. It's simply a junkie for cum (semen), and we have precedent for deleting such entries at Talk:travel junkie. The only reason I'm putting this here is so Martin won't restore it and harp about a proper process. So let's get this stupid, stupid, stupid ball rolling. — [Ric Laurent] — 12:31, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

There already is a citation that examples that in the entry.Lucifer 18:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

ONE is not enough. The magic number is three. — [Ric Laurent] — 20:06, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Tons of words have just one or none at all. Are you contesting that this is not in actually use? Forgive me if I am wrong, but you of all people seem well versed in vulgarities.Lucifer 10:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I am. I'm not contesting the existence of this term. However, it is a sum-of-parts, like travel junkie, and we don't include those. See Talk:travel junkie. What I am contesting is the definition you gave. If it weren't for Martin, this entry would still be deleted and I wouldn't have started this stupid rfv. Basically, I'm just waiting for a week so I can delete it again, because the definition that you gave is inaccurate.

Ideally, all words should have citations. — [Ric Laurent] — 17:53, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm contesting it on the grounds I don't know it and the citations don't back up what the entry says. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:40, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This one does: Also known as “cum junkie,” obsessed with enjoying the finer things in life in exchange for putting out.Lucifer 23:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

That's ONE. You need at least THREE. — [Ric Laurent] — 00:39, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Well you said I didn't have any and implied I made it all up, on google books there are others that imply or show it being used as more than a cumslut, which there are many that show that use, but there others that show this 'prostitution'-like use.Lucifer 03:59, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

You should read Criteria for Inclusion, especially Attestation. When an English term is contested, you need three citations spanning at least a year. —Stephen ^(Talk) 08:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes sir.Lucifer 08:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Has been deleted. - -sche (discuss) 05:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Swype

Appears to be a brand name or something. WT:BRAND — [Ric Laurent] — 20:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

But this is just the origin of the verb, which is a proprietary technology for a product used by millions, it's in every Android device, and the way it works is that for Troy for example you tap on the t and draw a continuos like to the r-o-[and]-y and then you let go and the word troy appears and it is very rapid, much faster than typing physical keys or tapping tactile electronic representations of ones as well. And it is being used as a verb, i.e. "sorry, I swyped that wrong", or "my swype did that", or "i swyped you a message" or "i love swyping"Lucifer 20:08, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary:CFI#Spanning_at_least_a_year. This is why we have tweet, but maybe not some other nonce stuff that never caught on. If it's not been around for a year, then we don't keep it. — [Ric Laurent] — 21:39, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it is too new to meet WT:CFI this year. Nothing on Usenet. Also the verb entry looks suspect because it is capitalised Swype but the other forms are swyping etc. in lower case. Equinox ◑ 20:10, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

I only capitalized it because I thought all brand-derived words have to be. Swype has been around since 2010 if not 2009, so it does span a year. Android phones have definitely caught on, they outnumber iphones 2-1 i believe.Lucifer 10:26, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

This is requests for verification. When you just come and say "OH YEAH IT DOES EXIST" that is of no help in building a scholarly dictionary. Please find citations that MEET THE CRITERIA AT WT:CFI. I don't believe there are enough, if any. Equinox ◑ 10:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The verb "to swype" may well come into common usage, but, if it does, it will be with a lower-case "s". The capitalised form obviously refers to the proprietary technology and software. I can find uses only in blogs so far. Dbfirs 09:40, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Are blogs valid?Lucifer 08:34, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

No. --Yair rand 23:01, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

This is in use though.Lucifer 18:00, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Where can we find it in print, other than in blogs? Dbfirs 16:50, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] foreshot

Adjective sense. SemperBlotto 16:54, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I swear I've heard these used as ballistics terms.Lucifer 23:45, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] backshot

Any takers? SemperBlotto 16:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

The example sentence suggests an adverb, not an adjective as it is listed. --Mglovesfun (talk) 17:09, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] blowbuddy

Rfv-sense - A sparring partner. Maybe we can also find cites for a potential "a person with whom one frequently snorts cocaine"! — [Ric Laurent] — 00:35, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I think that would be "party pals"Lucifer 03:45, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] l'art du déplacement

Supposedly Spanish. It looks French to me. And should the name really include the article? SemperBlotto 08:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

It's French, but it's also used in Spanish (e.g. see es:w:Parkour). In French, the title should not include the article. In Spanish, it seems that the article should be included, it belongs to the phrase, as a French (not Spanish) article. Spanish also uses the French related word traceur. Lmaltier 08:26, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I think if we are to allow it as a Spanish term, it must include the pronuncation. The Spaniards that I know have a terrible time with French pronunciation. I have no idea how this would be pronounced in Spanish. —Stephen ^(Talk) 08:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

lart du deplacement pronounced phonetically, almost everything is, except a few french wine terms and a few english technology terms.Lucifer 08:41, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Uranian

Rfv-sense: A male homosexual.

The sense has been added just recently, on 18 November 2011‎ . --Dan Polansky 13:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

It's quite verifiable. There are actually a lot of references to it if you google it. Even wp has an article about it w:Uranian. I have a feeling that it might be dated. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 01:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] テメ

New entry by Special:Contributions/2.125.74.75, not the other IP user who has similar interests but no competence--so don't hold that against this contributer. However I can't find this word in any dictionary, but it looks very much like 手前, which is pronounced colloquially as temē, which sounds like "teme" to a Westerner's ears, and might have the same meaning in context, since it is a rude form of "you." Should this point to 手前--which needs a little work too, as it lists a pronoun as a noun--or is this something else? Thanks Haplology 18:30, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

♬ Booooooooguuuuuus. ♫ (Imagine a foghorn kind of sound. :) This looks like a pretty clear case of a non-Japanese speaker trying to add Japanese entries without knowing the language. I strongly agree that this entry was added in ignorance of the fact that the word is temē, spelled variously 手前, テメー, or てめえ, among other variations. I'd say move to テメー and edit into a stub entry pointing to 手前. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 05:41, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I thought so. At least we can say it's bogus in good faith. I happened on a real テメ, although probably rarely written in katakana, namely 手目. Maybe we can keep the page but replace the current definition with one for 手目. Haplology 14:07, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps - how often is it written in katakana, though? If it's extremely rare, it might make more sense to have the stub entry at てめ instead. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, dear -- it looks like this same IP user created an identically mistaken entry at てめ. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

My question is, why the hell would it be written in katakana (other than for styling reasons)? If it is indeed a loanword, then... where was it borrowed from? Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 01:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

The katakana is a big hint that this user is coming from a background in manga -- manga authors/artists love to use offbeat styling to catch people's eyes, and katakana is a common part of that. I cannot think of any possible borrowed word that would be spelled テメ. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] vacuo

Need citations for the Spanish entry. --Pilcrow 23:33, 20 November 2011 (UTC)--Pilcrow 23:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It’s a good Spanish word, though somewhat antiquated. What makes you question it? —Stephen ^(Talk) 13:58, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

My friend from Venezuela says that they do not utilize this term. They use vacío instead. --Pilcrow 19:27, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

vacío and vacuo are synonyms, but vacío is the common term in modern use. Vacuo is a good Spanish word, but, as I said, it is an antiquated word and not often used in modern Spanish texts. But it is still a good Spanish word. In Google Spanish Books it gets over 59,000 hits. —Stephen ^(Talk) 21:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Although I do not exactly know what ye mean by ‘good Spanish word’.--Pilcrow 03:18, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I think 'valid'. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] affaire de cœur

Used in Inglesh? (yeah sic) — [Ric Laurent] — 12:04, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

In Inglesh, probably not, but in English, yes. Have you tried Google Books? Lmaltier 20:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't care enough to verify it myself. That's why I put it at "requests for verification". — [Ric Laurent] — 16:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Plural looks dubious though. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Quick checks. Singular:

Plural:

The Scholar searches seem to be useless, as they're all examples of use in French contexts, but the Books hits give more usages in running English text. That said, most of the singular examples are italicized, and all of the fewer hits for the plural are -- that suggests w:code switching to me, but perhaps others might view these as valid use as English? The term is used without explanation, so the authors expected their readers to understand the term at the bare minimum. Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 17:34, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Code switching is something quite different, not relevant here. Foreign words are often used in languages (and are often italicized, but they are used in the language nonetheless), and should be included. Lmaltier 19:58, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

From the w:Code-switching page:

In linguistics, code-switching is the concurrent use of more than one language, or language variety, in conversation. Multilinguals—people who speak more than one language—sometimes use elements of multiple languages in conversing with each other. Thus, code-switching is the use of more than one linguistic variety in a manner consistent with the syntax and phonology of each variety.

That sounds quite relevant and not different at all from the question of whether affaires de cœur constitutes an English term originally from French, or a French term used as French but in an English context. The first is a borrowing, the second is code switching.

Is there some other meaning for the term code switching that you intend? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:41, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

No, this is the meaning. And this is why, obviously, it's not code-switching. Code-switching is when people commonly speaking several languages change the language they use during conversation with other people sharing the same languages, it's not the use of words borrowed from other languages (except, maybe, when they use this word because they don't know the word in the language they are speaking). Lmaltier 18:02, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

We have an English entry for schadenfreude, though I agree that this is not quite the same because there isn't a good English translation (at least not as a single word). Dbfirs 13:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

What about epicaricacy? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:38, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

¶ I adjected five citations for it, but since I added them then it would be a good idea to speedy‐delete them since they have been stained with my vile inﬂuence. --Pilcrow 00:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Is the first cite really "affaire do cœur" or is that just a typo? The argument is not with you, Pilcrow, but we are not sure whether the cites are deliberately using a French expression as "code switching" (it was once common to speak French in polite society), or whether the phrase has become an English alternative to "affair of the heart". My own opinion is that the phrase has now entered the English language. Dbfirs 08:24, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Windows Forms

WT:BRAND? -- Liliana • 15:24, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, like the previously failed Windows Driver Model. These are specific technologies, even though the low-level technical ones tend to have boring names that don't leap out at you like e.g. iPhone. Equinox ◑ 22:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Just the name of the programming object used in IDEs. The definition at form (A window or dialogue box) should be sufficient to cover this. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 01:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Commodore 64

Would need to meet WT:BRAND criteria. -- Liliana • 17:52, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

As fond as I might be of 1980s home computers, this is just a brand and model name, like Ford Sierra Sapphire for a car. Equinox ◑ 21:28, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Weak keep. There's a bit of use of Commodore 64 as representative of the era. Terms like "Commodore 64 era" and "Commodore 64 style", but I'm not sure if that's enough to pass.--Dmol 21:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

As this is RFV voting isn't appropriate: can you find citations supporting such a sense? Equinox ◑ 22:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

That just means “era of the Commodore 64,” and “styled like a Commodore 64.” They're specific references with no other meaning. Of course, you may find references that disprove me. —Michael Z. 2011-12-14 17:47 z

[edit] spinal immobilization

(emergency medicine) the medical practice of protecting the cervical spine from potential or further injury after an incident of trauma such as a car accident

Really? Any protecting of the spine, and not only immobilization of the spine?—msh210℠ (talk) 23:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Instinctive opinion; delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:13, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

(Just a G Troy invention under his new identity.) Sum of parts. Delete. Dbfirs 13:41, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes there are many ways to protect the spine, either complete immobilization or partial stabilization. The point is to reduce the chances of further injury, if the scene is stable, then a spineboard plus spider straps and cheese blocks is in order, but if the patient is bleeding to death from gun shot woulds in addition to having been in a car accident then immobilization no longer matters, we can break the patient's neck if that means saving them from bleeding to death and in that case we do very basic stabilization with a towel, but both of forms of spinal immobilization or "C-spining" as we shorthand it to. There are a plethoera of a situations in which the goal is still just to stabilize a bit if even possible instead of complete immobilization, and this covers protecting all 5 vertebrae sections, the spinal cord, and also adding cribbage to hunchbacks and special considerations for children, it can be done with tools or simply with paramedic's hands. Any medical book would cover this and it's a bit more complex than spinal+immobilization you know what i mean?Lucifer 22:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I certainly don't. For our purposes, can we just stick to the lexical information and leave the practical information aside? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Nor do I. The details belong in Wikipedia. Dbfirs 08:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

A dictionary allows for quick reference.Lucifer 09:20, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

So you're saying it's called spinal immobilization even when you don't immobilize the spine? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, SI is actually often times impossible. Some patients have a higher priority but SI is taken into account less and later. Some people are drunk and have a broken neck from a car crash and fight you so you take minimal steps. In general its the concept of protecting the spine.Lucifer 05:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

... so that's an attempt at spinal immobilization in order to protect the spine as far as possible. Dbfirs 09:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Per Equinox, as interesting as all this information is, it's useless in terms of the entry spinal immobilization, which we've been asked to verify per WT:CFI#Attestation, and we haven't done so. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I see three quotations do you?Lucifer 00:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, there are three clear quotations for spinal immobilization but not for spinalimmobilization. Dbfirs 16:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] single

Rfv-sense: Designed for a single use; not reusable. Example sentence the anti-aircraft rocket is fired from a single use launch platform. This looks like a use of single to mean 'only one; not more than one' (which bizarrely we seem to lack). I don't know how to use 'single' to mean 'not reusable'. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually that sense is worded 'Not accompanied by anything else.' which I think is wrong. Two things can be not accompanied by anything else, without being 'single'. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

"Not reusable" is a definition of "single use", not of "single". I suggest that we follow Martin's advice and delete the added sense, then change "Not accompanied by anything else" to "not more than one". Dbfirs 13:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] bubbly

"Ready to burst", as in His job made him so bubbly. Added today. Equinox ◑ 22:47, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Um... what does that mean??—msh210℠ (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, the added sense, and its example, match sense 2 IMO, "cheerful, lively". Haplology 05:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, just an inappropriate exaggeration of sense 2. Just remove that sense as redundant. Dbfirs 13:29, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks just wrong, never come across it to mean literally about to burst (that is pop, explode) or figuratively to mean 'overjoyed'. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:50, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The definition seems to indicate stressed as opposed to "cheerful, lively". Not a good example sentence. If something is "bubbling" it tends to refer to the heat, rather than the actual bubbles. As such the use of bubbly in His job made him so bubbly refers to a heated and stressful situation. Perhaps a redirect to "bubbling" or a re-write of the example sentence would be best.

[edit] McDonald's

Rfv-sense: the company. No chance this will pass WT:BRAND or WT:COMPANY. -- Liliana • 04:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem with deleting that definition is that there are a lot of other definitions dependent in some way or another on that definition. And I think the fact that so many other definitions, a number of which are wholly independent of the company, exist and are verifiable would lead me to believe that that gets it to pas WP:COMPANY. Take, for example, "Mc-" definition #4. That definition is based primarily on the fact that there is a large fast food chain that many do not hold in high regard Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 04:29, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Um, doesn't it currently pas WT:COMPANY anyway? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:51, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. What is WT:COMPANY trying to say? It looks like "being a company name does not stop a surname from being included", but that's not necessary to say. Equinox ◑ 23:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

WT:COMPANY reads as follows: "A brand name for a physical product should be included if it has entered the lexicon." Has the multinational behemoth known as McDonald's entered the lexicon? You're darned right. In case I hadn't made myself clear, strong keep Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 23:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You've actually quoted WT:BRAND. COMPANY says "Being a company name does not guarantee inclusion. 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." We currently have a common noun on the same page, so once that's attested, this passes. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Strong keep, per Purplebackpack89. What about translations? You just want to chuck them? --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 10:49, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete, fuck McDonald's.Lucifer 03:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Walmarts

Rfv-sense: "Common mispronunciation of Walmart". If it's common, show me the sources. I've never heard of a single Walmart mispronounced as multiple ones Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 04:38, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we need look for verification because mispronunciations don't get entries in a dictionary. Dbfirs 13:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

It may be attestable (in a written form) as an error. But even if it is, do we want to keep every attestable error? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:31, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

We already have the sense of multiple stores. (... and no, in my opinion, we don't want to record every attestable error, just the common ones with at least hundreds of Google hits, preferably thousands!) Perhaps someone heard "Walmart's"? Dbfirs 08:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

white trash in america likes to pluralize words, nouns and verbs to be specific i.e. i walks to the store instead of I walk to the store or I love my moms instead of I love my mom. However I think the litmus test for what I believe are called respellings or eye spelling is attestability and although I am certain someone calls it Walmarts for it to be included here such as nigga, nikka, or fuckin' we need citations.Lucifer 09:25, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

... but we can never find citations for a claimed mis-pronunciation. I expect we can find lots of examples of a missing apostrophe. Dbfirs 23:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

This seems much more likely to be a misspelling of a reconstruction (?) of "Walmart" to follow the pattern common among older and smaller stores having a name in the form of the possessive form of the founder's name, like "Macy's". Of course the founder of Walmart was not Mr. Walmart, but w:Sam Walton. At COCA Walmart's occurs 22 times, compared to 393 occurrences of Walmart. I've suggested the redirect be added at Wikipedia. DCDuring TALK 00:46, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Agreed ... so can we change sense 2 to read something like "common mis-spelling of Walmart's which is an error for a Walmart store"? Dbfirs 20:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I like the term "misconstruction" or "misconstrual", but "mis-spelling" is OK. I think that "misconstruction" is somewhat better to characterize the application of a rule in an inappropriate circumstance. DCDuring TALK 22:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Stryker

Two senses. Suspect both would fail WT:BRAND. Equinox ◑ 22:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

All Stryker stretchers even the generic ones are called Strykers by medics, they are the full featured fancy ones basicallyLucifer 22:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

And are you kidding me about the second sense? Do you not watch the news, Strykers are not really a brand, they're the current generation of armored war machine used in Iraq and Afghanistan, like abrams tank or osprey.Lucifer 22:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe. But "someone on the Internet says that medics say it" is not verification. Three citations meeting CFI are needed. Equinox ◑ 22:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I think SemperBlotto did in fact find several, I had originally titled this stryker since it's how we tend to spell it but semper contested that as all the cites he found had it capitalized, we went through the same pattern with Ferno, the Stryker's cheaper cousin used in public health whereas the Stryker is expensive and used in private health.Lucifer 22:53, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

You know they were really really easy to find, what did you put in the search box when you decided to nominate here? I was able to find dozens of citations for both senses.Lucifer 22:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't saying the word didn't exist. I was saying it needs to pass WT:BRAND. Please read that page. Equinox ◑ 23:01, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Is it really a brand name though? It's used for different products from unrelated companies, and with direct reference to the stretcher or vehicle and not the unrelated companies. Both have entered the lexicon anyways so they should pass. This is shown in novels or memoirs of the war the mention the vehicle and educational materials that mention the stretcher.Lucifer 23:12, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

This term is verified 6 times over and I move for it to be stricken.Lucifer 08:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Possibly relevant: Citations:stryker. - -sche (discuss) 22:40, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Stihl saw

Nominating my own creation (fair's fair). I think this is actually a branded product, I first though it was an eponym, that is named after the person who invented it, but I think it's actually a specific grinder made by Stilh (which may be valid as a surname) which is a company. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:49, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't it by Stihl, not Stilh.--Dmol 11:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok done. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:35, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Stihl makes chainsaws, among other equipment (just as do Husqvarna, Homelite, Craftsman and many other manufacturers). Originally, Stihl chainsaws ran on gasoline, but in recent years all the manufacturers have come out with electric models (plug-in) as well as cordless ones that have rechargeable batteries. So, a Stihl saw is not just a cordless chainsaw, it is any type of chainsaw made by Stihl. —Stephen ^(Talk) 11:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

There may have been a time after w:Stihl developed the gasoline-powered chainsaw in 1926 when all chainsaws were sometimes called Stihl saws. World War II probably put an end to that in the English-speaking world. DCDuring TALK 18:17, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I found no support for the above conjecture. DCDuring TALK 00:31, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

In current usage, this is just Stihl (a brand name) + saw. I don't know about earlier. — lexicógrafa | háblame — 18:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

From the debate, verifiable or not, this seems to be SoP like MacDonald's burger so if it somehow gets cited, it should go straight to RFD. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:27, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

When I was in AmeriCorps (many years ago), we regularly used Stihl chainsaws, and everyone just called them Stihls. There are a few examples in literature:

2011, Raeanne Thayne, Blackberry Summer, p. 156:

“It's been a few years, but I'm sure I can remember how to fire up the Stihl.” Her eyes widened with surprise. “You're far too busy, Riley. You don't have time to be cleaning up my yard.
2004, David Guterson, Our Lady of the Forest, p. 105:

Appelbaum had described an hour-long program to unfold in something called the Old Forest Fire Pit with tourists seated on split-log benches under a cedar-shake faux-mossy roof while Pete Schein showed them how to sharpen a Stihl or fell a tree using the dutchman. The tree would be held together with hinge pins, and Stihl would be advertising.
1996, Rick Just, Keeping Private Idaho, p. 214:

He stood there for a moment staring at the scene up river, then he shuffled around like some mechanical thing and stared at the tools hung over his workbench. He saw a line of screwdrivers stuck in pegboard, saws and clamps hung from hooks, the painted outline of a missing hammer, and pliers in their proper place. His favorite Stihl was sitting on the work top. Beneath the bench was the big McCulloch, just gathering dust.

In some of these, it is possible to surmise from reading the surrounding text more broadly that a Stihl is a kind of sawing device, although not necessarily a chainsaw. There are also a few references to caps bearing the Stihl logo as symbolizing the certain kind of person who would wear a cap bearing the logo of a chainsaw manufacturer:

2009, Alex Stone, Hauling Checks, p. 35:

I knew he was a lumberjack because he was wearing a Stihl hat and a red flannel shirt.
2005, Thomas Sparrow, Northwoods Standoff, p. 259:

"Sure you would, Peter," said the taller of the two, smirking and tugging on the greasy rounded brim of his Stihl cap.
2004, Ana Maria Spagna, Now go home: wilderness, belonging, and the crosscut saw, p. :

At what point can you bury the fact that you drove west in the sixties and traded your VW van for a can of Copenhagen and a Stihl ball cap?

I think that this collectively demonstrates that a certain culture exists within which "Stihl" is understood to mean a chainsaw, and would move this entry to Stihl. Of course, the word is also a surname, and should also get surname treatment. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:21, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] cheese blocks

Cites demonstrating given meaning, please. — [Ric Laurent] — 01:42, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

google books:"cheese blocks" spine and google books:"cheese blocks" emergency don't get anything usable, so I'm no longer sure where to look to try and find this term. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I'll look through some of my medical books. They blocks are about a foot long and 6 inches tall and wide and covered in a thick yellow plastic, it looks like a giant plastic block of cheese which is what earned it the name.Lucifer 23:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Some poking around turned up no medical usages, but did turn up something used in the logging industry to hold the logs in place on a truck. --EncycloPetey 05:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] pussygirl

Both of the given citations use quotation marks around the term. — [Ric Laurent] — 01:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with that?Lucifer 09:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Got three without quotation marks now. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:04, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Not even going to bother trying to explain it to you, Troy. Thanks Martin. — [Ric Laurent] — 11:56, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe this citations match the sense given. They are capitalised and appear to refer to a particular hostess in a brand of club, like Playboy Bunny. (Note the one that mentions Pussyman and his Pussygirls.) Equinox ◑ 12:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

There are a LOT of Usenet hits. Admittedly, a lot of these would be deemed invalid (such as a user name, or part of a URL) but I think this could pass based on Usenet alone. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] piledrive

Rfv-senses, construction and sex move. — [Ric Laurent] — 01:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

There appear to be thousands of citations for every sense of this word in every conjugated form, for every sense. This nomination seems rather dubious to me.Lucifer 22:55, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Sex move is now cited (but whoever added the one that says "pile driver position", note that that isn't a suitable citation for the verb piledrive). Still need citations for construction sense. Equinox ◑ 22:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like both "My ass rose and fell like a piledriver as I pumped my cock in and out," and "I had never taken a bodyslam much less a piledriver," need to moved to piledriver. Caladon 23:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Well I added a ton, they take little effort to confirm and I have to go. I'll come back to this tomorrow (PST).Lucifer 23:26, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] spider straps

Citations, va rog. — [Ric Laurent] — 01:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Va rog

Va rog?

google books:"spider straps", at least four of the first ten are usable. Could you please do a quick check before nominating an entry for RFV? It saves us a lot of time. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:59, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

No. Unless we have "request for citations" or something. And really you know what would save you time? Not doing it if you don't care :) — [Ric Laurent] — 23:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

And wasn't he warned not to nominate my entries here and on deletion out of spite and in bursts clearly just showing his displeasure? It's not the words' fault.Lucifer 22:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between spite and distrust. I don't trust a lot of your entries. — [Ric Laurent] — 23:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

That's bull, by your own admission my EMT related entries are legit. You overlooked and were a bit lazy with this nomination at best or were just spiteful at worst and that is what this probably is since you nomed four at a time and they are all being kept and quick.Lucifer 11:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Note: Since we've now got a proper entry at the singular, spider strap, I've changed this entry to a simple "plural of" entry. Equinox ◑ 22:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be usually plural though? Because spider straps is the singular, spider strap is one arm of a spider straps and spider straps is the whole apparatus and 2 to 9 of them but not all of them in a separate plural sense for spider strap. make sense?Lucifer 22:58, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

If you can talk about one, then I think it makes sense to put the thing at the singular. If you want, you could put {{mostly|plural}} at the start of the singular definition line. Equinox ◑ 23:00, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay let me specify. IIIIIIIIII that is one spider straps, it is one solid object. One spider straps, or two spider straps = IIIIIIIIII. Now if you want to talk about a single arm of a spider straps, you could call it a spider strap, but that doesn't make it the singular of the spider straps.Lucifer 23:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't find any evidence to support "one spider straps". Surely "one set of"? Equinox ◑ 23:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

A spider spider straps is used, just like a scissors, a cat of nine tails, and technically it's correct to say a pants.Lucifer 05:07, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

"A pants" is not correct. Provide proof instead of anecdotes. Equinox ◑ 20:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hey look. The above appears to be verification in progress. — [Ric Laurent] — 23:54, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

The piece of equipment seems to be referred to in both the singular and the plural. Wasn't it originally "Spider Strap" [39] Dbfirs 07:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

No the equipment I am talking about is only known as spider straps, here is a good picture and as you can see, it is one large belt system, not individual pieces. There is no singular spider strap. Only individual arms to strap together.Lucifer 09:29, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Provide proof instead of anecdotes. Equinox ◑ 20:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I did, obviously you can't understand a picture or look through the citations on the page, or state what exactly you want from me.Lucifer 08:45, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Equinox that's an illustration for those unfamiliar with the topic, it's not an anecdote, it's as assist for those of you that are unfamiliar with this topic, so I thought a picture worth a thousand words would clarify that like scissors, the plural is the main form. Do the 3 or more citations I added to the article constitute "proof"? I'm not sure I know what you mean otherwise, I am trying to explain this equipment as clearly as possible and show evidence to support what I am saying to resolve the verification process.Lucifer 08:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It definitely exists as a term in English, it seems comparable to scissors where 'a scissor' does exist but its rare. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think "Scissor" was ever a trade-marked product like "Spider Strap". Dbfirs 22:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks mglovesfun, I would also like to point out that it is verified at this point, with three or more citations.Lucifer 08:43, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think "less common" rather than "rare" in the singular, since one siteseems to claim a trade mark for the singular. The singular is also used in other fields. Dbfirs 10:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Let's delist since this is verified.Lucifer 07:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Any chance of researching the history of the product to see if it was originally a trade-marked product called a Spider Strap? Dbfirs 08:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] kana

Rfv-sense: A website which shares revenue with its contributors. From the Hawaiian ka`ana meaning "share". Really? -- Liliana • 13:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Total and utter bull to me. No cite, no mention of where it's used. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 01:36, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Binary Application Markup Language

Proprietary Microsoft format, needs cites meeting WT:BRAND. Also, the definition is pretty embarassing. -- Liliana • 00:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

This makes me wanna cut my dick off and makes me itch too, delete Delete DELETE.Lucifer 06:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete for no usable content given. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:53, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Delete per .NET Framework (recently failed RFD as a specific software product akin to a brand). Equinox ◑ 22:58, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis

I can find little conveying meaning for this word. On Citations:pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanokoniosis, we have one use (1977), maybe two (1953, looks a bit like a "made-up example of how a word might be used"). —Internoob 03:56, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

This was actually considered a disease at one point and people with cancer derived from exposure to vog do get it.Lucifer 05:09, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Provide proof instead of anecdotes. Equinox ◑ 20:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Are you just gonna add that to every comment I make everywhere? The fact that it is a recognized disease and I am providing that info is helpful to anyone that is trying to find sources on it. It's my two cents and more useful than your irrelevant (to this discussion remark), maybe my talk page would be more useful?Lucifer 08:48, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It's not a recognized disease. The recognized disease it presumes to be the name of goes by much shorter names in real life.--Prosfilaes 13:03, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I will add it to every comment you make that is an anecdote instead of proof. Learn to use RFV. Equinox ◑ 22:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You're just bullying me now, because people add "comments" all the time here, learn some manners.Lucifer 08:46, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Here is a 2009 paper, this one will obviously be next to impossible to cite due to its very nature, just like many valid chemical names which are universally shortened due to length.

... from iron dust etc. 7 There are different names for CWP, miners' lung, black lung, 'black spit', 'miners' asthma', silicosis, pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis etc. according to countries, times and parts ... link

and An article from a trade journal with the word as a header - TheDaveRoss 21:08, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Heh, I remember getting this as a spelling word in grade 5. Memories...

Spelled with the "k" for the -coniosis bit at the end, I found this citation, where the word is apparently used as a stand-in for "some disease with a long name".

Spelled with the expected "c", google scholar:"pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis" mostly just produces hits of entries in "longest-word" lists, which isn't very helpful. That search did include this PDF, which lists the word under footnote 7 on page 8 as one of the many possible synonyms for coal workers’ pneumoconiosis, the subject of the paper. google books:"pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis" currently returns 189 hits, more than I care to go through fully, but a quick scan of the first page of hits shows mostly mentions or definitions, with no uses in running texts.

I did see one or two mentions that this word was coined some time in the early 1900s specifically to be the longest word. It's well-known enough to merit inclusion, but probably with mention that it doesn't seem to be used for much. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 21:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Anecdotes (which can further discussions) should be kept on discussion pages (like this one) but out of entries themselves, so tell 1000 anecdotes on talk pages if you like, but they won't count as citations. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:32, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

What of the first link there, the one spelled with the "k"? Or the one that TheDaveRoss also linked to? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 22:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The disease, of course, is pneumoconiosis, and people like to add various bits in the middle to create longer words for the illness caused by different materials. Whether any of them meet CFI, I'm not sure. Are there any actual uses? Dbfirs 23:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Attested. Removing RFV. ~ Robin 16:57, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I've restored the RFV tag for now. (I'm not specifically challenging your citations — they're all iffy, but only the 2001 cite is clearly invalid — but you should at least give people a chance to examine them before closing the discussion.) —Ruakh_TALK 17:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

The original disease was pneumonoconiosis, and the "ultramicroscopicsilicovolcano" ‎was the joke insertion, with the name of the disease later becoming pneumoconiosis‎. I don't think anyone ~~(except a certain paramedic)~~ ever believed that the volcano version was a real disease, but the joke has been maintained, so perhaps it deserves the nonce-word entry? Dbfirs 20:16, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It would make no difference if no one actually has this disease. We have entries for lots of imaginary things. ~ Robin 16:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

According to rocketbook.com (who do pretty good research), this word was invented for a crossword puzzle, and later justified as a disease when the validity of the word was questioned. This doesn't mean that it hasn't entered the English language since, however. Like others here, I remember learning this word from a Big Book of Facts at a young age. --EncycloPetey 05:30, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Any objection to me clearing RFV as adequately attested? ~ Robin 05:34, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Cleared. ~ Robin 04:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Lady

Rfv-sense, Wicca. I've always always always seen the Maiden, Mother and Crone, never the Lady. Also, none of them is "predominant". Some people might identify more with one or another, but none of them is more important. — [Ric Laurent] — 13:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I should add mother too then, and let's reword Lady in that case. Also since you clearly imply that you believe in the term Lady's existance and even the laziest google search would show that, this seems to be an invalid nomination for verification.Lucifer 08:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Also within the theology of Wicca of course I believe the Lady is to be equal to the Horned God her male counterpart as the religion espouses equality, but in retrospect and from a neutral point of view, the Lady is far more prominent and she is the embodiment of Mother/Maiden/Crone, that is what I meant by predominant, how do you think we should reword this?Lucifer 08:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Uh, how about before you reword it you should add citations that indicate that someone out there calls what most Wiccans call Mother Lady. I don't clearly imply anything. In fact I frankly don't believe that you can find such cites. Furthermore, the Horned Hunter is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. — [Ric Laurent] — 11:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

You did and it's ludicrous to contradict just for the sake of contradiction. Why don't you add them if you think they need verification. There are tons of books on Wicca so they do exist. If you think it is, reread my previous comments or ask a friend to explain it to you if you are having trouble. Good day.Lucifer 08:36, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I've read numerous books on Wicca and none of them have referred to "The Mother" as "The Lady". If by December fifth this doesn't have quotations clearly demonstrating that use, with the Lady being compared or contrasted to the Maiden and the Crone, I'm going to delete it. — [Ric Laurent] — 12:57, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Instead not disrupting the verification process by not impacting other ~~edit's~~editor's ability to chime in or "Lady"-forbid following policy you just keep soapboxing your self-perceived superiority and general worthlessness, which is sad. =( In any case this term has been cited dude.Lucifer 03:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Appears to be cited now. Equinox ◑ 13:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] fuss

"Future Utah Student Section or Former Utah Student Section" - relevant for wiktionary? \Mike 22:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

If attested, move to FUSS and make it a proper noun, also, should be 2 senses not 1. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] behear

"(UK dialectal, Scotland) Used to express surprise. God behear us!" This usage example does not support behear alone as an interjection. Equinox ◑ 22:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't support any sort of interjection: "God behear us" is clearly verbal. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] microglomerate

A kind of small company. Added today by an IP. Everything I can find online relates to one company, Brick Cave Media, which appears to have introduced this term. I don't think it meets WT:CFI. Equinox ◑ 23:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I introduced the word to Wiki today, and am unaware of Brick Cave Media or it's claim to introduce this word. I developed the definition for the word "Microglomerate". If Brick Cave can produce their definition of what a "Microglomerate" is, then we can evaluate it based on it's merit. At any point as needed I can provide the date at which I created the word "Microglomerate" and the date to which I established the definition for the word Microglomerate". Here is my definition of the word "Microglomerate" - "A Microglomerate is a combination of two or more Brands, Businesses, and/or Entities engaged in different businesses that fall under one Business structure. They are a parent company and several (or many) subsidiaries. It acts like a conglomerate but without the corporate structure, cost, and inefficiencies. Each entity acts as its own profit center reporting to the parent company." I am open to discussion regarding word Microglomerate.

To further establish my claim to this word, I am notarizing the document that establishes the dates by which I created the word, and its definition, also the dates I made public claim to the word.

Makes it sound even more likely to me that it won't meet CFI if you've just made it up. By the way, are you saying you created the word and established its definition at two separate dates? What's the date then? Anyway as interesting as this all is, can we delete the entry yet? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:58, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

We don't add words based on merit or based on any one person's definition, but on established usage as evidenced in print etc. Equinox ◑ 13:01, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Wiktionary is not a publicity engine for Bob Nelson of Brick Cave Media. I suggest that we move the word to our list of ~~neo~~protologisms. Dbfirs 23:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree, this seems to merit a line in WT:LOP, but not yet a full-blown entry. ~ Robin 16:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] December 2011

[edit] convironment

Two maybes at bgc: not even sure they mean what our entry claims. (And I can only see their snippets.)—msh210℠ (talk) 01:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like deliberate nonsense to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 20:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] something else

Rfv-sense: (informal) Exceptionally good. Tagged but not listed. Highly doubtful. -- Liliana • 20:45, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

No it's basically ok. I'm not sure about the part of speech. Exceptionally good is just one interpretation, it really means 'out of the ordinary; unusual' which can be positive (Usain Bolt is something else) or non-positive (the rain in Ireland is something else). We definitely need to cover this; what we don't definitely need to cover is the pronoun sense 'some other thing'. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree (w/Mglovesfun). —Ruakh_TALK 00:46, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

As do I. ---> Tooironic 22:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

I would claim widespread use for it in MG's definition, though a good citation would be nice. DCDuring TALK 01:33, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Passed. - -sche (discuss) 06:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] fika

Rfv-sense: the Manchu section. I could've tagged it {{wrongscript}} but this seems more effective. No hits on Google at all, at least not in Manchu script. -- Liliana • 22:05, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 06:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] real estate deal

Is this really used as a verb? Example sentence in second definition is a noun. Is this at all saveable? (RfV may not be the best place) SemperBlotto 08:06, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see it as worth saving. real estate#Noun + deal#Noun would seem to fully incorporate most uses of the term. The literary usage in the Heinlein citation hardly justifies even a noun sense. But with our current practice on inclusion, who knows? All words.... DCDuring TALK 14:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Definitely "all words..." but not "all combinations of words..." SemperBlotto 08:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Sense 2 seems to be nonsense. Equinox ◑ 21:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I tried to google "I real estate deal", "you real estate deal" etc., "I'm real estate dealing" etc. and "I real estate dealt" etc. The only thing I could find was one banner with message "We real estate deal in Texas". In the quote "buy the farm" is the verb and "real estate deal" is a noun. > delete. --Hekaheka 18:54, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 06:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Afrophobia

Tagged but not listed. I think the term is okay except one thing: it is rather a phobia against Black people, not Africans. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 13:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

In academic usage I think its against both black people, especially in America, but also anything negro/dark/african/black in general, either people, politics, religion, culture etc. Just black people might be a bit too narrow and americentric.Lucifer 22:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

What I mean by Black people includes Africans. Probably I should have said Africans and African descendants. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:02, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Ah, at the exclusion of White Namibians, Arab Egyptians, Indian South Africans, and Berber Moroccans, I presume?Lucifer 03:03, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It is more politically correct than negrophobia. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha, do we not have negrophobia then? Might have to add that. Phobias have to be ultra well cited though, right?Lucifer 09:39, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

We should have negrophobia too. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:23, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Negrophobia (in upper case) is citable - the definition could be "Fear of or contempt for Black people and their culture", should not be limited to Africa and descendents. We need this term. The black-skinned people may be only of African descent but Australian aborigines and people with very dark skin from anywhere (e.g. parts of India, Sri Lanka). Afrophobia is a partial synonym, the definition is fine but could be expanded. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 01:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I have added an entry for an overlooked phobia: Arabophobia. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 02:03, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Oh, upper case. Yes, negrophobia would be a phobia for black-colored things… So, is it all right to close this discussion as verificated? — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Kept: verified. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] opnommen

I have never heard of this word in Dutch. Google gives quite a few hits but they are all in Frisian (the fy equivalent of dutch opgenomen). I also googled for "ik nom op hem" and besides some hits that find there origin here, some typo's for noem, some abbreviations for ik - nominative there is nothing. I think this is a prank / protologism

Jcwf 04:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 20:53, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Have the inflected forms of the verb been deleted as well? —CodeCa t 21:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Oh, no. Good point. - -sche (discuss) 21:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Now they have been. - -sche (discuss) 21:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] /

Portuguese for the question mark. Is this actually orthographic, or just a typo that occurs every so often? -- Liliana • 04:35, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Standard Portuguese uses the ordinary question mark (?), but this is categorized as belonging to tiopês, a Brazilian variant of Portuguese used in internet, which is defined as "A form of humorous chatspeak, characterized by a high and deliberate use of grammatical errors and n00b behaviour." I don't know whether we should have this one. It might be difficult to encounter permanently archived citations. --Hekaheka 15:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

We do list 1 as a misspelling for !. —CodeCa t 15:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Do note that the English sense of / as a question mark already failed RfD. 1 should probably suffer the same fate. -- Liliana • 15:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 06:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] spider strap

I never heard of any use but for the C-spine precautions use.Lucifer 13:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Is it possible to merge this with #spider straps above, or not? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

This is a different sense and the plural mostly common ems sense debate might get tangled much like spider straps if we did.Lucifer 22:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] toilet baby

Cites — [Ric Laurent] — 02:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

It's cited.Lucifer 04:05, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

One of those is clearly not supporting the definition as the person is alive, so I'm removing it. The first one is rather light on detail, not saying anything about whether or not the creature lived. — [Ric Laurent] — 11:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Toilet babies often survive if they are a life birth, in other cases they die because if the mother is giving birth at home it was unexpected, yet in other cases the neonate dies from septic shock since the toilet bowl is full of bacteria, miscarriages occur here too, as too homemade abortions, placenta's are also delivered via this route along with menses. I am assuming you didn't realize toilet babies survive routinely so I am going to readd that quotation in good faith.Lucifer 12:36, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

This has four citations.Lucifer 21:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

According to urban dictionary a "toilet baby" is a crap so large it resembles a crowning infant. Most Google hits for "toilet baby" are for babies playing in a toilet. I don't think the cites prove a thing. They are simply examples of normal attributive use of a noun. In each of them the baby is called toilet baby because it was found in a toilet. If it had been found in a closet, it would have been a "closet baby". Delete unless better proof is brought forth. --Hekaheka 23:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Urban dictionary isn't a reliable source of anything and toilet baby is cited for this sense of it. As for closet baby that is neither here nor there. And this is the wrong venue to propose delete at.Lucifer 21:54, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] splatterspunk

Horror subgenre or something. Everything in G.Books and Groups appears to be the title of one book. Equinox ◑ 00:10, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

this search shows at least 3 attestations over 1 year in length, this is a word; just not what the creator claims.Lucifer 21:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

What is referred to as "This search" above by Luciferwildcat is google books:"splatterspunk", and it only finds hits for a name of a work published in 1998, bearing the full name of "Splatterspunk: The Micah Hayes Stories". Thus, so far unattested. --Dan Polansky 11:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] lthr

Really? SemperBlotto 07:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Abbreviation of leather?Lucifer 09:38, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I assume this is Internet slang rather than just 'informal', but I've never heard of it. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:41, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

It may be found in product catalogues. As an example, this is a line for a blue motorcycling jacket: ALPINESTARS MX-1 LTHR JACKET BLUE. Hardly dictionary material, though. One may find a lot of similar "abbreviations" in product catalogues. --Hekaheka 10:04, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 06:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] buck wild

Noun sense (synonyms are adjectives) SemperBlotto 08:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It's an adjective. Creator just seems to be unaware. — [Ric Laurent] — 11:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

It is an adjective isn't it, but don't most words have a noun sense as well?Lucifer 12:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

No... — [Ric Laurent] — 12:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I am buck wild. (NOUN!).Lucifer 13:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Um, no. Also, in I am here, here is not a noun (it's an adverb); in I am going, going is not a noun (it's a verb); and in I am angry, angry is not a noun (it's an adjective).—msh210℠ (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Similarly "I am ignorant" (adjective), but "I am an ignoramus" (noun). SemperBlotto 16:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I remember reading a semi-scholarly book several years ago on African American Vernacular English which defined "buck" by itself as "extremely" or something like that, so actually "buck wild" is a sum-of-parts phrase, although I can't think of any other ways to use "buck." If I remember correctly it was Black Talk by Geneva Smitherman, but I could be wrong, it was a long time ago. Haplology 14:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Buck naked??—msh210℠ (talk) 14:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

I've heard "buck naked" but I'm not sure if that was just a poor pronunciation of "butt naked". Though it seems to be super common online, so I guess it's possible that the poor pronunciation was misunderstood and subsequently transcribed as buck. Anyway. Wusilyunseung. — [Ric Laurent] — 14:59, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Note: Heading has been changed to Adjective, but definition is still for that of a noun. SemperBlotto 08:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

fixedLucifer 21:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Nope. "Definition" is now Related to encompassing timultuosness, debauchery, partying and typically: uncharacteristically inappropriate behavior such as exaggerated sexual, narcotic, and rulebreaking conduct. First part doesn't make much sense to me (Related to encompassing timultuosness?), second part (uncharacteristically inappropriate behavior) is still a noun. SemperBlotto 08:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] kush

English section, "cannabis". Tagged by Cobone, but not added. The term certainly exists and is indeed related to cannabis, but I'm fairly certain the meaning is far more specific. I think it refers to a certain family of strains, though I couldn't tell you what the specifics are supposed to be. — [Ric Laurent] — 11:47, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Kush. lol — [Ric Laurent] — 11:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

hell yeah!Lucifer 12:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

More specifically w:Kush (cannabis). Mglovesfun (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] lamero

I looked for this before removing it from the translation table at asslicker and found nothing, so replaced it with sicofante. It was re-added, and the article was created. — [Ric Laurent] — 12:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

A Google search seems to support this meaning, although it's much more commonly used as toponym "El Lamero" and surname, in that case derived from lama and not lamer. Matthias Buchmeier 14:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] yn unig

I doubt the creator of this entry speaks Welsh. --Simplus2 18:58, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

He may not, but it’s a Welsh adverb and it’s the correct meaning. Sometimes it can have other meanings: ydych chi yn unig = are you alone. —Stephen ^(Talk) 21:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

But it is SoP. You can add yn to any adjective to make it an adverb or a predicate adjective. I say move this to unig, which is currently a red link anyway, but label it Adjective rather than Adverb. —An gr 16:49, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I can vouch for what Angr has said — this is an RFD issue and yn unig is an unidiomatic sum of its parts. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:52, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Deleted per the above discussion, and because it was technically uncited. - -sche (discuss) 06:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] medilicious

Citations please. SemperBlotto 08:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Nothing in Google Books or Groups, except (unusable here) one person's Internet pseudonym. Equinox ◑ 13:50, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 06:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] medible

As above, same originator, cross-referenced. --Hekaheka 09:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 06:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] candy cane

Rfv-sense: "A playing card with the rank of seven". Never heard of it, and Urban Dictionary ain't got it Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 14:47, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

List of playing-card nicknames includes "candy cane", "hockey stick", and "walking stick" for 7, so it's apparently something to do with the shape of the pips. I tried a brief search on poker newsgroups (good for card slang) but found nothing. Equinox ◑ 14:54, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it has to do with the fact that a seven looks like a candy cane...FYI, the reference currently there doesn't turn up anything for "candy cane", and we'd need two more anyways Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 15:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Usually used for pocket pairs, so a pair of eights is 'snowmen' but an eight is not normally 'a snowman'. So try citing candy canes as opposed to candy cane. I've not heard of this one; walking sticks is the one I've heard of. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:06, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] copyright

"The copyright symbol ©, a circumscribed C. If © is the international symbol for copyright, what should we use for the open source symbol?" That usage example does not refer to the symbol but to the concept (hence the use of "symbol for copyright"). Equinox ◑ 16:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Not come across this one. Having said that, if it does exist finding citations will be hard. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

One might say “the copyright is on page ii,” but this would refer to a copyright notice or statement. —Michael Z. 2011-12-14 15:44 z

The relationship is not 2-way (symmetric in the mathematical sense). The symbol means "copyright", but surely no-one would claim that the word "copyright" means the symbol, any more than "plus" means + Dbfirs 13:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] matronly

Rfv-sense: Can matronly be used as an adverb? I don't see that this is possible. --EncycloPetey 05:23, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to me, and a quick search for "matronly go", "... give", "... tell" yields no examples except in CG nonsense. Haplology 05:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

google books:"act matronly" dos get four hits. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

"Act" does go with adjectives, however. Act interested. —Internoob 01:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Cited, I think. All with the same verb, dress. —Internoob 03:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I've removed the RfV template from the entry, although I still hope someone can think of another verb this adverbial sense can be paired with. --EncycloPetey 03:52, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

google:"walked matronly" might have some potential, but there's nothing on Books. 81.142.107.230 11:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"Dress" also goes with adjectives, at least in informal speech: warm, nice, casual, sharp, funny, smart. I don't think we want adverb senses for all such cases. DCDuring TALK 12:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

As does act... oh wait Internoob said that. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm not so sure we don't. It sure smells like an adverb.—msh210℠ (talk) 06:06, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] お母さん#Min Nan (khà-sàng)

Min Nan spelling is unstandardised, no doubt, uses Roman letters or hanzi but does it really use the Japanese spelling as well? What happened to the honorific "o-" in "khà-sàng"? In Japanese the word is pronounced "okāsan". --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 00:23, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

The Romanization khà-sàng is correct (meaning that it is in the Romanization used by Wiktionary). It is obviously a loan word from Japanese that is still commonly used in Taiwanese Min Nan. To my knowledge, it is not commonly used in this way by Min Nan speakers outside of Taiwan (i.e. PRC etc). The honorific o- from the original Japanese is not required in Min Nan, although it can be included as well. I don't recall ever seeing the original Japanese spelling (お母さん) mixed in with written Min Nan (to the extent that Min Nan is written down at all :) I would say keep khà-sàng with an etymology that explains its origin (from Japanese お母さん), but get ride of the Min Nan tab in お母さん (unless someone can find a couple of attested uses in written Min Nan). Truth be told, when khà-sàng is written in Chinese characters, it is usually written as 卡桑. -- A-cai 01:09, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Krun has speedily deleted this, does anyone object? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] 10q

-- Liliana • 17:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Urban dictionary has it, and you can find "10q very much" with Google. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] zero gravity

Rfv-sense “A state/shuttle/simulator which produces weightlessness.” makes no sense to me. —Michael Z. 2011-12-14 15:25 z

Nor to me, sounds countable so you should be able to say "that simulator is a good zero gravity". Sounds like tosh. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Ergo delete. --Hekaheka 18:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Delete. Seems it was added by a dodgy anon - see here. None of the dictionaries or encyclopaedias I've consulted have this extra sense anyway. ---> Tooironic 23:29, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Done. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:37, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

What happened to 30 days?—msh210℠ (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

@msh210, it's a speedy deletion and like any speedy deletion, can be reversed if controversial. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] セルベロス

Added by known-suspect IP user Special:Contributions/2.217.87.87.

Hit counts:

google books:"セルベロス": 0
google scholar:"セルベロス": 1, except searching the text in the PDF at http://ir.lib.shizuoka.ac.jp/bitstream/10297/4958/1/100513001.pdf shows that this is actually a kana-ization of what appears to be a Spanish name, and is not Cerberus as either the mythological beast or the constellation.
google groups:"セルベロス": 0
google:"セルベロス": 1,390

Can anyone vouch for this? In my eyes, it looks like rubbish, inspired by a misunderstanding that Cerberus was imported into Japanese from English and thus starts with an "s" sound, rather than the reality that it was imported directly from Greek mythology and thus starts with a "k" sound. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 18:49, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

It is a possible error. It is definitely not official by academic standard, but it will be okay to list it as an error. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] boothman

Not in OneLook or OED. Needs a proper headword if OK. SemperBlotto 08:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Most ghits are mentions or surnames, but we can probably find three good cites. Should it have an "archaic" tag? Dbfirs 22:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks real, but archaic. Some mentions in lists produced for genealogy studies. [40] [41] , and [42].--Dmol 03:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] airhead

"An insufferable show off but doesn't really know what he's talking about." Equinox ◑ 23:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Just delete it, why is this listed here? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:08, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Has been speedily deleted by someone. Equinox ◑ 15:34, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I did, but forgot to strike. --Hekaheka 17:46, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] haggard

"(slang) A woman who frequents the gay scene usually with a male gay companion; often with chronically low self-esteem, superficially bolstered by attentive yet self-obsessed gays." Current definition seems offensive. I've heard of a fag hag but never this. Equinox ◑ 14:52, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Have removed the bit after the semi-colon, I'll bet it's not attestable in that much detail. Anyway, let's get three cites first then debate the actual wording. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] assholocracy

[edit] arseholeocracy

[edit] assholeocracy

Though blessed by mention by Geoffrey K. Pullum, I don't think this and the purported alternative forms meets our standards for inclusion. DCDuring TALK 22:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Arseholeocracy does get one Google Book hit which looks like a valid, usable one, but the other two get absolutely NOTHING anywhere that I can find. If you want to leave 'em 30 days do, but they look like clear failures. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

IANAL, but I believe in due process. DCDuring TALK 22:15, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

It really ought to be proctocracy anyway. —An gr 11:02, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

If assholeness and and assholic and assholedom are citable I bet these are too, we love our insults.Lucifer 20:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

By the way, assholocracy was already (and remains) listed in Wiktionary:List of protologisms/A-P. If this gets successfully attested, it should be removed from there. ~ Robin 22:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

I've created proctocracy, which just barely satisfies our criteria for inclusion. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep. I've done a bit of research, and added cites to the page. After I'd added up to six (6) on the page itself, I went ahead and created a citations page, at Citations:assholocracy. -- Cirt (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Looking just at the form assholocracy, it's now adequately cited (just about — some of them fail the use-mention distinction by being people defining the word, but there are at least three using it), so keep that one. I don't know about the other spellings. Equinox ◑ 02:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

If you examine the citations page, Citations:assholocracy, you'll see that the other uses linked above, are cited, as well. -- Cirt (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Update: I've since added citations to assholocracy, arseholeocracy, and assholeocracy. -- Cirt (talk) 02:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] execución

[edit] execucion

I changed delete to rfv. For what it's worth, the debate seems to be over what language this is, Spanish or Old Spanish, rather than overall validity. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] infinite spin

This would need to meet WT:FICTION. -- Liliana • 19:45, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like fiction at all, more like slang or jargon. —CodeCa t 20:01, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how Tetris is a fictional universe any more than chess is. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:03, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Last time I checked, chess was an actual board game played with actual pieces on actual boards. Dunno if that is still the case, but you can't say the same about Tetris. -- Liliana • 12:57, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

But there's also computer chess. There is nothing "fictional" about Tetris. Equinox ◑ 20:24, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Even if you consider Tetris to take place in a fictional universe, this term doesn't originate in that universe: it originates among real-world players. (Assuming the term is real at all, I mean.) —Ruakh_TALK 21:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] elfen

Claimed to be a singular noun with plural elfens or elfene. This might be true but in the sole citation for this PoS elfen is much more easily read as a plural of elf. DCDuring TALK 23:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Said sole citation is definitely using elfen in reference to a different, but clearly elf-inspired, fictional race; the work in question uses elfen as both singular and plural, though, so there's no way to tell which one the citation is. Regardless, it doesn't support the "female elf" sense. (And I'm confident that it's not durably archived, anyway.) —Ruakh_TALK 19:55, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

This was my creation. I was going back to edit it since I wasn't satisfied ... It's been totally redone in a few days so much that it is now messed up (even the wiki reference is wrong). Here's what I intend to do. I'm going to mark the noun as historical rather than archaic, since it is mainly used by historians ... and this is the quote that I'm going to put in: Whatever external influences they may reflect, the female elfen came into being in pre-Conquest England. The second quote shows the plural elfenne: Archaic forms are again apparent, in the form feldælbinne, itself glossed with a tenth-century Kentish form familiar to the scribe, elfenne,. I'm also going to put this all back under the one etym. Really ... if folks can't see that elfen came from OE elfen ... they need to get their eyes checked.

As for the story I quoted, as I recall, the race was entirely female ... no males were ever mentioned. It may be that the author was going to introduce them later, but never did. That's why put it in there for a quote. Since you've cleaned it up. I may leave it. I was thinking about taking it out.

And yes, elfen is also a plural of elfe (f) ... another female form. I have found three female forms in the singular (elfe, elfen, elven) in English ... the whole elf and it's derivatives is a jumbled mess. The adjectives are elvish, elfish, elven, elfen, elfin. I'v seen them all! BTW, German borrowed Elf (m), Elfe (f), Elfen (pl) from English.

I think this should take care of the rfv. I'll let you take it out if it does. --AnWulf ... Ferþu Hal! 23:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

There are still no valid quotations. The Alaric Hall quotes do not use the word (they merely mention it), and the story is not durably archived. (Also, the story does indeed have males, as in the paragraph "Laeri's life-mate was Kerris Seesfar. He had glossy chestnut fur and eyes as brown as pine-cones. In his mane, as well as the carved bone warrior-rings, he wore jay's feathers, for he was the greatest hunter of the grove - even the bears moved softly in the woods for fear of Kerris Seesfar. He was our ancestor too, a fine and skillful hunter, strong and brave.") —Ruakh_TALK 20:44, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] sorites

Rfv-sense: an aggregation of more or less related things, facts, or items. Ƿidsiþ 10:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] beaver buster

Moving from RFD per discussion at WT:RFD#beaver buster. Copy of that discussion below. -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

The cites given, and others on Google Books, aren't enough IMHO --Simplus2 21:51, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Speedily move to RFV (bad nomination). Mglovesfun (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Keep this is a really common term and the nominator's rationale is a verification one not a CFI one so move to RFVLucifer 22:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Luciferwildcat has had two citations... neither of which are any good. One specific says that it's a pseudonym for a person, one doesn't use it in a sentence but just on its own, so one conveys a different meaning to the one in the entry, one conveys no meaning. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] stark

"(publishing) To edit mercilessly with an iron hand. Laurie needs to stark this asap." Equinox ◑ 01:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] megamillion

This word doesn't seem to be etymologically correct ... since mega- means 10⁶ and million also means 10⁶, "megamillion" should mean 10¹², but this article defines it as 10⁹. Lunaibis 03:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, logically a million million, but the word is not used in either sense, and has no support from International System of Units. I suggest that we just change the definition to the informal sense of many millions. There is no lack of usages, but none with the claimed meaning. I think someone just made it up. Dbfirs 13:12, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

(... later ...) I've added the noun sense that has clear usage. Please adjust this as you think appropriate. May we delete the numeral sense as a misunderstanding? Dbfirs 13:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that would be the best course of action. Lunaibis 00:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

It means many millions, or better jackpot (in millions) than other lottery gamesLucifer 00:54, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The entry seems accurate now. Dbfirs 17:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] embetterment

Rfv-sense X 5: Though this term in principle could have all the meanings given, I doubt that a term that appears but once in COCA and not at all in BNC has much contemporary use except in the sense of "improvement" (which has but one citation supporting it). DCDuring TALK 23:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think the verb "to embetter" became obsolete before it could be turned into a noun. George W. Bush didn't have the same word-inventing influence that Matt Groening had with embiggen. Dbfirs 19:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Can't we just tag it "obsolete", replace all senses with "improvement" and keep the quotes and etymology? --Hekaheka 19:18, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] zemblanity

Rfv-sense X 2. Only one cite for each of two senses. Second sense clearly not supported by mention-type citation. Also, artless definitions, poor formatting. DCDuring TALK 23:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Afro-nationalist

Any takers? SemperBlotto 08:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like tosh. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] homofonum

Milda (talk • contribs) nominated this for speedy deletion. No admin has seen fit to delete this outright, so I've brought it here. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Cited. The nominated entry is one for Czech term "homofonum". I have attested the term using the nominative plural "homofona"; for the singular "homofonum", I have found only one Google books hit. A Czech synonym of this term is "homofon", which has the nominative plural "homofony". The nominator Milda (talk • contribs) argues in this edit that the term is not in Czech dictionaries, which does not matter for the inclusion in English Wiktionary. Attested terms (see also WT:ATTEST) are included even when they can be found in no other dictionaries, and unattested terms are excluded even if they can be found in other dictionaries. Milda follows the practice of some editors of Czech Wiktionary who require sourcing from dictionaries rather than true lexicographical evidence in the form of quotations of actual use. --Dan Polansky 10:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Passed. Thanks, Dan! :) - -sche (discuss) 22:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] antipericatametanaparbeugedamphicribrationes

I can see plenty of mentions. Can we have three independent actual uses please. SemperBlotto 08:18, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Don't we have some sort of special ruling for published nonce words and hapax legomena? —An gr 14:32, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Usage in a well-known work. Depends what translation this is, which translations of Rabelais into English are well-known, and which aren't? Problem is also it still might not be English; Rabelais stuck some Greek and Latin into his works. One version I read had the Greek in Greek script, surely we wouldn't call that English, so why would we call Latin in Latin script English? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The full passage is here, it's pseudo-Latin (or perhaps real Latin, if you prefer), so if kept as used in a well-known work, should be as Latin, not English. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It isn't labeled as English, it's labeled as Latin, and always has been. —An gr 15:46, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh wait, Latin as a dead language only requires one citation. So if you take that text to be Latin (and I'm not sure about it) then I'd pass with one citation. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:49, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] fel

Old English, the entry itself and fell#Etymology 4 claim this is unattested. I suppose we'd better check, I did consider speedy deleting the entry, per itself. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] January 2012

[edit] Unsupported titles/Left square bracket right square bracket

-- Liliana • 14:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] gyal

Is Jamaican a language? SemperBlotto 08:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Also Jumiekan

Looks like Jamaican Creole. Which we don't have an entry on, amusingly. -- Liliana • 09:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

{{jam}}, I have some family over in Jamaica, I've also seen a play in Jamaican Creole and English and it's really hard to understand! Probably does merit a separate language header as opposed to something like {{context|Jamaica}}. I think the local name for it is just Patois. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

'Patois' is the correct name for the local language (discounting dialects). 'Jamaican' is not a language, per se, but to a foreigner, it can be understood as something of an accent.Wikimedian 15:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] informatic

"A device or system specifically designed for use in computation." Never heard of it. informatics is a discipline, not AFAIK the plural of a singular informatic. Equinox ◑ 12:14, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

google books:"an informatic" gets 406 hits, I haven't looked through all of them, but so far they're all adjectival citations ("an informatic system", for example). Mglovesfun (talk) 13:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

The electronic control systems originated by Harold S. Black at Bell Labs were introduced individually as "informatics" (as in the plural form of 'informatic'). This was in 1927.Wikimedian 15:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, but how do you know it was intended as a plural form? Can you find a text from that era referring to "an informatic"? Equinox ◑ 15:20, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

@Wikimedian we do require actual evidence as opposed to just discussion. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:27, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Gone through all 409 hits (three more than before) on Google Books, NO noun use, all adjectival, scannos for information, one which didn't make any sense to me and one not in English. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:50, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] peer

"Someone who pees, someone who urinates." i.e. pee + -er. Seems fanciful. Equinox ◑ 15:24, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

One who sees is a seer. Is there another word for one who pees? Pee'er? --Hekaheka 17:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

urinator or pisser. (One who jees is not a jeer, and one who exists is not a beer!) Equinox ◑ 17:12, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Cited IMO, with reasonable citations from usenet. DCDuring TALK 19:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Given Equinox's comment, should it be tagged "nonstandard"? --Hekaheka 02:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hard to say, the difference with urinator and pisser, from our point of view is that they're much easier to cite as there are no homographs. I'd avoid any tags at all. I mean, it's mildly vulgar I suppose, just like pee, while pisser is more vulgar and urinator is 'formal'. I assume urinator is a real word; I know it from Scrabble but have never come across it in a sentence. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with everything MG has to say on this word. The sense in which one might prescribe it is that it is confusing in writing. But in the wild it seems to almost always appear after pee primes the reader to the meaning or as a pun. In speech it is not confusing. DCDuring TALK 16:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Passed. - -sche (discuss) 04:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] velle

Rfv-sense: Abbreviation of violoncelle. I asked on the French Wiktionary and Lmaltier answered "yes, why not, though I can't find any examples of use" (paraphrased translation). Mglovesfun (talk) 14:23, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

And I found many examples of various other abbreviations. Without further information, this one should be removed. Lmaltier 07:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] wrabbles

Any takers. If real, it is probably the plural of wrabble. SemperBlotto 19:38, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] venus collar

Any takers? Does the user mean collar of Venus (syphilitic leukoderma involving the anterior neck and chest) SemperBlotto 19:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

By browsing the internet, I found that dogs' buckle collars are marketed as "Venus collars" by some manufacturers. The term is also used of choker (jewelry). The writer of the entry obviously does not have any of these in mind. What comes into my mind from the definition, is a collar-like accumulation of fatty tissue which some people have around their neck. If one watches closely the photograph of the Venus de Milo one may find a hint of such formation on her neck. Whether this is what the writer means and whether the term is used of such ring, I don't have a clue of. --Hekaheka 04:05, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't know this term but I suspect it should be capitalised Venus. Equinox ◑ 20:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] fte

Acronyms are normally capitalised in Dutch so I don't think this can be correct. —CodeCa t 17:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't speak any Dutch, but the Wikipedia article w:nl:fte has existed since 2004. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

If one defines Dutch as search language and turns autotranslator off, a Google search for "werkweek fte" produces both capitalized and uncapitalized hits, the uncapitalized being a majority. "FTE" seems common enough to be mentioned as an "alternative form". --Hekaheka 04:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Bescheidenheiten

Bescheidenheit is listed as having no plural, and all te Google Book hits are for Bescheidenheit en. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

In Dutch, bescheidenheid doesn't mean just modesty, but also 'something small or modest', which is countable. Does the German word also have this sense? —CodeCa t 18:43, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Google books search for 'Bescheidenheiten -Bescheidenheit' constrained to lang=de finds a lot of hits: "Seine Bescheidenheiten kommen mir unentwegt wie Unterschlagungen vor", "Zwei Bescheidenheiten kennzeichnen Bubers charismatische Führerschaft im Verhältnis zum deutschen Judentum und zur jüdischen Jugendbewegung", "In einer Neujustierung des Fokus partizipativer Demokratie, die sich zugleich auch gegen allzu liberale institutionelle Bescheidenheiten des Konzepts der deliberativen Demokratie wendet, [...]", "Aber hinter den guten Ratschlägen für eine bessere Kindererziehung, hinter öffentlichen Memoranden voller Bescheidenheiten, hinter Aufklärungsbedürfnis und Hilfsbereitschaft bleiben ihr vorwissenschaftliche Prinzipien, magisches Denken, [...]". --Dan Polansky 08:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Wonder why my search came up with zero hits. Hmm. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Kept. - -sche (discuss) 04:36, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] lab

Rfv-sense: adjective, not comparable, laboratory. Surely this is just attributive use of the noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:57, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Also no such definition at laboratory. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe we should discuss the whole class in the same time. Taking a look at other similar entries, for example tin, cotton, wool and wood have "made of ~" as sole adjective sense. Copper, bronze, silver and gold are recognized as colours, but they also have a "made of ~" sense listed, whereas zinc, clay, cloisonne, enamel, steel and aluminum do not feature an adjective section at all. In iron the adjective sense is recognized under separate etymology (!) and it has the sense "strong" in addition to "made of ~". Plastic has a lot of adjective senses, among them "constructed of polymer". Also brass has many adjective senses but "made of ~" is not among them. --Hekaheka 07:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, though this isn't made of lab. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:53, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] real-time fiction

Badly-formatted and oft-submitted protologism...I cleaned it up a bit and I seem to see some cites for it, though not necessarily with this meaning. Ƿidsiþ 11:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Just too many errors in formatting and definition. Probably sum-of-parts. Deleted. SemperBlotto 11:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] gardenburger

This is a brand name; see the Wikipedia article it links to. Generic lower-case usage needs to be attested. Equinox ◑ 20:34, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a very very common term for a vegetarian burger, used throughout. Of all the vegan terms I added I completely doubted that this would be contested of them all.Lucifer 20:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Keep: Not SOP; a brand name that has become the standard convention. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 21:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
VERIFIED =)Lucifer 21:01, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] nove

English sense - midnight. Really? SemperBlotto 08:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Probably made up, the edit summary said "nove is a new synonym for midnight". Mglovesfun (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I made up that word two months ago because there was no good, shorter synonym for midnight, like noon is a synonym for midday. You see, I named that term after the Latin word for new, because 12:00am is the moment of time when a new calendar day begins. BlueEarth 22:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Right, deleted. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Well hopefully, the proper synonym for midnight will eventually be coined. Meanwhile, I have nove on my wiki-site. BlueEarth 23:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Coin away! Just don't do it in our main namespace. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:32, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] fellar

Eye dialect for fellow. Plausible but I never heard of it. Apparently used in Forty Years a Gambler on the Mississippi @ Gutenberg. Not in any OneLook ref except Urban Dictionary. DCDuring TALK 21:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

I think I've read that spelling personally. But fella seems more usual. Actarus ^{(Prince d'Euphor)} 09:50, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Seems to have plenty of instances on Google Books.--Prosfilaes 11:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't really doubt that it is attestable. But we have a responsibility to include attestation for English headwords and senses not supported by other dictionaries. DCDuring TALK 12:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

An attestation like this one? By the way, there is the variant feller: http://www.ncangler.com/forums/threads/5609-Hello-fellers!. --Actarus ^{(Prince d'Euphor)} 13:42, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

We don't accept web-only attestations, except from Usenet, which is more clearly durably archived and beyond the possibility of deletion by an author's request. Whatever is attested (per WT:ATTEST) should be included here. DCDuring TALK 15:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I think there is no such rule about web-only attestations. And any web page can be durably archived by our software (and the link displayed with an additional small "archive" link). Lmaltier 06:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

This term is plentifully attestable in google books:"fellar". I propose this nomination is withdrawn.

Re: "we have a responsibility to include attestation for English headwords and senses not supported by other dictionaries": There is nothing of the sort in CFI; CFI does not rely on other dictionaries in any way. As long as a term is obviously attested, I see no urgent need to actually include attesting citations into Wiktionary. If the nominator DCDuring sees such a need, let him enter the citations himself instead of passing the burden of adding attesting citations of a clearly attested term to other people. Such citations are of course nice to have in Wiktionary, but should be nowhere necessary for continued inclusion of the term. --Dan Polansky 10:22, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Polansky here.--Prosfilaes 10:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Who said responsibility is a matter of rules? CFI and other policy pages don't cover a lot of things. Nor do I think we should create rules concerning matters like a sense of responsibility. We clearly don't seem to have much pressure to cite terms. I haven't noticed very many of our contributors exerting effort to provide attestation for terms in any language. Is this not a fun activity? Is it too much like work? Moreover, we seem to be doing our best to discourage use of Wiktionary by native English speakers from among whom we might find those with the ability and will to provide attestation.

I find Polansky's statement that citations are merely "nice to have in Wiktionary" to betray a lack of understanding of the scope of a language like English, the meaning, register, and usage geography of whose words is far beyond the knowledge of any person. Facts about usage are needed to provide sound knowledge. If Polansky and others would like to dispense with attestation to support our entries they can take control of English Wiktionary and do so.

Is fellar dated? What pronunciations does it reflect? Does it have other meanings? DCDuring TALK 12:40, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

As you know, RFV is a request for deletion unless attested in a month. A missing "dated" tag is a poor reason for deleting an entry unless citations are provided in the entry. If you wanted to request attestation of some aspects of the current entry in such a way that it would not lead to deletion, you could have used Tea room. I do not say that, in each and every case, citations are merely nice to have in Wiktionary; citations are essential with entries for which there exists a reasonable doubt that they are attested. With "fellar", no such reasonable doubt exists thanks to google books:"fellar", so "fellar" should not have been sent to RFV in the first place. --Dan Polansky 13:03, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

None of those questions are necessarily answerable by three arbitrary citations. Three random dates don't necessarily tell you whether it's dated or not. What pronunciations it reflects may be hopeless with an entire corpus. And whether or not it has other meanings is not helped in the least by citations. I've several times cited a word and found several other meanings that may or may not have been citable that I ignored.--Prosfilaes 15:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Cited. - -sche (discuss) 20:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Pahyesst (IPA: /ˈpæjəst/, passed). - -sche (discuss) 05:42, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] editathon

Likely not attestable -- Liliana • 06:23, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Gibson

Rfv-sense: A hacker's or cracker's primary target during a malicious computer hack, usually the most important system in a network (from the 1995 film Hackers, after cyberpunk writer William Gibson). Ƿidsiþ 11:10, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

AIUI, in that film, "the Gibson" is not only a fictional term (in the film's universe) but also refers to one specific computer that the hackers need to break into — not any computer of that kind in general. So I can't see this passing. Equinox ◑ 23:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] tebowing

Not sure submitting an already deleted article is appropriate. I inquired with the deleting admin at User talk:SemperBlotto#tebowing to no avail. I quite disagree with SemperBlotto, so I would like some other opinions. At the corresponding Wikipedia article, w:Tim Tebow#Tebowing the linked section currently reads:

"Tebowing" is a neologism for the the act of taking a knee in prayer during an athletic contest.^[1] It is derived from Tebow's propensity for kneeling and praying. The origin of the phrase is credited to fan Jared Kleinstein, who posted a picture with friends on Facebook, in which they mimic a pose by Tebow that was caught on camera following the Broncos' improbable overtime victory over the Dolphins on October 23, 2011.^[2] The popularity of the picture led Kleinstein to set up a website showing pictures submitted by people depicting various interpretations of "Tebowing" all over the world.^[2]

"Tebowing" was officially recognized as a word in the English language by the Global Language Monitor, due its level of worldwide usage, which was comparable to the word "Obamamania" (referencing President Barack Obama).^[1]^[3] In December 2011, the life-sized wall adhesions company Fathead released a "Tebowing" sticker that became the company's best-selling product in two days.^[4]

↑ ^1.0 ^1.1 Weir, Tom, "'Tebowing' becomes officially recognized as a word", December 12, 2011.
↑ ^2.0 ^2.1 Lindsay Jones, "The Story Behind the 'Tebowing' Craze," The Denver Post (october 27, 2011). Retrieved November 5, 2011.
^ Tebowing Accepted as an English Language Word
^ Cork Gaines, "People Are Going Nuts Over The 'Tebowing' Fathead, " Business Insider (December 15, 2011). Retrieved December 17, 2011.

__meco 14:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't have speedied it without discussion myself, but I won't call for its undeletion without evidence of its being used (not merely mentioned) by multiple durably archived sources. —An gr 15:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't forget that we need citations of use "spanning at least a year". And I don't think that "spanning a year" means the December of one year and the January of the next. SemperBlotto 15:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

In this day and age that spanning-one-year clause seems to me immediately so out of date. __meco 15:51, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Why? If the term is still being used in December 2012, it can be added then. There's no deadline. —An gr 16:03, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Because in the time leading up to that date there will be no dictionary entry for a word which is in widespread use. __meco 16:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I find "'Tebowing' becomes officially recognized as a word" rather funny, as it makes it sound like English is monitored by an official body, though in the text of the article itself, there's no such claim. Only in the title. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I think we can afford to wait 11 months to find out whether this word is really "in widespread use". In the meantime, it can be taken to Urban Dictionary. And of course the Global Language Monitor has no authority (neither does any dictionary, for that matter) to declare a word "officially recognized". —An gr 17:05, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe because I am in the US, because US football is my favorite spectator sport, and because I am at the moment visiting Denver, where WWTTD (What would Tim Tebow do) is a popular acronym, but this term is having such major widespread cultural popularity that I would favor a rare special exception to the "spanning one year" requirement. DCDuring TALK 16:39, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

But isn't our rule there to exclude words that pop up, are popular for a short while, and then get forgotten about? SemperBlotto 16:42, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

SemperBlotto is right, WT:CFI#Attestation says "Usage in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year". I don't think this is used in a well-known work, English isn't a dead language so the only possible way for this to be valid is "Clearly widespread use", which I doubt. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:29, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I understand and agree with all that for almost all cases. Occasionally there are cases where some number of us would be prepared to bet on multi-year survival of the term. Should we have some basis for including such terms? To a certain extent, we have a competitive advantage over other online dictionaries in recognizing and incorporating such terms while maintaining some level of quality control on what is included. A protologism tag and a year-end review would seem to be necessary for such things. What else? DCDuring TALK 23:13, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

We already allow failed terms to be re-added at any point as long as the requisite citations are provided; and previous deleted material is preserved in the edit history (and signalled on the talk page by the deletion discussion). I'm not thrilled by the idea of allowing stuff to circumvent the rules just because it's briefly trendy (even if some think the trendiness won't be so brief). Equinox ◑ 23:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree (with Eq).—msh210℠ (talk) 09:05, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

A point of order: Properly speaking, the "spanning at least a year" requirement only applies to terms that are verified through the three-cites approach. The clearly-widespread-use, well-known-work, and extinct-language clauses have no such requirement. (This is what Mglovesfun was getting at above, but some editors seem not to have caught that drift.) —Ruakh_TALK 14:33, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Does this fit the widespread-use category? I would argue that, though we have not explicitly defined "widespread use" AFAICT, this should now fit most reasonable definitions. We are now far beyond having every use in a US sports context being immediately followed by a definition. I believe that we are coming to have use in US general news media not always being followed by a definition. DCDuring TALK 18:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it (perhaps wrongly), the "clearly widespread use" rule is meant to bar RFVs of things like dog ("an animal") and the (the article). Use of tebowing is not clearly widespread. (You pretty much admit it yourself, DCDuring: "I believe that we are coming to have use in US general news media not always being followed by a definition" (emphasis supplied).)—msh210℠ (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I thought the best justification for having the "clearly widespread use" criterion was for colloquialisms that did not often make it into print. This term seems to have significant colloquial use.

There is also the oft-used, never rebutted general justification for many entries ("Someone might want to know what it means.") To the extent that this criterion needs some kind of quantitative supplementation to be applied, tebowing comes up often enough currently in the US so that it would meet a reasonable test based on that justification (which I generally think is wrong-headed, but I have deferred to apparent consensus).

I would much rather that there were some kind of explicit exception to our "spanning one year" criterion for terms such as this which appear in many general media.

FWIW, "Tebow" appears 400 times in COCA, "Tebow-like" and "Tebow-ism" once each, but "tebowing" does not appear. DCDuring TALK 20:00, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
The "spanning at least a year" criterion might be justifiable in a paper dictionary (for several sound reasons, such as space available and delay between decision and publishing, even if these reasons are disputable), but it's really absurd here. Why refusing to provide help to readers as soon as they need it, when they need it? And they probably need it much more during the first months of use than when the term becomes more widely used. Lmaltier 22:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
- Actually, quite the reverse. After years of use, people feel justified in using a word without explanation, figuring people can just look it up. In the first few months of use, an author practically has to plan obfuscation to not explain a word when first using it. I see as connected with independence; there's no need to fill the dictionary with neologisms that gain very temporary currency.--Prosfilaes 18:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  - Do you try to explain that it's because people need some explanation that we should not provide it? The reasoning about a possible temporary use is understandable in a paper dictionary (it is understandable to think that space is so precious that it should not be wasted with words which might have disappeared when the dictionary becomes available), but not here. Their presence does not harm anybody, and helps some readers. Lmaltier 21:40, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
  - I see your arguments as coming from an outdated paradigm. Since the Internet. how language evolves has changed a lot, and what if a word came to widespread use all over the United States in all sorts of media for a few months in 2011, never to be used actively again? Wouldn't people reading those texts from 2011 using that word need a dictionary that could explain it to them? Unless consensus changes here we really should put this to the big vote and change the inclusion criteria to adequately reflect the times we're in. Actually we should make that change in any case, but it'd be nice if y'all could think a little progressively on this matter. __meco 15:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
    - "How language evolves has changed a lot"? Citation needed. If it's never used actively again, I question whether it was ever truly widespread in the first place.--Prosfilaes 00:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
      
      I'm not sure whether it is more outrageous or more laughable that we include words based on a single use (possibly even an error) in a "well-known work", actually well-known only to a small share of those with higher education in the liberal arts during a certain era, now deemed to include works by Pynchon, Nabakov, and Burgess, but exclude words of widespread current use by a large number of native English speakers (mostly US, mostly male, mostly aged 8-68). DCDuring TALK 05:48, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, Tebowing has been used in connection to incidents in ice hockey from Europe in Canadian press, so it's spread farther than American Football in the US. 76.65.128.132 06:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] emphaticalism

Any takers for this one? Caps? Plural? SemperBlotto 19:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

There are actually three Google Book hits for this, whether all three refer to the same meanings, that's for us collectively to decide. Or find more citations, of course. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:17, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

As submitter of my first entry I'm not sure if this is the correct page to solicit a re-analysis of the term. Emphaticalism was coined in the 1957 MGM film Funny Face which starred Audrey Hepburn & Fred Astaire. Since it is a unique school of "Philosophy" is does not warrant pluralization. Multiple books include references to Emphaticalism including Musicals; Hollywood & Beyond published by Intellect Ltd. published in January 2000 ISBN-10: 1841500038 and

Imagining Europe: Europe and European Civilisation as seen from its Margins and by the Rest of the World, in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries by Michael J. Wintle (ed.) Brussels, 2008 ISBN 978-90-5201-431-9 published by P.I.E. Peter Lang S.A.Further evidencing the terms persistence is www.americancinematheque.com/archive1999/2005/Aero/parisamerican.htm was posted Nov,2005. The term was trademarked for the sake of disambiguating 'emphaticalism' from 'empathicalism' which Google automatically suggests "empathicalism" (note the spelling.)

I have just moved this from its original upper-case form to lower-cased emphaticalism, as Google Books results give no evidence of the upper case (and neither, mostly, does Usenet). Will now add some citations. Equinox ◑ 23:38, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Cannot find any suitable citations meeting CFI. Equinox ◑ 23:43, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Obamney

Per CFI, are there cites of this spanning at least a year? (see also, all this user's other contributions) Ƿidsiþ 08:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

What's wrong with it?

[43] "The Vision Of Obamney" (2007)

[44] "Obamney or Neuter?" (2011)

[45] "Obamney vs Obamney" (2012)

I think you've forgotten that Mitt Romney ran for president in 2008.

76.65.128.132 08:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Are these durably archived (whatever that means)? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Someone could print the webpage out and place it in Wiktionary's office (wherever that is)? Wiktionary needs to set up a digital archive for website snapshots to "archive" things as photos, considering that we're into the web age. Archive.org has this video recording: http://www.archive.org/details/20120112NewWorldNextWeek

[46] "Obamney's indie blues" (2012) -- is Politico.com considered durable?

[47] "Obamney postcard" -- or Flickr?

76.65.128.132 22:20, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh I agree with you, durably archived ought to mean just that, but to us it seems to mean "published sources and Usenet", and I have no idea why. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:06, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Mediawiki already has the capability of automatically archiving webpages when needed (but I don't know the precise necessary conditions). Therefore, if we want any webpage to be durably archived, we can. Lmaltier 06:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I find that weird, can you point to the MediaWiki documentation page for that? It sounds intriguing. (are you sure that doesn't mean the automatic storage of page revisions of MediaWiki wiki pages of the wiki running the instance of MediaWiki? (ie. page history) ) 76.65.128.132 06:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I've found this page: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:ArchiveLinks. Lmaltier 21:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

And, on fr.wikt, I've already seen external links transformed into two links (normal link + link to the archived page). Lmaltier 18:17, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Another issue beyond durable archiving is that of manipulability. Web pages can be introduced with usage instances sufficient to meet our usage criteria by a single person with access to multiple web pages. Thus, completely imaginary words supporting any ideological, political, personal, or other objective can gain whatever measure of legitimacy a Wiktionary entry would offer. Our entries could thus have less credibility than Urban Dictionary in which definitions at least bear the record of the votes by users, often a large number of them. DCDuring TALK 19:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

In almost all cases, there can be no suspicion. In exceptional other cases, when there might be a doubt, when manipulation is suspected, it's better not to include the word. Lmaltier 20:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm googling several forum posts contrasting Obamney with Obama, clearly using it as an epithet for Mitt Romney specifically:

2011 June 17, Thunderlips, “Al Gore is a strong supporter of fake Republican, ESTABLISHMENT RINO Mitt Romney.”, PoliticalForum.com:

I will NOT vote for Mitt Obamney. I am still undecided if I will vote 3rd party or if I will vote for Barack Obama if Obamney wins the Republican nomination.

2011 September 13, Cpt_Kirks, “The Romney Bromance?”, AR15.com:

Obamney is just a white Obama, or as close as they can get.

2011 October 13, M Gold, “Re: Romney-Christie”, Grace Centered forums:

I am hoping its not Obamney against Obama in the election.

I don't see many uses of Obamney for Obama and Romney simultaneously, like:

2012 January 11, Rose King, “Obamnutz and Crony Capitalism March-ing off to War”, Yahoo Groups:

Obamney, or obamney, come see, come saw. It will not matter who steers the ship into the ground nevermore to sail as the USs America again if either of these two cronies are the emperious head-puppet.

I boggled at this four-headed monster:

2011 December 22, BOBKATT, “Ron Paul 2012”, NorthEastShooters.com:

I'm not one of those fools who thinks anything is going to be better if we have Romney or Gingrich. We've already had 3 terms of Newt W. Obamney and I'm not fooled into believing that anyone of the Patriot-Act supporting, big government, socialist tyrants, in the establishment is any different than the next.

I guess some people would rather regard all their political opponents as a single enemy, rather than recognize any differences between them. ~ Robin 11:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] gigatrend

First contribution by new user Social.next (contribs). Cleaned it up, but have never heard of this term, and top search results are for a computer company by this name. Are there cites meeting CFI? ~ Robin 15:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Appears borderline attestable: [48], [49], [50], [51]; sorry for the "google.cz" hyperlinks, I am using Google.com in English but get these anyway. --Dan Polansky 16:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

But these hits stand no chance of attesting the current defition: "an active contemporary cultural awareness of a topic or behaviour that transcends unilateral discussion and becomes something of a global phenomenon". What they are good enough at attesting is IMHO the def given at megatrend: "A major trend". --Dan Polansky 16:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Added the "major trend" definition with your citations. The closest I could find to Social.next's definition was a lecture title:

1982, Kaiser, Christopher, “Course Syllabus: Christianity in a Technological Society”, Science, Technology & Society, Lehigh University, page 66:

Gigatrends: The Boundary Conditions of Modern Life and their Formation

But that's not a lot to go on. ~ Robin 18:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] eierlegende Wollmilchsau

Evidence for use in English, please. Putting "an" or "the" in front of it finds nothing in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 18:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 05:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] hither twice

Joky form of "hear, hear!". To my knowledge, only ever used in the single given "citation", which is a Flash animation from a few years ago, and never used anywhere else by anyone else, except people on the Internet making aping "references" to that animation. Equinox ◑ 19:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

No Groups hits!—msh210℠ (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, the phrase does get 202 Google-groups hits, although none of them are Usenet hits, so they don't count for our attestation purposes. Besides that, this Ask Me Help Desk question is clear evidence that at least some people use the phrase, and without knowingly making reference to David Firth's 2006 Pulch (“Now I, myself, use [hither twice]. But I was wondering, where does this come from? I've never heard it used anywhere else.”); moreover, that AMHD question explicitly shows that the inclusion of hither twice would be in accordance with our general rule (“A term should be included if it’s likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means.”). All that notwithstanding, I don't deny that, pending its likely failure of this request for its verification, our entry for hither twice ought to be deleted; nevertheless, it will be a regrettable loss of content that is manifestly pursuant to our raison d’être. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 02:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] fuckchasm

The single given citation is hyphenated. Need three that are not. Equinox ◑ 21:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] bagonize

Recent humorous invention. The only given citation is from a book on linguistics, i.e. demonstrating a new coinage. Can't find much else. I think including this kind of word is a bad idea if it doesn't have true usage. Equinox ◑ 23:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You're right. Most hits for "bagonize," "bagonized," etc. on Google Books and Google News Archive are mentions, not true usages. It seems "bagonize" first turned up in a collection of one man's personal coinages that was submitted to linguist David Crystal after he hosted a radio program on nonce words in 1988.[52][53] Crystal apparently took a particular shine to the coinage — he described himself as having "high hopes" for it in 2000.[54] But there doesn't seem to be any evidence of "bagonize" actually being used outside linguistic discussions about recently-coined words. Astral 23:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Beyblade

A trademarked brand of toy. WT:BRAND applies. Equinox ◑ 23:33, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Steiner

Shouldn't that be a Steiner point? SemperBlotto 22:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] newhalf

Can this be a true adjective? It doesn't seem to be. ``DCDuring TALK 06:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

No - just attributive use of the noun. Simpler just to remove it. SemperBlotto 08:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] cowen

Really? SemperBlotto 11:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Surely it's cowan, not cowen. But the definition given at cowan seems to differ from the one at cowen and is maybe an older meaning of the word.--Dmol 12:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The OED [2ⁿᵈ ed., 1989] has cowen, but only as an eighteenth-century spelling of cowan (which sense I've just added to our entry); note that its entry is (AFAICT) unchanged from that of the NED [1ˢᵗ ed., 1893] except for the addition of one quotation. Rather than being some older sense, “someone who is not a witch”, if such usage exists, is probably a more recent (i.e., post–nineteenth-century) adoption of the Masonic term by Wiccan and/or Neopagan groups. As for “the commander of the genii (chief cowen)”, that usage, if its exists, is wholly unlike the other senses we have, and may be a corruption of the term by conflation with coven. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 02:30, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] qallunaaq

This seems to be in the wrong script, but I believe it's supposed to be Greenlandic, not Inuktitut? —CodeCa t 21:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

According to w:Inuktitut, Inuktitut can be written in either the Latin script or in syllabics, and according to Qallunaaq#Etymology, the word is spelled the same in Inuktitut and Greenlandic. So if all that is true, we can add a Greenlandic heading to qallunaaq, and we can add an entry for Inuktitut ᖃᓪᓗᓈᖅ, but the current entry itself is also correct. —An gr 23:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a regular Inuit contributor on the French Wiktionary, who says that the "white person" sense is definitely ok, but he/she finds no supporting evidence for the "Danish" sense. You can read the discussion in French here if you are able to and desire to. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Mac

"One who uses Apple Mac products. I don't need your crappy software, I'm a Mac." This apparently comes from the Get a Mac ad campaign, where people introduce themselves with "I'm a Mac" and "I'm a PC" and highlight their differences — but in those ads, the people are pretending to be the computers, not merely identifying themselves as users. Does it exist elsewhere? Equinox ◑ 00:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

It's not just the Apple advert campaign, there was a Microsoft advert campaign that used PC and Mac that way as well. 70.24.249.190 15:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

But it's not the Apple ad campaign; "I'm a Mac" in the ads refers to being the computer, not a user of the computer.--Prosfilaes 20:49, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Saber's beads

Doesn't seem to be much use —This unsigned comment was added by 83.41.41.252 (talk • contribs).

[edit] amount

(Rfv-sense) The second definition is incorrect - it actually means to be the same as or to be equivalent to - it only means succeed when used in conjunction with much. I'll edit the entry if someone confirms. Saltmarsh^{απάντηση} 11:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Not only with much. Something also works. It is often used in the negative: "It'll never amount to 'a bucket of warm spit'/'a hill of beans'/'anything'/'more than a pipedream'." Some dictionaries have "amount to" as an idiom/phrasal verb. DCDuring TALK 18:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

This is overwhelmingly amount to. Rarely (< 0.1%) "amount upto". DCDuring TALK 18:48, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

done Saltmarsh^{απάντηση} 05:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] gellin' like Magellan

Is this phrase documented to an extent that meets the inclusion critera? Also, is the word gellin'? __meco 15:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

This is from a commercial where people are shown coming up with rhyming phrases including "gellin'", itself possibly coined (in this sense, anyway) for this series of commercials. see: [55]. Chuck Entz 22:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Has been deleted. - -sche (discuss) 05:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] soq

Any takers? SemperBlotto 16:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] wedge

RfV for the typographic sense = háček, caron. It has been listed as a synonym in our entry for háček since I added it in December 2007, when I added it from the list of alternative names given in w:Caron (wedge was added to háček, caron, inverted circumflex, and inverted hat by an anonymous editor in April 2006); I added this sense to wedge just now, so as to open this verification request for it. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 19:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I found this 1996 quot. which supports that typographic sense. Also, the ninth nominal sense given by Dictionary.com for wedge is "haček." — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 19:50, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I added two more quotations (1982, 1999) under that sense. I also added a {{US}} tag because, whilst it seems to be pretty common in US usage, it's nowhere to be seen in UK sources (an assertion supported by a glance at which dictionaries include the relevant sense of wedge, for which see háček#Dictionary notes). In my opinion, this sense is now verified. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 03:31, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] มันสมอง

The visitor says that it means brain in Thai. Could that be true? --Lo Ximiendo 03:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Which visitor? Yes, it means brain. I have recently added this Thai translation - มันสมอง (man sà-mŏng) or สมอง (sà-mŏng). Why do you have doubts? You can check against Thai2English dictionary or thai-language.com. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 23:00, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't guarantee the transliteration in terms of standards but the term is 100% right. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 23:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

It’s a valid Thai term: Google Books มันสมอง. —Stephen ^(Talk) 23:36, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Stephen. My question looks silly now that the entry exists. I have checked the history and see the reason for the rfv. --Anatoli ^{(обсудить)} 00:09, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Bakatabak

Really? SemperBlotto 09:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] nettlesome

Rfv-sense: (of a person) Easily provoked.

I think we need citations to determine whether this is a sense distinct from another definition in the entry: "Thorny; difficult to deal with." DCDuring TALK 16:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The citations provided today do not indicate a distinct sense AFAICT. DCDuring TALK 20:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] CCITT High Level Language

Don't think this is used, rather than mentioned, in independent sources as the CFI wants. -- Liliana • 16:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added three cites. There's a lot of "CHILL (CCITT High Level Language)", but there's also a bit of "CCITT High Level Language (CHILL)" (using this as the name and giving CHILL as an acronym, instead of giving CHILL as the name and using CCITT High Level Language as an explanation) and a couple standalone instances in titles and chapter headings.--Prosfilaes 21:05, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] copyleft

Adjective. This doesn't seem like an adjective. Consider: *"That license is copyleft." Perhaps someone can find citations to the contrary. As the purported adjective definition is doing the heavy lifting in the entry, the noun definition would need to be rewritten. DCDuring TALK 00:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The sentence you gave actually seems quite ok to me... —CodeCa t 00:12, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

My favorite food is cheese, doesn't mean that cheese is an adjective. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Try to google "the most copyleft" or "more copyleft than", you'll find plenty of uses as an adjective. I've always viewed this word mainly as an adjective, unlike copyright. The (not comparable) metnion should be removed. Lmaltier 21:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] inverted hat

RfV for the only sense, = háček, caron. It has been listed as a synonym in our entry for háček since I added it in December 2007, when I added it from the list of alternative names given in w:Caron (the suspect inverted hat and the legitimate inverted circumflex were both added by Gene Nygaard on April Fools' Day 2006); I just now created this entry, so as to open this verification request for it. I could find nothing of relevance in the first ten pages of results returned by google books:"inverted hat". — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 01:10, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added one of the only two relevant cites I could find on b.g.c. (The other one, b.g.c. wouldn't show me the snippet I needed; and anyway, it was by the same author, so no help.) —Ruakh_TALK 18:10, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the find. Do you think this is attestable? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 20:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It's used on Usenet, which counts, right? Phol 22:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Usenet counts. Your 1995/iv/30 quot. seems to use the term in the right sense, but the author of your 1997/x/1 quot. is talking about the pronunciatory transcription ēvăngĕʹlĭcal (-nj-) for evangelical and means breve. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 04:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Since I've exhausted Usenet to bring the number of supporting quotations for inverted hat to twelve (one is duplicated), I imagine that no one will object to my marking this RFV passed. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 07:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] feral

Rfv-sense - (Australian, colloquial) A person who has isolated themselves from the outside world.

Not something I'm familiar with, and totally different from the normal use of the word.--Dmol 01:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

The adjectival form applied to a human should be there (try gogglng "he's gone feral") - can the noun form be attested ? Saltmarsh^{απάντηση} 07:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I've added the adjective form for a human (surprised it wasn't there), but that is still not the same as the disputed sense.--Dmol 08:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Contributions by 90.205.76.5

This user has added protologisms and 'invented' words in Japanese before, and now they're adding more Japanese words that seem very fantasy and fiction-related, which makes me wonder. Could these be checked? —CodeCa t 22:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

I try to keep up but there are a lot of them. Also 2.220.125.207, the same person. --Haplology 03:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Tom

Rfv-sense: A nickname for several exceptionally large balls. [17th century].

I'm not sure what this means, nor how to go about verifying it. Any onomasticians want to try? DCDuring TALK 19:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Interesting; it was one of the three contributions ever user 80.109.76.27 (talk • contribs), however it was 'exceptionally large bells' as opposed to balls. A bit like Humpty-Dumpty actually being the nickname for a large canon. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for -- and shame on me for not -- checking the history. But I would still RfV it. I'd be happy if either the "bells" or "balls" definitions were addressed. DCDuring TALK 19:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

In the UK, many large bells have names - Big Ben in London, "Great George" in Bristol and so on. But the name part (Ben, George etc.) does not seem to need a separate dictionary entry. SemperBlotto 22:15, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

... and, of course, Great Tom. Dbfirs 11:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

How does one verify the use of a proper name in a given sense? Do such things just get a free pass, subject to an RfD popularity contest? DCDuring TALK 18:35, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

This source gives another Great Tom at Lincoln as well as the one at Oxford and this source appears to be using "Big Tom" generically to mean any large bell. And this one lists Toms at Oxford, Lincoln, Exeter and St Pauls in a way that might be considered generic. SpinningSpark 02:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Slang and its Analogues, Past and Present defines Tom as a "deep-toned bell" and gives the etymology as a probable onomatopoeia. Spinning Spark 02:57, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

These look promising. The entry would seem to need an additional Etymology if we accept that plausible one, possibly qualified with a "possibly". DCDuring TALK 06:20, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] mamihlapinatapai

Three citations of usage please. SemperBlotto 15:23, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ha Wikipedia says that this language has just one native speaker (no year given) so it's not a dead language, but if that native speaker dies and there are no other native speaker, this will be a dead language and only one citation will be needed. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Haha. Has he written any books, or does he keep a blog? SemperBlotto 17:00, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Well there have been other native speakers in the past, too. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

With whom does he speak? --Hekaheka 19:51, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

There may be some non-native speakers too. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:49, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

He speaks with himself. I guess. -- Liliana • 19:12, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

@SemperBlotto. Haha yourself. Yes, she has written a book Hai Kur Mamashu Shis (I want to tell you a story) and she has a Facebook page. I don't know if she has a blog, but her English translator has one. Spinning Spark 14:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The idea was that these two girls met, shared that moment of mamihlapinatapai, started talking and the video went on to show what could have happened--they became best friends and had all these amazing moments together.[56]
When is the last time you were involved in an epic mamihlapinatapai? Will you please describe this encounter for science?[57]
I don't think this one counts, or even makes any sense, but I give it to you anyway for your amusement;

A heavily face-painted Stumbler appeared before him and waved for his attention. "I am Voodoo Master Moon Unit Mamihlapinatapai Von Zubenelgenubi. Come with me."[58]

In my opinion it would be reasonable to treat this as an extinct language, which it virtually is, especially as the speakers, when they lived, were preliterate. Spinning Spark 18:15, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] author

Rfv-sense — Author as an Interjection meaning Encore! — I don't think so. Author in the vocative might be shouted at a theatrical first night - to get the playwright on stage. But it ins't a synonym for encore. Saltmarsh^{απάντηση} 11:44, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this was added by long-term but now occasional editor Schneelocke ten months ago. I'm surprised it hasn't been challenged before. Is it just a misunderstanding, or was there once a regional (mis-)usage? Dbfirs 13:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] twilitten

"Past participle of twilight", for which we have no verb entry. Equinox ◑ 23:27, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The OED [2ⁿᵈ ed., 1989] lists “ˈtwilight v. trans.” as a derivation of “twilight, n.”, defines it as “to light imperfectly or dimly”, and includes three quotations (dated 1819, 1866, and 1880) which exhibit the forms twilight and twilighted; it does not have *twilitten, but it does list “litten, ppl. a.”. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 03:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Centrelink

Rfv-sense Ordinary noun sense: "Any payment provided by this authority." — Pingku^dimmi 10:16, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] santorum

Tagalog section. All cites given are English and not Tagalog. -- Liliana • 16:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Liliana-60 (talk • contribs), this section belongs on the Tagalog language Wiktionary website, but not on this language version. Then, we can give an interwiki link to that page. -- Cirt (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Not at all. If it's real, then it's in the right place: it's an English description of a Tagalog word. —Ruakh_TALK 17:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay okay okay, understood, and I suppose your reply is "at" Liliana, as well? :) -- Cirt (talk) 18:08, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

No, only "at" you. I'm positive that Liliana already understands this; you simply misunderstood her original comment. ("Tagalog section" means, "I'd like to request verification for the Tagalog section", i.e., "I'd like to request citations that demonstrate that this word is used in Tagalog." "All cites given are English and not Tagalog" means, "The Tagalog section currently has things that are formatted like citations, but they're in English; to demonstrate that this is a Tagalog word, we need quotations in Tagalog that actually use it.") —Ruakh_TALK 19:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, understood. Thank you very much for the helpful explanation. :) -- Cirt (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

So, to clarify, we don't need cites in Tagalog? ... sorta confused here, sorry :( -- Cirt (talk) 09:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes we do; for the Tagalog section. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, alright, quite right, that's probably for the best. So what happens if we don't get those? -- Cirt (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Then we remove that section. —Ruakh_TALK 19:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I see, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I added one Tagalog cite. You can find a few more if you search for santorum nang, on which note, [[nang]] has no definition. Phol 19:58, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help! This thread can probably be marked as resolved at this point. :) -- Cirt (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Not yet; we want three cites for the "sacrifice" sense and three more for the "tithe" sense before we mark either as passed. I might find three cites for the "tithe" sense, but I worry the "sacrifice" sense falls through the cracks in Wiktionary's CFI: I can't find Tagalog quotations of it, but the many English quotations of it put it in italics as a borrowing... Phol 23:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] bushlips

The "References" appear to be at least half dictionaries or the like. Are there any citations for this word? --EncycloPetey 22:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Google book search shows several dictionary-type definitions and some more mentions, but I can't see any actual usage in the first few pages. SemperBlotto 22:35, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Added a couple Usenet quotes using Bushlips (capitalized) like a euphemism for bullshit. Some other posts used an alternative singular form, bushlip:

1992 September 25, Berg, Glenn, “What will BO GRITZ do as President?”, talk.politics.misc, Usenet:

It's time to STOP THE "BUSHLIP!"
1996 September 20, Walker, John, “Re: NRA Shoots Blanks - Wake Up Gun Owners”, talk.politics.guns, Usenet:

This is Bushlip.
2008 January 12, 1X2Willows, “Re: Danu/Dana”, alt.religion.druid, Usenet:

Jesus was an Aryan and got killed by the inferior Jews only because they were envious and unable to accept his spiritual superiority yadda yadda and similar bushlip.

Also found uses of Bushlips as an epithet for George H. W. Bush himself:

1992 March 11, Martin, Bruce A., “Redistributive tax. was Re: What IF We Abolished the IRS?”, talk.politics.misc, Usenet:

So was Bushlips' tax hike.
1992 September 14, Martin, Bruce A., “Re: Libertarian Elector History”, alt.politics.marrou, Usenet:

I won't even point bother to point out that either one is far better qualified than Bushlips, SlickWillie, Alfred E. Neuman, or the ecoterrorist; so is Mickey Mouse.
1992 September 17, Tice, Stephen D., “What Perot is really after.”, talk.politics.misc, Usenet:

Bye Bye Bushlips
1992 October 26, Jack B. Nimble, “Re: Social Democracy”, soc.motss, Usenet:

Well, Tinkerbell, don't flap your wings in a paroxysm of ecstasy prematurely, as Bushlips has been steadily closing the gap in most of the polls.

But that was a short-lived usage limited to the final months of his 1992 presidential campaign, so it wouldn't meet CFI. ~ Robin 04:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much to Robin Lionheart (talk • contribs) for the help, that has significantly improved the page on bushlips, much appreciated! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 07:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I've taken the helpful lead from Robin Lionheart (talk • contribs), after the research provided above, and added the singular, bushlip, with the quoted citations from above.
I added additional citations to the plural page, bushlips, including one from 2002.
Not yet sure if we wish to consider adding Bushlips, as noted above by Robin Lionheart.

Thanks very much for all of the friendly input, it's most appreciated! ;) -- Cirt (talk) 08:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Added (frequently capitalized) to the entries, to hopably obviate any need for a third page. ~ Robin 10:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much, so the issue raised in this particular subsection can be marked

Done for now? :) -- Cirt (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Baby Pokémon

Can this meet WT:FICTION? -- Liliana • 16:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

This isn't from a fictional universe, though. This refers to a real, physical object. WT:BRAND, maybe? --Yair rand 04:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

No it's from a fictional universe; the fact that you can put this on a card doesn't matter. I mean books are written on paper and paper is a physical substance, but the ideas expressed on the paper can be in a fictional-only context. See Citations:Baby Pokémon for in universe cites, ironically enough. Never actually watched Pokémon, well ok a couple of times, but aren't Baby Pokémon in the show as well as the card game? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Here are two separate quotes from Talk:Baby Pokémon, chosen by me simply because I agree with them. See that talk page for the whole conversation, including other arguments and counterarguments.

Basic Pokémon and Baby Pokémon aren't fictional characters within a game the way that Pikachu is. They are types of cards, like a jack, only in a far lesser-known game. --Yair rand 22:10, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
(...) "Basic Pokémon" is not a character, in the sense that it does not have a role in a fictional story. It is an object of a game. To be fair, someone could conceivably utter a sentence like "My Basic Pokémon defeated yours!", that does seem to rationalize the game object as a character. However, that is not exclusively a privilege of Pokémon; for one can do the same thing with chess pieces, as well: "My pawn took your queen." --Daniel 23:58, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

—This unsigned comment was added by Daniel Carrero (talk • contribs).

So you're saying that they are a fictional breed or type, not a single specific character. The same goes for Pokémon, which already failed. Something similar might be Imperial Stormtrooper (a specific type of character in Star Wars, but not a single entity like Han Solo) — for which we do have an entry, presumably because it is used outside of that universe as a stock character type(?). Equinox ◑ 13:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

That's what I was gonna say, a Baby Pokémon isn't a 'specific entity', but it is a fictional race/species/subspecies. Like I say, you can put a representation of anything on a card, it doesn't become nonfiction because you write it down or print it out. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

@Mg and Equinox:

I've seen some good, yet somewhat controversial, reasons for deletion of Baby Pokémon. For example, as I mentioned in another discussion, there are people who seem to give far more weight to components of chess and playing cards as "mainstream, or very old, or something like that" and apparently would want to see Wiktionary devoid of specific RPGs and whatnot. To some extent, it's reasonable to assume that people would want to see Baby Pokémon deleted on these or similar grounds.

However, I do defend that distinction: the card is not fictional, so please don't push WT:FICTION over it. "Baby Pokémon" is probably trademarked, anyway, so WT:BRAND would apply.

The single definition of the entry is: "A Pokémon card (of Pokémon Trading Card Game) that may evolve into a Basic Pokémon card."

It's worded not as a type of character (i.e. a fictional race/species/subspecies, like the well-known common nouns werewolf or mermaid; or an Imperial Stormtrooper), but rather a component of a game: It mentions "card", "game" and a single rule. We have one sense of "king" for the monarch and three senses for games (chess, checkers and the playing card). The playing card "king", just like any "Baby Pokémon" card, is not a fictional character, in the sense that it is not someone with a role in a fictional story.

Whether we will want to define just the best-known components of games, or all components of all games, or all compoinents of only the best-known games (for example, by defining even the most obscure concepts of chess) or use grey areas like WT:BRAND (that may or may not justify the inclusion of some terms of specific game franchises) is a separate issue. --Daniel 22:51, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Mglovesfun: No, they are not. "Baby Pokemon" exists, to the best of my knowledge, exclusively within the card game. There are no books, video games, movies, TV shows, or stories of any kind that include "Baby Pokemon", afaik (excluding the meaning of just baby+Pokemon, of course). It refers to a category of card, used in a card game, and nothing more. I don't see how this could be at all different from the situation of jack, queen, etc. (None of the citations at Citations:Baby Pokémon are from in-universe, btw; they all refer to people playing the card game.) --Yair rand 14:43, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Yair, do you then support having entries for all Magic: The Gathering cards, e.g. [59]? Or at least the capitalised "card types" [60]? Equinox ◑ 23:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

@Equinox: How is the trademark status of these terms? Shouldn't WT:BRAND apply to them all? While I don't know much about Magic, I assume it is indeed trademarked and therefore my best guess is that our restrictive policy would exclude most or all terms of that card game. The same holds true for Pokémon TCG. The initial question ("Can this meet WT:FICTION?"), and related statements about a fictional character or class of characters, are meaningless if we acknowledge that the card is real (not fictional). So, at least for now, I'd expect the entry to be kept per the lack of reasons for deletion, whereas I foresee that someone probably can elaborate better arguments to be discussed nonetheless. --Daniel 00:39, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Well, "Pokémon" (in "Baby Pokémon" or otherwise) is a registered trademark. It is inconceivable that the names of the many, many Magic cards are all registered trademarks; they might be written as non-registered ones (with the TM rather than (R)) but I haven't seen any evidence for this. Equinox ◑ 01:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

On the one hand, if jargon of Magic is not trademarked, then WT:BRAND does not apply and technically Wiktionary can freely cover terms specific to that card game (for example, by filling Planeswalker and others), just like we have a number of definitions for chess and playing cards and whatnot.

On the other hand, the lack of formal restrictive rules does not mean that the community would inherently endorse the preservation of entries for all untrademarked jargon of card games. Defining only a few terms of Pokémon TCG or Magic can be controversial enough, let alone engaging in the huge hypothetical task of "having entries for all Magic: The Gathering cards".

Deciding actual rules can be difficult, with grey areas and individual games to be considered. I am curious as to what would be the extent permissible for defining their jargon here, especially what to do with terms of poker as a mainstream game of playing cards; and terms of Tetris as a mainstream non-fiction electronic game.

The existence of entries like "Baby Pokémon", "Planeswalker" and "Battle Phase" (the latter is from Yu-Gi-Oh!) would naturally look inappropriate for someone who, for whatever reason, holds the belief that they shouldn't be in Wiktionary in the first place. I, however, would not object to having some of these terms, for feedback, contributions and discussions. Until big decisions are made by the community, I'd probably oppose any of these simple, catch-all solutions, among others: 1) indiscriminately adding all terms of Magic or another controversial game; or 2) indiscriminately deleting all terms of Magic or another controversial game. --Daniel 05:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

This can probably be verified, but I'd RfD it, personally Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 16:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] !

Rfv-sense: Turkish, indicates irony when used in parentheses. Absolutely unfamiliar with this, never even heard of such a usage. -- Liliana • 17:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I daresay that usage is indistinct from that of (!), which can denote, amongst other things, irony or sarcasm. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 18:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Bad entry title; move to (!) though we could keep the RFV running for that title if we wish to. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this just Translingual, rather than specifically Turkish? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:43, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete this sense (because, by its very definition, it cannot be attested distinctly); keep (!). - -sche (discuss) 05:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 14:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] seagull

Rfv-sense: (orthography) The symbol ̼ , which combines under a letter as a sort of accent. -- Liliana • 04:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

[61][62][63][64][65] Spinning Spark 12:24, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Of SpinningSpark’s five linked examples, only №ˢ 1 and 3 use the term; №ˢ 2 and 4 merely describe the diacritic as resembling a seagull, whilst № 5 only mentions that seagull is the diacritic’s name. Howbeit, I believe this page, describing the Unicode character “COMBINING SEAGULL BELOW” (Unicode hexadecimal code: U+033C), should be decisive in closing this discussion, seeing as this term is in clearly widespread use. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't take Unicode names as a definite source. For example, they call ︘ a brakcet (sic!). -- Liliana • 15:32, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Point taken, but that's a mistake, whereas calling that diacritic a seagull is not; that said, I think that, if their mistake is noteworthy enough, we should probably make a note of it (such as in the case of guillemets, which Unicode mistakenly calls guillemots). — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:40, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Apparently the Unicode folks have a thing for seabirds.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

:-D — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 03:34, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] February 2012

[edit] ellisization

A WOTD nomination and I would like to know that it is attestable before listing it. I get a few things for ellisize on Google Books & Groups. —Internoob 03:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think ellisization is going to make it. I added the one Groups cite I could find to ellisize. Neither is at all common even in general web search. DCDuring TALK 03:46, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Incidentally, my surname was ellisized from Dühring on my grandfather's arrival in the the US. DCDuring TALK 03:59, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Ellisize has several on its citations page.Lucifer 18:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] phoneography

Zero hits on Google book search. Protologism? SemperBlotto 08:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

NTBCW phonography. Equinox ◑ 16:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] optilexia

Can be found in a few places on the Web, and looks as though it might be specific to a few Web forums. Nothing in Books. Equinox ◑ 13:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Not in "OneLook", not in the OED, nothing on Google book search. Probable protologism. SemperBlotto 13:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] common-technology

Four separate "senses" suggest it's just a sum of parts, any combination of the two words. Entry created by the word's creator, who was cheeky enough to cite himself as a reference. Plus the hyphenation looks wrong for a noun. Equinox ◑ 16:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

What surprises me is that it seems to have survived EncycloPetey's hawkeye. Still, I don't think this entry provides any value. --Hekaheka 20:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

This, phoneography and optilexia above all sound like absolute tosh to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] mind-chewing

Never heard this. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 11:02, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Me neither... --Actarus ^{(Prince d'Euphor)} 14:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

The first 100 results at google books:"mind-chewing" (which also finds mind chewing) include nothing relevant; same for ggc. There are no bgc or ggc results for "mindchewing".—msh210℠ (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] g

Rfv-sense: "German language". What? -- Liliana • 01:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone should remove "Could mean "gangsta."". Mglovesfun (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to add the sense "gay" to this RFV, and note that the currency sense should (per itself, and the resultso f the g-note vs G-note RFV) be at G. - -sche (discuss) 18:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
- Tagged it. -- Liliana • 18:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] little wife

Given citation just looks like a wife who is little. Equinox ◑ 03:19, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

It has the same context as little woman, especially if you've seen the movie. See, Gaston is a male-chauvinist who thinks he'll get whatever he wants. Angie Y. 03:33, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

"Little woman" can't be deduced from its parts; there is nothing in the phrase suggesting marriage. "Little wife" clearly indicates marriage because a "wife" is a married woman. "Little" could mean any of the senses shown at little, e.g. young, insignificant. Equinox ◑ 04:40, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I say insignificant. Angie Y. 06:20, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this an RFD issue? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

I say that because little can be diminutive in a pejorative way; little shit, little fucker, little cunt, etc. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:40, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

That was my idea. Angie Y. 17:54, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

In the Disney cite, little seems to be used in the sense of "subordinate" or "insignificant, trivial." Probably SOP. Astral 21:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] zA

"zeptoampere" is not attestable, from a quick glance. Does zA likewise need attestation?--Prosfilaes 08:13, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Abbreviations of units of measure are usually more readily attestable than their written out forms. Good luck finding any cites in this particular case, though. -- Liliana • 12:55, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, even observing a zA scientifically would be extremely difficult since they are flowing everywhere, all the time. Do we allow units that "ought to exist", even if they are never used or observed? I suppose we have an entry for fairy! Dbfirs 17:30, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] north

Rfv-sense, of the adverb "Of wind, from the north." I just closed a year-old Request for Deletion of the adjective "from the north"; the adjective sense is easy to find in books and other dictionaries. I'm having a hard time thinking of an example of this adverb sense, though, and I checked a few other dictionaries, and they also lack it. Even in phrases like "blew north from", it seems to mean "blew towards the north, from (a southerly point)", as in: "1986 had seemed a year of immense possibility. Now a disaster loomed, of consequences yet unknown, and radiation blew north from Chernobyl." (2008, Richard Rhodes, Arsenals of Folly: The Making of the Nuclear Arms Race, page 4.) - -sche (discuss) 18:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems like a mistake to me. Doesn't appear in the OED either. Ƿidsiþ 10:43, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] social ecology

Quasi–moved-from-RFD: per RFD I moved social ecology theory to social ecology, but now we need to find out what, if anything, social ecology means. - -sche (discuss) 18:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] holy cricket

Originates in Harry Potter. Doesn't seem to meet WT:CFI, looking at Usenet. Equinox ◑ 15:19, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Sounds awfully like something Robin would say to Batman. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The interjection is a Potterism. However, as a noun, it might meet CFI as an object of worship in Madagascar! SemperBlotto 15:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I've dug up three cites (including the quote from the first Harry Potter movie). It seems to be an alternative form of holy crickets, which is attestable back to 1922. I've got to wonder if this arose in the same manner that I imagine holy cow did (the cow being sacred in Hinduism, and thus considered safe to take in vain in place of "God," "Jesus," etc. by members of the Abrahamic faiths). Astral 02:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The last cite isn't durably archived, being on a webpage.--Prosfilaes 07:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a story from a major sports network that was reprinted by several local news affiliates. I'm honestly confused now, because I've been culling citations from online news resources like CNN, MTV, Wired, Gamespot, etc. for a while now (and have seen others doing the same), and this is the first time I've seen a concern raised over them. CFI says: "As Wiktionary is an online dictionary, this naturally favors media such as Usenet groups, which are durably archived by Google." I've been interpreting this to mean that online sources are acceptable as long they seem to possess staying power comparable to the Google Groups archive. Nothing on the internet is permanent, but it stands to reason that content hosted on a major media site like CNN or Wired is much less likely to disappear than content hosted on someone's Blogspot blog or LiveJournal. Can someone resolve my confusion? Thanks. Astral 16:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I've generally seen that as interpreted as just Usenet and printed sources. I don't see why it stands to reason that content hosted on CNN or Wired is unlikely to disappear; I've seen many links to news sites come up broken, and major sites sometimes seem to be more likely to change everything and lose old content then more quiet sites. Certainly I have no reason to trust that link to go anywhere in another decade.

That said, with those two more Usenet cites, it's should be fine.--Prosfilaes 09:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Major news outlets like CNN have the resources to keep their content live into the foreseeable future. When content disappears for good from the original site (as opposed to gets moved behind a paywall, which means it can still be accessed fully by paying, or partially through a Google News Archive Search), there's usually an archived copy of it to be found on the Wayback Machine.

I don't see how this really differs from the situation with Usenet. The Usenet posts cited here on Wiktionary are achived copies of the originals hosted by Google. The future accessibility of these copies depends entirely on whether Google continues to make this Usenet archive available. They've certainly got the resources to do so at this time, but there's no guarantee the tide won't turn for them down the line, leading them to pull the plug on the archive.

Even most newspaper citations aren't derived from the original printed papers, but from digital copies, which are often based on earlier microfiche copies.

I don't think any URL can be trusted to work indefinitely. That's why citations don't only give a URL, but the article's author, title, date, etc. — to enable people to go looking for alternate copies in the event that the particular URL linked to goes dead. Astral 16:32, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Usenet archives apparently exist on multiple servers. There is a supporting norm against the deletion of their content. Resource-rich organizations rarely have such norms in practice. Wayback is a relatively new institution with uncertain funding. If you would like our interpretation of our policy to change, that is a matter for WT:BP not the discussion of a single entry's attestation. DCDuring TALK 19:46, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] momist

I can't find any citations for this, and it seems like a fake to me. Also see momism. Metaknowledge 01:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Cited. Capitalisation varies. Equinox ◑ 01:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] sware

"A deep black/brown color created when mixing 3 or more darker shades of various colors". Can find no evidence. Equinox ◑ 20:51, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Added by a named newbie with only this edit in his list of contributions. Very dodgy. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 22:16, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] social hiring network

Equinox ◑ 00:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No hits on Google Books. Only 88 hits on Google itself. Should we speedily delete? ---> Tooironic 11:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Second definition is obviously wrong - nothing to do with hiring. I would have just deleted it. SemperBlotto 16:58, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] authorize

"(transitive, US) In American English usage only, to authorise frequently not only has the precise meaning above, but also means that the action being authorised was actually carried out, or at least started." What the? ---> Tooironic 11:05, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Tosh, speedy delete please. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:07, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Could possibly be a usage note, but probably not. It's true that "the government authorized the/a raid", "the judge authorized their apprehension" and "the executive authorized the/a takeover bid" all imply that the raid/apprehension/bid were carried out, but I think that's implied by any statement with that form (past tense, non-perfect) / meaning (someone was given the ability to do something). "The commander gave the sailors permission to leave", "the council empowered the task force to act", ... all imply the granted ability was used. - -sche (discuss) 17:33, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] seriety

Not in the OED. Nothing obvious on a quick Google book search. (plural looks wrong to me - serieties?) SemperBlotto 16:23, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the three definitions are the same, i.e. seriousness. I doubt it means gravity in the physics sense. There's a decent change it's a protologism based on the Italian, Portuguese and Spanish cognates. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] sapiophile

Not in the OED. Zero hits on Google book search. Looks like a protologism to me. SemperBlotto 22:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Exactly one hit on Usenet (via Google Groups). Seems to come from Urban Dictionary, which tends to be full of crap. Equinox ◑ 22:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Does seem to be quite new and is related to sapiosexual. Doesn't seem to be widespread. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 22:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

A Google search results in 17400 results. That's pretty decent. I bet there are many words included that do not get that many results. --Deleet 23:13, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Google searches aren't durably archived.--Prosfilaes 07:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] red diaper baby

Rfv-sense. I suspect this definition is simply lifted from the Wikipedia article Red diaper baby which is based on a single source. __meco 13:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

google books:red diaper baby provides some pretty solid evidence for it.--Prosfilaes 15:31, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

And Astral has done us the favor of citing it. Based on those cites, I'm going to change the US Communist Party to a Communist Party, since one reference is to the British CP. Perhaps it should make it clear we're not talking about babies of Communist nations?--Prosfilaes 04:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] holding company

Sense: "(business) A company without significant operations that only holds ownership interests in other companies." Really? ---> Tooironic 13:44, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, really. It's the first sense which is wrong. The definition is that of a parent company. --Hekaheka 17:21, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The new definition would include any investment company, such as a venture capital firm or a mutual fund. I think that, in practice, holding company is not used for such entities. In the US, in particular, the application of the term is influenced by w:Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 and w:Personal holding company. I think that, in practice, holding companies usually have a controlling interest in one or more of the companies whose shares they own. In any event, the term is not applied to companies better characterized in some other way except with the SoP meaning of "a company that principally holds securities". DCDuring TALK 19:13, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Let's see how others have defined a holding company:

businessdictionary.com[66]: Type of business organization that allows a firm (called parent) and its directors to control or influence other firms (called subsidiaries). This arrangement makes venturing outside one's core industry possible and, under certain conditions, to benefit from tax consolidation, sharing of operating losses, and ease of divestiture. The legal definition of a holding company varies with the legal system. Some require holding of a majority (80 percent) or the entire (100 percent) voting shares of the subsidiary whereas other require as little as five percent.
Freedictionary[67]: a company, usually a corporation, which is created to own the stock of other corporations, thereby often controlling the management and policies of all of them.
Investopedia[68]: A parent corporation that owns enough voting stock in another corporation to control its board of directors (and, therefore, controls its policies and management).
About.com[69]: A holding company is a company which owns controlling shares in another company or companies (assuming all of these companies are corporations), or a corporation organized to own and control other corporations. This control usually comes through owning a controlling interest (more than 50 percent) of the stock of the other companies, which are considered subsidiary companies.
An adviser in UK investment[70]: A holding company provides a means of concentrating control of several companies with a minimum of investment; other means of gaining control, such as mergers or consolidations, are more complicated legally and more expensive. A holding company can reap the benefits of a subsidiary's goodwill and reputation while limiting its liability to the proportion of the subsidiary's stock that it owns. The parent company in a conglomerate corporation is usually a holding company. Strictly speaking, the term "holding company" might be used to describe any company that owns a majority of shares in another company however this may only apply if that corporation's only reason for existence is to hold stock in other companies. Usually, though, the term signifies a company which does not produce goods or services itself, but, rather, whose only purpose is owning shares of other companies (or owning other companies outright). Holding companies allow the reduction of risk for the owners and can allow the ownership and control of a number of different companies. The owned companies may be: subsidiary companies - the holding company owns more than 50% thus giving control. Associated companies - the parent company owns 20-50%. This is a large shareholding should provide considerable influence (but not control) over the associated company. How much influence will depend on ownership of the other shares? Owning 49% and wanting control when a rival company has a 51% stake may be a less than appropriate strategy. Related companies as similar to associated companies. They typically own fewer than 20% of shares in another company. This holding may be held because good dividends may be expected or the two companies are co-operating with each other in some area of business. Small shareholdings may be held by banks or Unit or Investment Trust companies as ingredients in their portfolio of ownership.
Another source[71] (calling itself "Global Database"): Holding companies are conglomerates that own other firms. A company that owns enough voting stock in another firm to control management and operations by influencing or electing its board of directors. Also called parent company. It usually refers to a company which does not produce goods or services itself, rather its only purpose is owning shares of other companies. Holding companies allow the reduction of risk for the owners and can allow the ownership and control of a number of different companies. The use of a holding company is legally simpler and less expensive than other means of gaining control of another company, such as merger or consolidation. A holding company is able to reap the benefits of a subsidiary’s goodwill and reputation, yet its liability is limited to the proportion of the subsidiary’s stock that it owns. These and other factors make holding companies an effective form of organization on both national and international levels. The parent company in a conglomerate corporation is usually a holding company.

--Hekaheka 22:44, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I like the economy of the Free Dictionary definition. I think they have captured the essence of the matter and have not attempted to address the variable relationship the term may have to "parent" and "conglomerate". There is the possibility that the holding company is not actually created for the purpose, but rather merely used for the purpose, as, for example, a "clean public shell (corporation)". The longer the definition, the more likely it is to not cover a significant share of the usage instances. I would not want to have to produce citations to show all attributes mentioned in the longer definitions. We could see whether the term "parent" is inherent. I think "parent" is an attribute of an entity that arises to distinguish it from other entities in the family. A "conglomerate" could itself be an operating company and own no shares in other companies. DCDuring TALK 04:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm in the belief that "parent company" is any company that owns the majority of stock in another company. It may or may not have also other business. If owning stock is its sole business, it may also be called "holding company". A holding company may be parent company to some or all of its holdings. It may be a minority holder in every one of its holdings, in which case it cannot be called a parent. To sum up, "parent" refers to the kind of relationship of one company to another and "holding" refers to the kind of business that some companies do. --Hekaheka 14:53, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think "parent" is a word that needs to be in this definition. It could be a "see also" term. DCDuring TALK 16:19, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] fortyish

Rfv-sense: cardinal.—msh210℠ (talk) 06:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Speedy delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Cited, I think. DCDuring TALK 15:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Nicely. Thanks much. (Sorry: I hate when people RFV things without first Googling around a bit. In my defense, it looked like this would have been removed without the benefit of an RFV (see diff and Mg's comment above), so posting here without Googling was IMO preferable to doing nothing, and I hadn't the time to search thoroughly.) RFV passed.—msh210℠ (talk) 15:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

If you aren't in the mood to check in advance, you should still put uncited stuff that doesn't smell right here for attention, IMO. I wasn't so sure about this one myself. DCDuring TALK 16:35, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] parangaricotirimirruaro

Google books has only one hit, and it's for Parangaricotimírruaro. As far as I can tell it's a nonce word from a television series (w:O Chapolin Colorado). Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 15:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] disallowable

Actually seems to mean "not allowed", rather than "capable of being disallowed", so I am RFVing that latter sense. Equinox ◑ 17:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] QFT

"Quite frankly told". There are other possibly dodgy senses in this entry too. Equinox ◑ 20:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd say senses 5-8 need citations. Those I haven't heard so far. -- Liliana • 20:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] flyspeck

I don't think this is used as a true adjective. That is, its sole adjective-like usage is attributive which is consistent with flyspeck#Noun. DCDuring TALK 20:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Ambrosia

English. WT:BRAND. DCDuring TALK 09:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Super Nintendo

To meet WT:BRAND. Note that it survived an RFD (not RFV) by no consensus in 2006; see Talk:Super_Nintendo. Equinox ◑ 12:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Angostura

[edit] Angostura#English

Rfv-sense: WT:BRAND. DCDuring TALK 14:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Just for info, Chambers has Angostura for the tree bark (named after the town), and a sub-entry for Angostura bitters®. Equinox ◑ 14:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

That first bit would be fine with me. Do they really have it capitalized? DCDuring TALK 14:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Equinox ◑ 14:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Angostura#Translingual

Rfv-sense: just the clause saying (encyclopedically) that the bark is an ingredient in the bitters. WP says not. DCDuring TALK 14:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Mizcan, which has exclusive distribution rights to the product, has an FAQ page that answers this question (see question 3). Not quite from the horses mouth, but close: [72]

[edit] haĉek

There's two issues here. First, as per RFV, I can demand to see a third cite. Second, even if there is a third cite, this is still just a rare misspelling. There's no etymological support, there's no logical reason for this spelling, except that someone confused č with ĉ.--Prosfilaes 22:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I've just added a third citation to the entry (the 2006 one), so this spelling is now attested. I don't know why those writers decided to use a circumflex instead of a háček for writing haĉek, but the facts that the author of that most recent citation is herself Czech, that the passage quoted is discussing the correct use of the háček, and that the rest of the book features háčky being used correctly all suggest to me that this spelling has nothing to do with "someone confus[ing] č with ĉ." — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 02:16, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if it could be a typesetting error, not the author's fault. Equinox ◑ 02:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe it's Esperanto? —CodeCa t 02:31, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

All the uses are in English contexts. As I said, the 2006 citation has haĉek occurring in the same sentence as letters with háčky (namely ě, š, and ř). — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 02:48, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Further up on the same page occurs this sentence: “Examples of the family names fixed on mail boxes that left a lasting impression on the history of Creechville were: Bětik, Bouška, Brožek, Fabera, Galetka, Haškovec, Holy, Janiček, Jarešh, Janoušek, Jurčik, Krajča, Mach, Marušak, Matouš, Patak, Petr, Skřivanek, Slovak, Slovaček, Taraba, Tojaček, Trpak, Vrana, Vrla, Zaidle, Zhanel and Zmolik.” I see no typesetting problems. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 02:55, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

None of which were in italics, which could be a cause of typesetting error.--Prosfilaes 06:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I checked further on in the book. Stařenka occurs in italics on pages 32 and 33 (first in a section title, and then in the main text), Karliček is italicised on page 50, Stařenka crops up again on page 56 alongside an italicised Stařiček, and by the time I came across the Czech song name Ta Naše Pisnička Česka printed in italics on page 57, I considered the point made and didn't bother checking any further. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 08:40, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

While we're looking at context, doesn't it seem odd to anyone that a sentence containing an accurate description of the shape of the haček uses a haček that doesn't match its own description? "My father always wrote Bětik with a little 'v' called haĉek, above the 'e'; Marušaks placed the haĉek above the 's' ".

One can easily come up with scenarios such as the author misspelling the word and it being "corrected" later using a global find and replace. When assessing the likelihood of these scenarios, remember that all the likely occurrences eliminate the results from our sample. With the examples being so few, it's hard to eliminate random chance as an explanation.Chuck Entz 17:20, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

But the author doesn't use a háček; she uses a circumflex. Had her sentence read "…always wrote Bětik with a little 'v' called haĉek (as on the 'č' in the word itself), above the 'e'…", or contained some other such comment, then we would certainly conclude that the spelling used was in error. All you have to go on is that the spelling that actually occurs seems odd. Small sample size will affect any rare spelling. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 09:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

All we have to go on is that the spelling, by any objective standard, is wrong. It uses a letter not otherwise used in English for no etymological reason.--Prosfilaes 10:29, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention that it apparently isn't used in Czech either, except to spell foreign words (I believe it may be found in Slovak) Chuck Entz 03:04, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, it's used only in Esperanto. ĉ only mentions Esperanto, and w:ĉ only mentions Esperanto. Both Czech and Slovak use č, not ĉ.--Prosfilaes 04:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

All you're saying is that 〈Ĉ〉 is only used in the standard orthography of Esperanto. Any stronger claim that 〈Ĉ〉 is only used in Esperanto, period, is manifestly disproved by the three English citations of haĉek that I have already provided. What about saké and eleëmosynary? Both those spellings are also unsupported by their etymologies. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 11:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

If we're turning off common sense, let me point out that you've only given one clear citation of haĉek. I believe the 2002 citation is actually hаĉek, and the 2006 one is haĉеk.

Both saké and eleëmosynary are perfectly English spellings. The ' in saké tells you to pronounce the e, that it's not pronounced seɪk, and the ¨ in eleëmosynary tells you that the ee is two vowel sounds, not one.--Prosfilaes 11:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Neither the a nor the e calls for explanation; you would need to offer a reason why you think those authors have used Cyrillic letters. The ĉ, meanwhile, does call for explanation; I say it's intentional, you say it's a mistake. Much of the rest of the argument herein consists in the conflict between those two assertions. My point with saké and eleëmosynary was that neither of those uses of diacritics has etymological support; no standard system of Japanese Romanisation (ローマ字) uses the acute accent, and Latin does not use the diæresis. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Both saké nor eleëmosynary are perfectly normal English spellings; that's how you use the acute accent and diaeresis in English words.--Prosfilaes 01:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Right. And if one were to use ĉ in English, one would use it to denote [ʧ]. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 03:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

The same could be said of "չ", but I wouldn't use it to spell a Czech word Chuck Entz 06:01, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I certainly don't agree about the second one. [73], [74]. Equinox ◑ 01:09, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It is true that háček's etymology does not support the spelling haĉek; however, it is also true that a given word's etymology tends not to support any (or at least not very many) spellings apart from the one that it has as standard. If your aim was to have your grievance with this spelling noted somewhere (be it at haĉek or at the lemma, háček), I would support you; if this word's lemma were located in haĉek and not in háček, I would support you in calling for it to be moved from the former to the latter; however, you simply want to delete this spelling — when it has the prerequisite three citations — which I do not support. This spelling is supported by the word's pronunciation as much as hachek. I am not aware of any "objective standard" that haĉek violates whilst hachek doesn't, but I am sceptical of its validity. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 18:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I gave you an objective standard that haĉek violates that hachek doesn't; it uses a letter not used in other English words without etymological reason. (Hachek is actually a rather nice spelling, as it's probably the most natural English spelling for haːʧɛk, but it's far from the most common.) And just because I didn't list a spelling here doesn't mean I agree with it; there were a couple other spellings I would object to, but haĉek jumped out as the most blatantly wrong.

I wouldn't really object to using misspelling of, but I was not under the impression that we were recording every single misspelling that had three attestations. Should I make an entry dargon for the three quote-"rare" spellings of dragon I found? (I was going to use theif, but given that it has more examples then probably every form of hacek put together, including some historical ones where it's not a clear misspelling, I figured there were better examples.)--Prosfilaes 02:39, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

You assert that 〈Ĉ〉 is "a letter not used in other English words without etymological reason". Please prove that. The three citations I have provided are counterexamples against your claim. The letter is rarely used in English, period; etymological derivation will tend to support its use, but is not the sole reason for its use. Beware Hume’s Guillotine.

I contend that *dargon, wherever it occurs, is a mistake where dragon was intended, whereas haĉek is an intentionally used, albeit rare, spelling of háček. Note, too, that whereas haĉek is supported by pronunciation, *dargon is not. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 11:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Category:English terms spelled with Ĉ is empty except for this entry. I regard that as plenty of evidence it's not used in other English words. For the most part, English characters outside the normal collection of English characters are not used without etymological support.

You are welcome to prove that dargon is a mistake, but at this point, I'd like something more than "trust me". There is no evidence that haĉek is supported by pronunciation; just because a letter is pronounced one way in one language doesn't mean it's pronounced the same way in another, and there is no evidence of pronunciation of ĉ in English.--Prosfilaes 11:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The devil is in the detail with what you're saying — “For the most part, English characters outside the normal collection of English characters are not used without etymological support.” I don't deny that, but I would deny your statement if it was made unqualified by the preamble that I emboldened.

OK, then; on what basis do you assert that *dargon is used intentionally, and is not just a mistake where dragon is meant? For the pronunciation of 〈Ĉ〉 as [ʧ], I invoke Occam's razor — in the only uses outside of English that we know of it, 〈Ĉ〉 is pronounced as [ʧ]; in the English examples hitherto advanced (haĉek and, below, *ĉange), 〈Ĉ〉 takes the place of a letter or combination of letters representative of [ʧ]; ∴ the pronunciation of 〈Ĉ〉 in English is probably [ʧ]. Or is there a more parsimonious explanation? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Whilst I was attesting and antedating háček in its various forms, I came across a book which remarked that diacritics were "coy" for being absent from their names (i.e., e.g., tilde is not spelt *tĩlde, grave accent is not spelt *grave accènt, circumflex is not spelt *circumflêx, cedilla is not spelt *çedilla, &c.), with the singular exception of háček. Other diacritics' names give us little reason to expect háček to be so autonymous. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 09:09, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The 2003 cite says "BTW, Esperanto uses a “breve” on the “u”, i.e. ŭ, not a haĉek." Even if we accepted as the existence of some word spelled haĉek, I think there's reason to reject it as a citation of a word meaning háček. What the author clearly meant was that Esperanto uses a breve on the u, i.e. ŭ, not a circumflex, like it uses on other letters like ĉ. Given the thinko replacing the word circumflex with the word haček, the spelling change was an obvious mistake.

In general, ĉ is a letter that only appears in Esperanto. None of the accented letters that appear only in Esperanto appear in English (with the arguable exception of two entries in Category:English terms spelled with Ŭ, where Ŭ appears as a romanization of Bulgarian). If we were looking at a case where we had a line of derivation from the Esperanto, I wouldn't disagree, but without that, Occam's Razor leads us to conclude that the replacement of č with ĉ is an error in the use of unfamiliar diacritics.--Prosfilaes 06:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

No. I think that sentence was primarily intended as a correction of a previous poster in the discussion, Harlan Messinger. As context, Harlan Messinger wrote (with my emboldenment added for emphasis): "Will Swedes use 'aa' if 'å' (a-ring) isn't available? Esperantists conventionally use 'x' after a consonant to indicate the haceked version of that consonant." — to which Lee Sau Dan responded: "There are many conventions for Esperanto. Zamenhof recommended using a post-'h', e.g. 'ch' for 'ĉ'. Some people prefer to use a pre-'^' mark. The post-'x' convention is established quite lately, perhaps not before we have digital computers. It was invented so that sorting routines for pure ASCII do not need rewriting just to sort Esperanto word lists. [¶] BTW, Esperanto uses a 'breve' on the 'u', i.e. ŭ, not a haĉek." In that context, bringing the breve into things just looks like a non sequitur, though I'd put that down to Lee Sau Dan's confusion at what Harlan Messinger meant. The idea that a person might confuse the háček with the circumflex might not have occurred to him; it might've seemed more plausible to him that a person might confuse the háček with the far more similar breve. That interpretation makes it very plausible that when Lee Sau Dan wrote haĉek, he did, indeed, mean "haĉek". As for his choice of spelling, 〈Ĉ〉 denotes [ʧ], so the spelling haĉek is as justified by the word's pronunciation as hachek. Lee Sau Dan exhibits a knowledge of Esperanto, so it is plausible that he chose the spelling haĉek due to a penchant for Esperantisms. Whatever the case, if Lee Sau Dan knows about Esperanto and seems to know the difference between a háček and a breve, it is implausible to explain his use of haĉek as "an error in the use of unfamiliar diacritics". Since I only maintain that Lee Sau Dan meant to write what he wrote, I'd say that Occam's razor supports me in this matter. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 09:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

General comment: we never have, to my knowledge, had a good way of telling misspellings (which we generally exclude, even if they are one-fifth as common as the usual spelling), especially hapax legomenon misspellings, from alternative spellings (which we include, even if they are only one-five-thousandth as common as the usual spelling). - -sche (discuss) 02:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I think this is the exception; that when someone using a letter not otherwise found in a language with no etymological support, it's an error.--Prosfilaes 02:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I certainly am inclined to view haĉek as a bizarre, self-contradictory misspelling, by authors and/or typesetters, and to delete it accordingly. - -sche (discuss) 03:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Unlike *dargon (which Prosfilaes claims to be analogous in his post above, timestamped: 02:39, 13 February 2012), haĉek is not so easily explained away as a mistake (as I have explained above). Why is haĉek, which is supported by the word's pronunciation, so readily interpreted as a misspelling, whilst hacek, which is not so supported, could very plausibly result from a mistake, not so readily interpreted as such? Also, @-sche, what is "self-contradictory" about haĉek? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 11:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

'Haĉek' is self-contradictory because it uses a circumflex rather than a haček...! As Prosfilaes said above, it is as if the person using the term doesn't know what the referent of the term is.—This unsigned comment was added by -sche (talk • contribs) 01:14, 14 February 2012 (UTC).

See my post hereinbefore (timestamped: 09:09, 12 February 2012): Is grave accent self-contradictory because it's not spelt *grave accènt? Is diæresis self-contradictory because it's not spelt *diäeresis? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 03:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

It would be self-contradictory if grave accent were usually spelt gràvè àccènt, but then someone spelt it grávé áccént. (I can't think of a diacritic other than háček which actually uses itself in its name to make an example of. It'd be interesting to know if there are any; I suppose I'll ask in the TR.) It's standard for English to strip some or all diacritics from diacritic-laden words, hence hacek, hácek, haček, but to use the wrong diacritics? It's best explained as an error. Eh, because we do (as I said) have no good way of distinguishing errors from alternative spellings, I would be willing to compromise and let this stay, tagged in the way you and Prosfilaes are discussing below, if it had even just tens of book hits to the 9790 for "háček" and 24400 for "hacek", because one could then argue "well, 3+ of them are probably acceptable under CFI". I just checked Google Groups and Books, however, and two of the three citations currently in the entry are the only ones I see. It's unclear whether or not the citations are misspellings, and there is reason to believe some or all of them are misspellings, so I argue that this simply fails RFV. - -sche (discuss) 05:04, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, haĉek is haček if you forget which way the accent goes, i.e. screw up. Hacek is haček if you drop the accents, a common way of nativizing words in English. Not only that, "c" is found in running English text about a million times in the Project Gutenberg corpus; ĉ, zero. As I said above, if we're going to assume that ĉ is normal in English text, I don't see how we can assume your printed citations are spelled haĉek instead of hаĉek, or haĉеk; after all, it's entirely natural and correct to sprinkle whatever letters you want into English text, right?--Prosfilaes 11:52, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

A poster called Haruo uses ĉange for change in this post; in his signature, he links to lernu!, a website for learning Esperanto. I'm not saying that using ĉ is "normal in English text"; such Esperantisms are very rare, but occasionally they occur. Would you call Haruo's use of ĉange a mistake? I think he uses it intentionally. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:13, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Unlike the 3 cites given for haĉek, we know that Haruo knew how to spell the word and made a choice otherwise, and unlike 2 of the 3 cites, it's clear he was thinking of Esperanto instead of completely screwing up. And I oppose adding ĉange as an entry that implies that it is a normal variant of the word change in English. It needs tagging like l33t and other deliberate violations of English orthography. ĉange is not a rare spelling; it is deliberate use of an alternate spelling system, and needs tagged like that.--Prosfilaes 01:03, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you re how we should treat ĉange, if it were to satisfy the CFI. I would not object to treating haĉek in the same way that you advise we treat ĉange. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 03:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

With the rise in popularity of Esperanto, it's likely that more people became familiar with ĉ. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 13:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll have to agree with Doremítzwr. In all citations, especially the 2003 and 2006 ones, the authors seem to know what they are talking about. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 13:24, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] carnophobia

"The fear of meat." Who's afraid of meat? Equinox ◑ 00:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Carnophobes (creaphobes ?), of course.

Dictionary.com's 21st Century Lexicon and something called Probert's Medical Encyclopedia, are the only dictionaries besides us among OneLook references that have it. DCDuring TALK 00:27, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Greenpeace

No proof that this company meets WT:COMPANY criteria. -- Liliana • 22:42, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

It already has three citations. That would seem to be sufficient. SemperBlotto 22:54, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- And it survived RfD in March of last year. SemperBlotto 22:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- What? The citations don't fulfill any kind of formatting guidelines, and it is not clear where they came from. For all I know you might've just made them up. -- Liliana • 23:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  - "Greenpeace" is obviously attested even without recourse to citations in the entry: see google books:"Greenpeace". What you are looking for are citations meeting WT:COMPANY, but that is moot, as WT:COMPANY violates the consensus principle. --Dan Polansky 23:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
WT:COMPANY is unvoted-on and controversial. Other than that, this term is obviously attested, and has even three attesting quotations in the entry. I still maintain that WT:COMPANY should be removed from CFI. --Dan Polansky 23:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
- Dan Polansky, instead of complaining, why don't you start a vote on removing the company name criteria? -- Liliana • 23:06, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
  - I might, but I would rather see the supporters of WT:COMPANY start a vote on accepting WT:COMPANY and lose it. You know of the supermajoritarian asymetry, right? AFAIK there is no consensual support for WT:COMPANY. The best information about such a consensus that we currently have can be found at Wiktionary:Beer_parlour_archive/2011/April#Poll:_Including_company_names, AFAIK. --Dan Polansky 23:13, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
    - There is no such thing as a "reverse vote" that makes the opposite go into effect if the vote fails. Otherwise, the failure of the Serbo-Croatian vote would've meant that Serbo-Croatian as a header was banned from all of Wiktionary. -- Liliana • 23:22, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
      - I think you understand the problem. People should first agree to remove demonstrably controversial parts from CFI even if they agree with them, on the principle that CFI should track consensus. Until then, I see no point in me starting a vote. I do not take CFI as sacred; we should abide by CFI only to the extent to which it has consensual support. WT:COMPANY does not have consensual support, so we should not abide by it. The best procedure IMHO is to remove WT:COMPANY from CFI by a vote which even supporters of WT:COMPANY will support, and then the supporters of WT:COMPANY can try to get WT:COMPANY into CFI via a regular voted process rather than by an unvoted-on sneaking into CFI. I have seen no supporters of WT:COMPANY to agree to such a procedure, so I am not starting a vote. --Dan Polansky 23:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
        
        This kind of thinking only proves that you're scared of people accepting the company names rule in a vote, which would result in the deletion of all those precious company names you love so much. -- Liliana • 14:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
        
        If you believe that WT:COMPANY has consensual support, then it should be no problem for you to support its removal, so it can be voted into CFI via a fair regular process. If you do not support that fair process, chances are you suspect that WT:COMPANY cannot make it into CFI via a regular voting process. --Dan Polansky 16:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
        
        I would, but understand the fact that I have other wikis to attend and simply lack the time to set up a proper vote at the moment. -- Liliana • 20:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree with comments by SemperBlotto (talk • contribs) and Dan Polansky (talk • contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the point in having this in a dictionary. The three citations don't even cover the usual (shaky) generic "the Marilyn Monroe of pop music" type of ground. Equinox ◑ 23:28, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a brand to me. DCDuring TALK 00:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

WT:BRAND: "A brand name for a physical product should be included if it has entered the lexicon." Greenpeace is not a physical product. Keep trying. --Dan Polansky 07:11, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

WT:BRAND doesn't apply; WT:COMPANY does. I suspect I would support removing the WT:COMPANY passage all together, but that's hypothetical as it's there now. So Greenpeace needs another attestable meaning. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:48, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Above, I've failed to realize that Greenpeace is not a company, so WT:COMPANY does not apply. WT:COMPANY says this: "Being a company name does not guarantee inclusion. 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". --Dan Polansky 06:44, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
- Depends on your definition of "company". To me it would seem to be one. -- Liliana • 04:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
  - Neither Wiktionary nor Merriam-Webster online have a definition of "company" by which Greenpeace is a company, unless you mean the sense "A group of individuals with a common purpose" with the example sentence "a company of actors", which AFAIK is not the sense used by WT:COMPANY. I understand WT:COMPANY as using "company" in one of the following two senses from Wiktionary: "An entity that manufactures or sells products (also known as goods), or provides services as a commercial venture. A corporation", "Any business, without respect to incorporation". Your personally invented broadened sense of "company" cannot have any bearing on a public regulation that does not define "company" and instead relies on the most prevalent relevant use of the term "company" by the language community. --Dan Polansky 08:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] bail

Rfv-sense: To not attend.

I have just added a sense "to fail to meet a commitment". I believe that usage that might be interpreted as "to not attend" is never without a prior commitment to attend. DCDuring TALK 14:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this an rfd-redundant case, due to the sense you've just added? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. There could be citations that support this sense distinctly, ie, to fail to attend an event which one intended to attend or which other people wanted one to attend or to which one had a ticket but no commitment to another person. The citations I provided include event attendance as one type of commitment, but include other commitments as well. DCDuring TALK 23:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me the "commitment" need only be in the mind of the speaker. Without knowing the full context, one or more of the cites fit the possibility that the subject had no intention of going ahead, or would certainly opt out if conditions became unfavourable.

[edit] amber heart

I would love it if this were a real term, but it seems it isn't. - -sche (discuss) 04:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] gelotophilia

Linked-to from katagelasticism, which I just deleted. - -sche (discuss) 05:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] gelotophobia

Linked-to from katagelasticism, which just failed RFV. - -sche (discuss) 05:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] preferist

Someone with preferences. Really?—This unsigned comment was added by SemperBlotto (talk • contribs) 22:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC).

If all three citations I've added to Citations:preferist check out, this term can scrape through. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiktionary.org/w/index.php?title=Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification&oldid=16265390"

Categories:

Hidden category:

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 \| 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 for policy problems; request listings, questions and discussions.	Requests for deletion/Others add new \| history Requests for deletion for pages not in the main namespace, such as categories, appendices and templates.	Requests for moves, mergers and splits add new \| history Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.
{{rfc-case}} - {{rfc-cjkv}} - {{rfc-trans}} - {{rfdate}} - {{rfd-redundant}} - {{rfdef}} - {{rfe}} - {{rfex}} - {{rfap}} - {{rfp}} - {{rfphoto}} - {{context needed}}

Wiktionary:Requests for verification

Contents

[edit] June 2011

[edit] ※

[edit] priar

[edit] erize

[edit] gandoo

[edit] steel guitar

[edit] draw a line in the sand

[edit] becomable

[edit] death star

[edit] kastoranthropy

[edit] ACME

[edit] shíyóu

[edit] thriambus

[edit] rescue squad

[edit] July 2011

[edit] goniolatry

[edit] frogging

[edit] 2-up

[edit] chantpleure

[edit] corniche

[edit] marttakerho

[edit] Wikiccionari

[edit] Biquizionario

[edit] try

[edit] Chinglish

[edit] note

[edit] acabame

[edit] hummusiya

[edit] give it some welly

[edit] dampen

[edit] sightseeing

[edit] bouncebackability

[edit] teethly

[edit] Mew

[edit] high-heeled

[edit] hatefuck

[edit] Yosemite Sam

[edit] wikcionarista

[edit] faute de mieux

[edit] quadfurcate

[edit] Microhoo

[edit] wraught

[edit] catataxis

[edit] e学习

[edit] e-xuéxí

[edit] Craftsman

[edit] TOYA

[edit] autoeponym

[edit] debtquity

[edit] Commons

[edit] Wikinewsie

[edit] memoaccess

[edit] firsthand

[edit] lygokinesis

[edit] anomalous

[edit] whacker

[edit] Tredezillion

[edit] accountment

[edit] roncus

[edit] Novarbo

[edit] theftless

[edit] loopie

[edit] 良気

[edit] 갂

[edit] transfluorescence

[edit] lose the plot

[edit] 矢#Japanese

[edit] palaver

[edit] ƪ

[edit] August 2011

[edit] status

[edit] 予史実

[edit] democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner

[edit] cash instrument

[edit] hosemonkey

[edit] medician

[edit] octaviate

[edit] copsed