Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/2011

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


March 2011[edit]


SC doesn't exist as an initialism for stem cell (as purported in this entry), so this should be more difficult to find attestation for, if the attempt is at all possible. TeleComNasSprVen 05:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Did you try? Google scholar results are easy to find 05:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Hmmm, I wonder if we should include Google Scholar as an attestable source in our Searchable external archives index. TeleComNasSprVen 05:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
As this is a medical/biology topic, there's always PubMed 06:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
I think we should prefer attestation that is not behind a pay wall. DCDuring TALK 16:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Medline is free, I think. And comprises journal and proceedings articles only, I think.​—msh210 (talk) 09:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
Cited. - -sche (discuss) 19:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: to jack off. Actually I haven't heard of any of these senses, but de.wikt has the first one, whereas this one is nowhere to be found. -- Prince Kassad 20:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 19:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


English. "One who is pompous". The term was used in a Steve Miller song in the phrase "pompatus of love". In some sense the song is a "well-known work". But as with all such hapax legomena, it is quite unclear what the actual meaning of the term is. The entry contains one other apparently valid use. I moved a mention to citations. As I read the history, this seems to have failed RfV, but not been deleted. As it only needs one citation and there has even been a movie with the title "Pompatus of Love", I am offering it for reconsideration here. (The low-grossing movie involves four guys sitting in a bar trying to determine the meaning of the "pompatus of love" from the song.) DCDuring TALK 11:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

There are three citations, but I'm not confident that any two of the three support the same sense. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
In the pop music world, Gangster of Love might be a well-known work. It is almost certainly better known by more people than, say, Finnegan's Wake: For example, more people can recite parts of it. There are two competing theories about the meaning of the word, which are comparable to the authority- and etymology-based "meanings" assigned to other words dependent on the "well-known work" exception to normal attestation. Relying on such eisegeses of a small number of "experts" for meaning seems contrary to what Wiktionary tries to do. DCDuring TALK 00:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
This is used a few times on Usenet, too, so I'm going to mark it passed. - -sche (discuss) 19:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


This is actually linked to from User:Brian0918/Hotlist/P6, but the eight Google Book hits seem to be 'mentions' not 'uses'. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:57, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

  • According to the OED, it's a nonce word (from Ulysses) - related to the Latin poppysma. SemperBlotto 14:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
The James Joyce stuff calls on the issues brought up at WT:BP#Newspeak. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, I've deleted it, as there just weren't any citations in the entry. If any fans of Joyce really want to restore the entry, cite it and claim "well-known work", go ahead. - -sche (discuss) 19:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


From RfD. fifamigi was also nominated, but it seems to be cited already so I didn't include it here. -- Prince Kassad 09:29, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Like fifamigi, it's not thick on the ground, but soc.culture.esperanto held three cites from unique authors and threads.--Prosfilaes 22:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
Passed. - -sche (discuss) 19:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: A person who straddles yuppie and hippie mentality or lifestyle.

This seems like a re-interpretation of the term. I am skeptical. If attestable, the purported definition seems to suggest a separate etymology. DCDuring TALK 19:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Blend of yuppie and hippie, I assume. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 20:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: a school or college team. Tagged but not listed. -- Prince Kassad 23:45, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

If you read the original version it makes more sense, BTW I thought varsity was US only, I'd never heard the word till I saw it on a US TV show. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure that this is only an adjective in the UK (and often hyphenated). SemperBlotto 08:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
I think it's total tosh, but if it does exist it ought to be pretty easy to find (an intervarsity, intervarsities). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
The two citations seem to support a sense for "an intervarsity competition". Unless the intervarsity in question is a team that only exists once a year. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Adjective rfv-passed; noun moved to the citations page until a third citation can be found. - -sche (discuss) 20:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Noun also cited now, and fairly easily too. --EncycloPetey 20:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
Yay! :) - -sche (discuss) 20:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


Much to my surprise, this doesn't seem to be used at all. It's at RfV on de.wiktionary as well. -- Prince Kassad 19:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 19:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
A quick Google search to weed out Wiktionary and obvious wiki pages (google:schentsch+-wiki+-wiktionary) does produce a number of hits on Romansch pages (many on Radiotelevisiun Svizra Rumantscha), and which seem generally consistent with a meaning of "ginger" (as in the food). Perhaps this is a rarer dialectical form, even within Romansch? -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 21:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
On de.Wikt, Elleff Groom just found a reference: Rut Bernardi, Alexi Decurtins, Wolfgang Eichenhofer et al.; Società Retorumantscha, Verein für Bündner Kulturforschung (publisher): Handwörterbuch des Rätoromanischen. Wortschatz aller Schriftsprachen, einschliesslich Rumantsch Grischun, mit Angaben zur Verbreitung und Herkunft. first edition, volume 2 (N–Z), Offizin, Zürich 1994, ISBN 3-907495-57-8, DNB 944705650, pages 722–723, keyword "schentsch". That reference gives the meaning, etymology (borrowing of the Italian word zenzero) and two dialectal forms, schensch (unterengadinisch/Vallader), zens (oberengadinisch/Puter). - -sche (discuss) 06:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
And deleted. - -sche (discuss) 19:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


This isn't even any common, or at least I've never seen this used. -- Prince Kassad 09:52, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I've used it in the past; conversely I've listed it at User:Mglovesfun/to do in "to verify". Mglovesfun (talk) 12:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Relegated to a talk page. - -sche (discuss) 20:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


Colloquial NZ. Unsupported by citation or authority. DCDuring TALK 13:16, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 19:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


From RfD. -- Prince Kassad 16:54, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I have about 4 or 5 non-Usenet uses on Google Groups. Nothing more at all. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 19:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


Really? With this exact capitalization? -- Prince Kassad 16:58, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

At best, it needs cleanup. It links to redirects that should either be created as full entries, or deleted as unacceptable. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
It seems very marginal. Google Books turns up only three independent English uses: in Arabic for Dummies‎ (and Arabic Phrases for Dummies), in Java Internationalization, and in A Reference Grammar of Modern Standard Arabic. All three use it, but all three treat it as transliterated Arabic (via boldface, italics, and italics, respectively). And all three are specifically talking about Arabic; it's not like using a Latin phrase in a legal context, but more like using a Latin phrase while teaching Latin class, or while discussing Latin in a linguistics class. I would delete it, personally.RuakhTALK 17:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC) last sentence struck 20:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC) per others' comments below
fatha seems citable. I think fatHa is probably citable too. [1], [2], [3] and [4] are four Usenet hits with that capitalization. Naturally, it's going to be used when talking about Arabic, since it's an Arabic letter, but those hits don't seem to be using it as a transliteration.--Prosfilaes 19:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Keep in this exact capitalisation, also fat7a, fat-ha, fat-Ha. Capital H is used to transliterate letter ح /ḥā’/ as opposed to ه /hā’/ or خ /xā’/ and also indicates that it's not read as IPA(key): /ð/ or IPA(key): /θ/. Spellings fatha or fathah are also but are more ambiguous to Arabic learners. --Anatoli 19:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
I think we all know what the capital H is used for, insofar as it's used at all; but "fatha", despite its shortcomings, is many times more common than all of the alternatives put together. —RuakhTALK 20:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
No question about that. So should this be moved to fatha and the rest listed as alternate spellings? (I'd like to see citations for most of those Anatoli gave; fat7a has no Google Books hits (as anything but bad OCR) and the Usenet hits were either Arabic or code switching.)--Prosfilaes 21:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Ruakh, even if fatHa is less common than fatha, it is also citable, to avoid IPA(key): /ð/ or IPA(key): /θ/ pronunciation, fat-ha or fat'ha forms are also used. It's OK with me if everything is moved to fatha and other forms remain as alternatives (not redirects). The form "fat7a" seems to be only used in chats and Arabic language forums where the distinction between various realisations of "h" in Arabic is important. I think User_talk:Beru7 had a different view on the usage of numbers for letters. Me and User:Stephen G. Brown had to agree with him on using number "3" to transliterate ع - the sound IPA(key): /ʕ/. See also Wiktionary:About_Arabic, which could be revisited but by people who actually work with Arabic, you can see a few capital letters used for transliteration of Arabic. Prosfilaes, the hits you cited use "fatHa" as the transliteration. --Anatoli 22:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
Anatoli, I think we might be talking at cross-purposes here. It's obvious that 'H' is used in transliterating Arabic; no one would suggest otherwise. What's at issue here is whether "fatHa" is an English word. So Wiktionary:About Arabic is not relevant, and the phrase "as the transliteration" in your last sentence would imply that we shouldn't count those cites as English, which I don't think is what you mean to be arguing. Also, Prosfilaes provided those links to augment his sentence, "I think fatHa is probably citable too", so obviously he already realized that they use "fatHa". And he argued that said "hits don't seem to be using it as a transliteration" (emphasis mine), so you should probably be agreeing with him! —RuakhTALK 03:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Thirded. The only issue is attestability in English. Give it a month (or two; we often do) and if it's cited as an English word, keep it. Otherwise don't. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
And it does seem to be attestable; I disagree that the three Google Book hits are mentions or purely transliterations. I'd accept those three cites; and even if I didn't, there are another four Usenet ones that appear to be independent, meaning that as long as any three of the seven are ok, this is attestable. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, all seven cites are obviously uses. I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise. (They're not all quite in our sense — some are referring to the vowel itself, rather than to the diacritic that denotes it — but that's easily addressed by adjusting the definition.) —RuakhTALK 15:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for taking time to respond. I checked some books at home. The spelling "fatha" does indeed look more like English, rather than all weird spellings I have given before but the more academic the source is, the more strange the English spelling is both for the diacritic symbol ـَ and for the vowel it represents, cf. spelling Qur'an and Koran. Of course, "fatha" is used more often because it looks more English but this spelling is seldom used in serious books about Arabic. As you know, "th" can be interpreted as variation combination of Arabic letters, that's why it's avoided in Arabic dictionaries or textbooks. Hans Wehr uses "fatḥa" فتحة‎‎ and "ḍamma" ضمة‎‎ (Damma) (for diacritic ـُ) and a few other grammar references and textbooks. In the books where ḥ and ḍ are not used, H and D are used. There is no single transliteration, hence theEnglish spelling can also vary. As I already said, I don't mind fatha being the main entry and some others as alternative spellings. --Anatoli 23:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I've cited four hits on Usenet.--Prosfilaes 14:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Struck as passed. - -sche (discuss) 19:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


Looks like an invention. I see one possible Usenet hit, nothing on Scholar/Books.​—msh210 (talk) 06:24, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I was going to delete it as a protologism. SemperBlotto 08:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
pedopathy gets some Google Book hits, all in medical dictionaries and lists of interesting words AFAICT. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
I found two. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

RFV failed. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 04:27, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed; self-nomination apparently. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Tagged def seems wrong. I have added another sense, which might be better, but would need some technical expertise to correct/verify. A more common spelling might be hyphenated. DCDuring TALK 03:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 05:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. Noun. I suspect the verb form (which we don't have) might be attestable, this is a separate matter. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:40, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Quartzing certainly meets CFI one way or another; it could be considered only a present participle, but I think it's reasonable to call this a noun too, such as 1993: "Hence, it is expected that the Al dots were well annealed by quartzing and when they were cooled down to room temperature". Seems somewhat analogous with rowing, swimming etc. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Tagged sense RFV-failed; two other senses added and cited. There are other citations on the Citations page, but I can't work out what they mean. - -sche (discuss) 03:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


"A wild fancy; a confused notion." I'm not really sure what this means. Are "a wild fance" and a "confused notion" really a single definition? Mglovesfun (talk) 01:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Note that this definition comes directly from Webster 1913 (which unfortunately doesn't offer any citation). A fancy can certainly be a notion, e.g. a mistaken belief. Equinox 15:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 20:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


Another self nomination. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:47, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Cited; more cites available if needed. Supercolossi is in fact easier to cite than this. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Self-nominated and self-cited... if you'd have self-passed this, it would have been all you! :P Passed. - -sche (discuss) 20:11, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Passed. - -sche (discuss) 20:13, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: 'an old person'. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 20:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: only adjective sense. I'd have said 'clear widespread use' but I wasn't bold enough to detag the entry. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree that this sense is in clearly widespread use, but it doesn't "feel" like an adjective to me. On the other hand, several dictionaries (including various incarnations of Cambridge, Macmillan, and Encarta) do have it as an adjective; and the attested unremaining is apparently un- +‎ remaining rather than *unremain +‎ -ing. And I believe that EncycloPetey (talkcontribs) argued that when a participle precedes and modifies a noun, that's adjective use in and of itself, though I'm really not sure if he's right about that. I think we might as well leave it here for a month to see if anyone has any brilliant cites to call attention to; if not, then move to RFD. —RuakhTALK 14:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Passed as clearly in widespread use. - -sche (discuss) 20:18, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

locational based marginal pricing[edit]

Tagged but not listed. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:41, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

There are some hits for this, mainly uppercase (mea culpa, see page history) but I don't understand what our definition means so I can't cited it, or only blindly. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
I presume it means marginal pricing that is based on location in a contextually sensible way. DCDuring TALK 19:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps marginal cost pricing. DCDuring TALK 19:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Read this of locational marginal pricing. If this was to be kept it should probably be moved to locational marginal pricing which for its part appears SOP as locational + marginal pricing. I think marginal pricing would merit an entry of its own. --Hekaheka 05:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
A further notion: "locational based" appears an unhappy concoction of "locational" and "location-based". --Hekaheka 05:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

At least the New York Independent System Operator uses this term for something that is more commonly called locational marginal pricing (which we do not have). Thus, this term is clearly used, but I still don't know whether it should be kept. --Hekaheka 23:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 20:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


Googling it seems to turn up only German words, and the example sentence given is clearly using it as a verb, not an adjective. I was going to add it to Wikisaurus:surprising because I was recently working on that, but I don't want to if I'm not sure it's a real English word. It does look like it needs a German entry though. WurdSnatcher 04:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Definitely not English. I've added a German heading. Not the same as besonders, which is the German word that lists besonder as a related term. Maybe a German variation. Probably something someone heard, or thought they heard.--Halliburton Shill 06:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Nah! besondere means special and besonders means especially. This doesn't seem to mean anything. SemperBlotto 08:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Well, it is the stem used for the adjective inflection... but it's never used on its own. -- Prince Kassad 08:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 03:44, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense x2:

  • to get (a ship) off or afloat.
  • to wear out (a tool, etc).

-- Prince Kassad 19:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Failed for now. - -sche (discuss) 20:24, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


Was tagged for speedy deletion, but, at a glance, looks real. I don't have time now to look for cites so will, instead, put it here for now.​—msh210 (talk) 05:18, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Although the definition might be slightly off: it's "The study of photography of the sun" but I suspect should be "Photography of the sun". But cites will tell.​—msh210 (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I have improved the definition. We have had photoheliograph since 2006. SemperBlotto 08:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
The word exists of course. Here's a good definition : [5]. --Actarus (Prince d'Euphor) 08:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Cited. - -sche (discuss) 03:51, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: (UK) I agree. -- Prince Kassad 21:47, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps someone was thinking of Chaucer's usage of "woot", meaning "knew"? The modern meaning is not in the full Oxford dictionary, though they probably have it in their database awaiting a decision on whether it will become an accepted word. (Not that Oxford's decisions should dictate ours, of course.) I've never heard this UK sense in the UK. Is it just a misunderstanding? Dbfirs 20:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 00:41, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


This entry contains two definitions and two examples:

  1. In a complete manner; fully; totally; utterly.
    Please completely fill in the box for your answer, using a number 2 pencil.
  2. To the fullest extent or degree; totally.
    He is completely mad.

The difference between the senses is obscure or nonexistent. Perhaps some citations would help. --Daniel. 09:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Move to RFD -- Prince Kassad 09:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Both definitions are just one and same. There is no noticeable nuance between them. The second def. is clearly redundant. Actarus (Prince d'Euphor) 13:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
The difference is between "manner" and "extent". The first definition modifies a verb, saying how the action is done. The second modifies an adjective, and says to how that quality applies. DAVilla 14:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't think there is such a thing as a "complete manner". It's true that completely can modify a verb, as in the first example sentence, but then it indicates the extent of the action. —RuakhTALK 19:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Webster 1913 had "in a complete manner". I am unsure whether or how this reflects some subtle difference from current meaning.
In current English, I think this has two distinct senses, but not exactly the ones we have. There is a sense of "to a high degree" which is synonymous with a large number of other members of Category:English degree adverbs (which does not modify verbs, I think). Another sense is what Ruakh suggests: "to the fullest extent", which retains a connection to the specific sense of complete (which can modify verbs, but also adjectives of some kinds, such as for colors and material, and adjectives derived from past participles. Not sure about adverbs.). DCDuring TALK 22:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
It seems to be used with adjectives that are classified as uncomparable, including, for example, completely actual. Is this another sense - perhaps something like unquestionably or maybe in all respects? Does it show that these adjectives can in fact be comparable, if to a limited extent? Or are we to say that all these usages are in error? — Pingkudimmi 05:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Adjectives and adverbs can be attestably gradable while not attestably comparable, like actual. If something is gradable, however, it increases the odds that it will turn out to be used comparably as well, in my experience. In fact, this search suggests that actual is comparable in some senses. This is not the first or last time that our characterization of an adjective's comparability seems inaccurate. DCDuring TALK 06:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Resolved, it seems. - -sche (discuss) 03:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

without predjudice[edit]

A misspelling? Gets more than 40,000 hits in Google search, but I found no dictionary results, nor do we have an entry for predjudice. Perhaps the content should be moved to without prejudice? --Hekaheka 12:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Most of the hits for this seem to be pre-1900, suggests it's an obsolete spelling. Whether it's also a misspelling is a bit trickier. I've created predjudice anyway. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
Moved. - -sche (discuss) 00:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense - experience. SemperBlotto 21:09, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I've left a message on the talk page of the user than added it. I'll be damned if I know what he/she intended to mean. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
They probably had in mind some variation of one of the seven senses and subsenses that MWOnline has, didn't think our single sense covered it, and did the best they could. Blame falls on our not having fully defined this word, not even retaining all three Webster 1913 senses. DCDuring TALK 15:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Removed. - -sche (discuss) 03:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Victoria's Secret[edit]

WT:CFI#Company names says this needs to be attested with a meaning other than the company name. That's more or less impossible. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

This is for RFD. I would even vote delete, as this company name cannot carry any information that is of lexicographical interest. The section WT:CFI#Company names is an invention of DAVilla. Curiously enough, "Victoria's Secret" entry was created on 16 April 2007 by DAVilla. But I see that the company name just passed RFD on 10 February 2011. --Dan Polansky 08:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
"...as this company name cannot carry any information that is of lexicographical interest." I suspect that twelve years ago the same would have been easily said about Enron. I agree that at the moment it does not carry any information which is significant to us here, but who knows what the future may bring! - TheDaveRoss 10:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
    1. When an entry with citations is deleted, why aren't the citations moved to the Citations page?
    2. Why was this put in RfV when it had been cited for RfD? DCDuring TALK 14:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Meh, I've removed the tag. Feel free to delete it if you believe the citations in the entry do not meet CFI; otherwise, by default, this stays. - -sche (discuss) 05:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


Salvaged from {{delete}}ion. I see a capitalized cite (which I'll add to the cites page).​—msh210 (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

¶ I doubt somebody who believes anything is “100%” accurate would have the brain‐power to operate a web‐browser in the first place, not to mention that there are definitely non‐facts (opinions) on Wikipedia. This entry is fatuous, the word obviöusly serves as an insulting accusation. --Pilcrow 19:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately a descriptive dictionary does not have the authority to judge whether a word is accurate or not; all it can do is tell the reader if and how it is used. — lexicógrafa | háblame — 19:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Right, but it could be that those who use wikidiot mean "someone who tends to believe things on Wikipedia that he oughtn't" even if they say they mean "someone who believes everything on Wikipedia".​—msh210 (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Derogatory terms are often exaggerations of the truth, so both senses might warrant inclusion (although I don't know how exactly they'd be distinguished in citations); both what the speaker intends by the term, and what the referent actually is (does, believes etc.). — lexicógrafa | háblame — 18:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 01:05, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

April 2011[edit]


This word (not the French abattage) doesn't appear in dictionaries I have referred to (Collins, SOE, online-OED) - does it exist? —Saltmarshtalk-συζήτηση 06:17, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

One OneLook dictionary (besides us) has it as an alternative form of abattage, but only in the "slaughter of animals" sense. This seems like another instance of the all-too-frequent assumption by a contributor, usually completely unsupported by evidence or authority, that an English loan-word (usually a rare one) has all the meanings that it did in the source language. I have added abattage#English in one sense, added an alternative spelling sense at abatage and converted the RfV to 3 RfV-senses. DCDuring TALK 15:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
Not strictly relevant, but abatage looks etymologically correct to me. Abattage ought to have been spelled abatage in Old French, as Old French drops a lot of double consonants, many of which were later added back to reflect the original Latin spellings. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
All senses except "alternative form of abattage" removed. - -sche (discuss) 04:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: A change in strategy.

Not familiar with this sense. I am familiar with the sense of a step in a plan or strategy. DCDuring TALK 14:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly often used in reference to changes in strategy, but I think it's part of a more general sense, which we're missing, something like "a change, switch, or transition". (Even the more general sense is technically covered by our very first sense, "the act of moving; a movement"; but I think "a change, switch, or transition" warrants separate coverage, while "a change in strategy" does not, unless it's used complementlessly, or otherwise in a way that the general "a change, switch, or transition" sense is not.) —RuakhTALK 15:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
A rare good edit conflict, as this is more or less what I was going to say. Seems valid to me, just could be broadened. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure that I have ever heard it as unambiguously referring to a change in strategy as opposed to a particular operationalization of a component of a strategy. A strategy is a plan. Plans change. A change in strategy is implemented (PoV of implementer) or a strategy (changed or unknown) becomes apparent (PoV of outsider). I'm perhaps unable to perceive anything other than this because of my consulting and teaching in this area. DCDuring TALK 18:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm confused. Did you click my links? Are they not unambiguously referring to a change in strategy? —RuakhTALK 19:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I say this passes. Ruakh's provided quotations, and although they haven't been added to the entry, I think this use is actually fairly common... - -sche (discuss) 01:17, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


This spelling is at best an alternative spelling to oeconom, if it can be attested at all.

Note: I don't think that the supposed precedent that gives priority to the first spelling entered is meant to contradict facts about relative commonness.
From what I gather, it was a rule to reduce conflict and create productive competition between UK and US spelling advocates. At the time there was no free access to a large American corpus to allow explicit comparisons of relative frequency of forms. There is now.
To this entry, furthermore, the existence of bgc provides a reasonably usable corpus for assessing relative frequency of terms such as this one, however much filtering of scannos, capitalized forms and abbreviations ("œconom.") may be required. DCDuring TALK 15:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
If there is a common spelling and a rare spelling, then certainly the rare spelling should not be the main entry; but in this case, even oeconom seems pretty marginal. (In searching for cites for œconom, I did find five or ten cites for oeconom, so it certainly meets the CFI; but unless I'm failing to see something, it doesn't seem to be sufficiently more common for me to care which is the main entry, provided both meet the CFI.) —RuakhTALK 22:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
Hence move if and only if the ligatured spelling fails RFV. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
¶ I have not found any other good citations for this word. I think this should be classified as an alternative spelling of œconome or econome.--Pilcrow 22:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 01:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

dredge up[edit]

Rfv-sense: to dig up.

I have added a sense and an {{&lit}} to the entry, but am loath to remove the original sense. DCDuring TALK 17:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it refers to the figurative meaning of "dig up", which AFAICT is already covered by our sense #3. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
You are probably right, but it difficult to tell because the amateurish definition uses a single polysemic term as the definiens. If we just worked on cleaning up such cases, it would be many man-years indeed. DCDuring TALK 18:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure there is a "used literally" sense for this; unless you are dredging in an upward direction. I'm quite tempted to rollback to before your edits, but use glosses to disambiguate as you say. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Of course there is: as in the operation of dredging a channel. In so doing one "dredges up" the muck at the bottom. That seems as literal as it gets. DCDuring TALK 15:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't know of any 'used literally' sense so I've tagged it with rfv-sense. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
You ought to get ought more. First hit from Google books search for forms of dredge + up:
I. Twelve species of Madrcporaria were dredged up, and the majority came from midway between Cape Wrath and the Faroe Islands. Others were found off the west coast of Ireland. Many varieties of the species were also obtained, and some forms which hitherto have been considered specifically distinct from others, but which now cease to be so.
II. Three species were found, known only in the area dredged, or in the neighbouring seas." DCDuring TALK 21:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Cited one sense. Have we ever had to cite an {{&lit}} sense before? DCDuring TALK 21:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes we have cited such a sense before (or at least attempted it). I'm not sure this is any more literal than dig up or bring up. What I'm really saying is I prefer a definition to an {{&lit}} template. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I'd prefer that NISoP meanings not be treated as idioms. That is one of the advantages of {{&lit}}. I'm fairly sure that there are senses of dig up and bring up that are also non-idiomatic and would benefit from using the template. Not everything that has the surface appearance of a "phrasal verb" actually is an idiomatic "phrasal verb". CGEL doesn't think that phrasal verbs are grammatically distinguishable from verb + adverb/preposition. No one has proposed any specific semantic test either. I'll have to look more carefully at the adequacy of our coverage of dredge#Verb. DCDuring TALK 02:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Nah if it were unidiomatic, you'd be able to dredge in any direction; I want to see proof that you can dredge down, across, left, right, sideways etc. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I found no hits on Google Books for "dredged left" or "dredged sideways". I found many hits for "dredged down", some of which seemed to be using it as a direction. I found one for "dredged right" that seemed to be using right as a direction (the rest were hits of the form "dredged right up to town", "dredged right close to the edge"):
  • 2009, Jonathan Lethem, Chronic City, page 440:
    By the time I crossed Park and Madison, retracing the tiger's park-ward pilgrimage of the night before, the city had accustomed itself, struggled to a half-life, snow dredged right and left, most parked cars only sculpture.
I am undecided as to whether this is a sense/term like dig up, or merely {{&lit}} dredge + up. - -sche (discuss) 07:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the ambiguous "dig up" and left the cited literal sense. - -sche (discuss) 04:12, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: content that is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question.

Not seeing it at a glance at bgc, and google books:"math|maths|chemistry|space cruft" and the same search on Usenet get no relevant hits.​—msh210 (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Try google books:wiki cruft. [6], [7], and [8] have some sense of cruft that's not 1 or 2, and that seem to be targetted by this definition.--Prosfilaes 20:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
Those three seem to have it meaning "useless content". If that's what's meant here, this sense needs to be drastically reworded; OTOH, perhaps it's really part of one of the other senses (in which case it needs to be reworded). I didn't (yet) look further at the bgc results, though.​—msh210 (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
It could be the second one, but I would argue the second one inappropriately packs a very specific code definition in with clutter. It seems to me to be a very Wikimedia sense, which is why we don't find many cites. I think there needs to be a third definition, but this one seems unsupportable.--Prosfilaes 18:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 04:17, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

love bomb[edit]

This entry contains one definition:

  1. (fictional) A type of chemical weapon that makes enemy soldiers attracted to each other

Is it attestable? Searching for "love bomb" in Google yields 892,000 results and nothing readily available about chemical weapons, so presumably this entry at least means something else. --Daniel. 09:28, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's a synonym for gay bomb. —CodeCat 10:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
At least "gay bomb" is (barely) attestable. Neither that sense nor the sense given for "love bomb" seem attestable AFAICT, nor do they fit the wide diversity of meanings for uses I've seen. The most common use seems to be something like "a conscious use of expressions of high regard to influence a person, especially to join a cult." A better phrase than "expressions of high regard" would be nice. DCDuring TALK 15:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
If you do a Google Book search for "love bomb", "gay bomb" together you'll see it. One Book attest though. There are other hits on the Web (Pentagon planned love bomb, --The Telegraph). Leasnam 15:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
We do now ;) Leasnam 21:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Well, the specific definition fails RFV for now, but I've left the entry, tagged {{rfdef}}. - -sche (discuss) 23:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


The first couple of pages at google books:padawan -jedi -intitle:padawan -anakin -star all seem to refer to the universe, or to be of a different sense altogether (a place name, capitalized).​—msh210 (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Failed: deleted.​—msh210 (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh no, I wish I had seen this earlier. The better search would have been for "young Padawan", which is how it is almost always phrased outside of the Star Wars context. Here are some books results: [9], [10], [11], [12]; and there are plenty more here. - TheDaveRoss 18:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
Unstriking and undeleting. I've also now changed our definition from "A young apprentice, especially in the Jedi tradition of the Star Wars films" to "An apprentice" (since you say it's used with young almost always). Now the question is whether "apprentice" is correct anyway: the second through fourth cites you provide here could reasonably be interpreted that way (though a more general "student" might make more sense).​—msh210 (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
This word has been added and deleted at least twice before, you know. I discovered that a while back when I looked to see whether it had been included in Wiktionary. The majority of uses do seem to be "in-universe," but as the sources cited above make clear, it's widely used without further context by computer programmers and the authors of self-help manuals. I did find two uses in the New York Times.
The more recent one is here from the sports pages of September 5, 2010, in a column entitled "The Fifth Down," in reference to "proteges" or replacements for veteran quarterbacks: "The first of the padawan has already flopped." Here the author has (probably) mistyped the plural without an "s" and the spell checker did not catch it, since it probably didn't contain "padawan" in the first place. In any case, I know of no other instance where "padawan" has been used as a plural, so I believe this was a mistake rather than a deliberate usage.
The second, and perhaps more significant, was in a column by Maureen Dowd on September 29, 2002. Here she presents a satirical (and hypothetical) conversation between then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, described as a "mandarin" and "imperial war tutor," to then President George W. Bush, described as "the Boy Emperor." The President addresses Rumsfeld as "teacher," and in reply to a question posed, Rumsfeld responds: "Holy mackerel, my young Padawan! The risks of doing nothing are greater than the risks of knowing nothing and doing something."
I think we can say that the word "padawan" (which may or may not be capitalized, depending on whether one treats it as a person's title or merely a status or rank), and which is made plural with an "s", has made the transition to everyday English, to the extent that people can be expected to understand it without further reference to Star Wars. The phrase "my young padawan" is idiomatic, a bit like "my dear Watson," but the word can be and is used independently; and despite the idiom, a padawan need be neither young nor formally apprenticed.
The origin of the term is indisputable; if George Lucas didn't invent it, he's the one who made it known. Its current usage has nothing to do with the city in Malaysia. The word seems to be used variably, to refer to 1) an apprentice; 2) a pupil, student, or learner (the phrase "padawan learner" is sometimes used in-universe); 3) a protégé. All of these are related, but restricting the definition to any one of them would be inaccurate, given the current usage. P Aculeius 14:26, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Passed. - -sche (discuss) 04:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


I get only one hit on Google Books. —Internoob (DiscCont) 02:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

estament seems to be the Spanish equivalent of estate and occurs in English text about Hispanic cultures or by Hispanic authors. Derived terms like "estamentarian", "estamental", and "estamentally" seem to have similar occurrence patterns, though even less frequency. DCDuring TALK 04:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Not estamente? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't know the lemma in Spanish. DCDuring TALK 02:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 04:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


Adjective: (of livestock) bred without horns (when horned is normal for the breed).

Quite plausible, but no citations and not found in OneLook dictionaries or in Century. Possibly to be found collocating within a word or two of cattle or cattle breeds. DCDuring TALK 19:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Two cites added, although I'm finding Poll with a cap and Polled. A capitalised Poll is very common as part of a breed name, such as Poll Hereford and Poll Angus.--Dmol 20:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I think "polled" means that the natural horns were removed by polling vs. "poll" meaning they don't normally grow for the breed. Now that I think of it, the inclusion in a breed name should count, especially if there is a cite that defines the breed as hornless. DCDuring TALK 21:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the citations in the entry (by this sense) are durably archived. However, durable citations probably exist of breed names. - -sche (discuss) 03:20, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
Passed, with one three quotations and two links to widely-discussed breeds (Red Poll and Poll Hereford). - -sche (discuss) 01:29, 30 January 2012 (UTC) - -sche (discuss) 01:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


¶ Why would somebody not use æ twice here? --Pilcrow 20:29, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, the two possible <æ>'s seem qualitatively different, at least from a U.S. POV, in that the former replaces <e> and the latter replaces <ae> or (frankly) <as>. (That's only intended to address your question why somebody would. It's not intended to imply that anybody does, which is obviously the more important question.) —RuakhTALK 21:05, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Attestable as Latin. Not as English, though. -- Prince Kassad 21:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

¶ Since it is clearly inconsistent with the principle of using æ for Latin words, it is highly unlikely this spelling exists in print. Daniel likely creäted this out of error, so I should have just asked him if he could delete it instead; I think Mglovesfun believes I am not intelligent. --Pilcrow 21:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

"Clearly inconsistent" isn't a reason to speedy-delete an entry. Not really sure what your comment above means; but let's leave that out of the rfv discussion, eh? Use my talk page, or yours. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
¶ Since you think this entry is not “patently wrong” or invalid (otherwise you would have deleted it), may I ask if you could attest usage of this spelling? --Pilcrow 12:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I don't plan on trying. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
Pæninsulæ and pæninsulas aren't attested either (in places I've looked, anyway) so no plural form is attested. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 22:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


Not in any of my dictionaries with this sense. OED has it as an optical instrument. Etymology needs moving to own secion if OK. ? SemperBlotto 13:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Optical instrument is ok, you can even find pictures of it in Google Books. This sense is harder to find, could be a protologism. Asking the creator might be a good step here. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
It's poorly worded and I'm having trouble defining it with better wording. It is rather tempting to outright delete it. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
I can't use Special:EmailUser either . --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
RFV=failed. - -sche (discuss) 04:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


For Polish. Maro 21:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Failed. - -sche (discuss) 01:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


According to Lewis & Short the word is liliaceus.SemperBlotto 18:50, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't know Latin to appropriately cite it, but there's at least a half-dozen hits in running Latin botanical descriptions in Google Books: e.g. "Calodon Ridleyi, Massee. Pileus suberosus, campanulatus, obtusus, e velutino glabrescens, in prima evolutione coelestinus, dein coeruleo-nigrescens, margine lilaceus, laciniatus, 3 cm. latus."[13]--Prosfilaes 23:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Does look attestable. But why? Is it originally a typo, an error, or was the i deliberately removed for some reason or another? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
Moved. - -sche (discuss) 01:42, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


As above (later on talk:pæninsulae), pæninsula doesn't seem to have an attested plural, not this not pæninsulae or pæninsulæ. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

See Citations:pæninsula, 1990 quot. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
However, that's the only quotation I can find that uses pæninsulas, so it fails RFV at the moment. - -sche (discuss) 04:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


 ¶ I suppose this is a real word, however I doubt that is actually an alternative spelling of podiatrist. More likely, it is some sort of physician that cares for children, I assume. --Pilcrow 21:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks like an alternative construction of pædiatrician (paediatrician / pediatrician). See the usage note at -iatrician. — Pingkudimmi 15:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I've added the true sense and changed the {{rfv}} to an {{rfv-sense}}. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

¶ I suspect that the sense of ‘foot doctor’ is a hypercorrect spelling based on the erroneous belief that it’s somehow related to παῖς. Here is the Latin word for ‘foot’ (pes), and here is the Græcian counter‐part (pous). --Pilcrow 07:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 04:15, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: linguistics/phonetics. Is the term used in this way by more than one writer? Also the definition is not really intelligible, except that it is suggestive that there is a type of analysis going on (ie, an instance of sense 3). Also by whom is the analysis being done, consciously by a phonetician or unconsciously by a speaker or population of speakers? DCDuring TALK 16:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolved. - -sche (discuss) 04:33, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

smack one's lips[edit]

Moved from RfD, as there seems to be no evidence that this idiom exists with this exact meaning. -- Prince Kassad 17:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

RFV-failed. Made a redirect per the RFD discussion. - -sche (discuss) 04:35, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


(Cf. talk:Wiktionary.)​—msh210 (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 05:00, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


The only Google results I find refer to "my litle Canon camera", not a church canon. The latter would be rather disrespecftul. Not all Dutch diminutives that could be formed also actually exist. Jcwf 01:32, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Surely the brand of camera would be Canontje. RFV only seeks to discover if the word exists or not (with the given definition), not whether it is disrespectful or not. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I've had a go on Google News, Scholar and Books and got nothing for this. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 02:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


I cannot find any of the following on Google Books: rego, regoing, regone, rewent, regoes, etc., and the examples given on the page: re-go through and re-go back seem to be combinations of re- and phrasal verbs using go. Leasnam 03:59, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

There are loads and loads of hits for this on Google Books, in the thousands, but at a glace they do seem to be false hits. Searching for "re-going" gets thousands upon thousands of hits for "we're going" as Google Books 'helpfully' considers a space and a hyphen to be interchangeable. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I found [[14]], but I don't know what it means. - -sche (discuss) 03:04, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 05:01, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


Nothing obvious for this sense on Google book search. (Might be "numerically-controlled modulated oscillator" though) SemperBlotto 16:09, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

To my surprise [15]. Seems real. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
There you go! Perhaps it should be "noncommital makeout" though? SemperBlotto 16:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I can only get one 'true' citation, all the other hits on that link are either mentions, or when I click on them there's no preview. I'll bet there are at least two more citations using Usenet and/or Google Scholar. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Rfv-failed. - -sche (discuss) 05:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


Claims to be an adjective, but probably isn't. DCDuring TALK 16:26, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

  • I thought that I had already deleted this. It's just an attributive use of the noun. SemperBlotto 16:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Though, there is no corresponding noun definition. We need that first. But, IMO it is citable as a noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
In general our definitions are ok but it could be clearer. For example to what extent is the 'sport' different from the 'basketball' definition? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I've cited the noun sense. They are under the correct definition as the entry stands, but I think we might need an entirely new definition to be more accurate. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 05:04, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

May 2011[edit]


{{delete}}d by Haplology (talkcontribs) with "I can't find this word anywhere. I think it does not exist."; salvaged therefrom and brought here by​—msh210 (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Archaic, possibly obsolete, so not found much in modern dictionaries (it's in none of the ones I have to hand). However, Google suggests here that it does show up in old texts, such as on this page of what appear to be Confucius's Analects (though I cannot find an English translation of this, and it might be commentary as opposed to the Analects proper), or this page about Prince Shōtoku's Constitution (though again I cannot find the English for this). -- HTH as a starter, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 15:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, that works for me. I added "archaic" and removed rfv. I have never known that contributor to add anything suspicious, although a few other pages were rare so maybe they just have extensive resources to work with. Haplology 16:48, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
Wait: the entry is said to be ==Japanese==, but the first of those texts, a writing by the Confucian Mencius/Mengzi, is Chinese. Which language uses the word; do both? I found an English translation of Mengzi's work here, by the way; the relevant bit (in ==Chinese==) seems to be: "米粟非不多也" = "and the stores of rice and other grain are very large". - -sche (discuss) 20:49, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
It's in a large number of Google Books, but they appear to be Chinese. The hiragana form is only in seven books. - -sche (discuss) 20:57, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
The Confucian text linked to above is translated from the Chinese into what appears to be archaic Japanese (it's definitely Japanese, just quite old-fashioned). The other link is to a text ostensibly authored originally in Japanese. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 21:07, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
That term is okay. It is important to know that Classical Chinese nouns are a part of Japanese. When you introduce a Classical Chinese noun to Japanese, you can just explain its reading and meaning as a Japanese word. For example, in Japanese, you don’t say that 米粟 meant rice and millet in Classical Chinese; instead you just say it means rice and millet. See also Google search results. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:41, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Kept. - -sche (discuss) 04:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: adjective. Was speedily deleted by an IP, then added back. Also, I don't see how the adverb would work, but I'm not rfving that as I don't even understand it. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:50, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added cites. DCDuring TALK 10:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Lovely. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
The second and third cite do not seem to have much to do with the definition "relating to the sale of goods or services directly to individual consumers". Are we missing a sense or two? --Hekaheka 21:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes I jumped the gun a bit. Even if you accept any citations beginning with 'very' as adjectival, only the first one of these three supports, or unambiguously supports the definition. --Mglovesfun (talk) 08:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
I've tweaked the def. I say this passes now. - -sche (discuss) 05:14, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


Ruakh tagged it but didn't create an entry here. I guess the controversy here is whether it's considered a Mountweazel (no record of it pre-2002). I don't think it matters as long as there are sources using the term to refer to a dozen or more cows. JamesjiaoTC 04:07, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Fwiw, google groups:-12 -twelve -dozen +flink +cows shows no relevant use.​—msh210 (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
It's used as an undefined nonsense word in this grammar book, with sentences such as "The flink glopped." and "The flink glops and glarks." — Pingkudimmi 15:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 05:11, 1 February 2012 (UTC)



  1. To polish or wipe with a leather.
  2. To beat or thrash with a leather.

Tagged but not listed. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:33, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The only sense of this verb I would use in normal conversation is to strike forcefully, as in "to leather a football" (to kick it very hard). --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 05:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


Rfv noun sense: (figuratively) A source of abundant encyclopedic knowledge; a modern encyclopedia.

The only quotation given seems to be using Wikipedia in a metaphorical sense, but semantically still refers to the Wikimedia project. DAVilla 16:52, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

It refers to the Wikimedia project, but not semantically I think. Because if it is a metaphor, then I'd say the entry is correct to a point: an encyclopedia in general - without the qualifier modern. --Biblbroks 20:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually if its sense is metaphorical, than only the first description would fit appropriately: a source of abundant encyclopedic knowledge. --Biblbroks 20:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, see #Wikipedia-Proper noun below. DCDuring TALK 23:40, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 05:16, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


Sense - English verb. Not in the OED. Popeye quote seems real though. SemperBlotto 21:26, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I've added some older cites. The Norwegian etymology seems preposterous. DCDuring TALK 23:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the etymology is crazy. May we remove it? In northern England, "darest" is still sometimes pronounced "duss" or "daas" (with a long "a"). It doesn't take much to shorten the "a" as the word crossed the Atlantic. Dbfirs 11:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
Passed. - -sche (discuss) 03:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


B.G. hits don't indicate that this is necessarily English... TeleComNasSprVen 00:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I found one cite in alt.sex.stories.moderated which discusses the use of it as a "proper" Romanization at the bottom. There was also a hits for a presumably fictional Tôkyô-2 and a hit on TV Tôkyô. I'm tempted to add a French section--Google Groups clearly supports it--but I don't know French.--Prosfilaes 01:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
One, two, three, four, five. I would manually add these, but I do not feel trusted. --Pilcrow 12:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Passed. - -sche (discuss) 03:10, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Probably a typographical approximation of the Hepburn romanizationTōkyō”, replacing ‘ō’ (which Latin-1, Windows-1252, and Mac OS Roman all lack), with ‘ô’ (which they have). ~ Robin 03:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
In its earliest forms--the first cite is 1888, one year after Hepburn was first used--it was probably just a natural way to indicate a "long" vowel.--Prosfilaes 04:02, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Romanisation of the Japanese long ‘o’ seems historically to have similar variety in its forms to those of the Ancient Greek Ω, ω. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 09:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

g note[edit]

Tagged but not listed. Nadando 21:28, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

What about g-note, is that tagged, or are we simply verifying that it can be written with a space instead of a hyphen? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Both are tagged now. - -sche (discuss) 19:21, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
RFV-failed for now, although someone determined could probably cite them. - -sche (discuss) 05:48, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
I've created G-note with citations. - -sche (discuss) 20:28, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

as is[edit]

Tagged but not listed (Hippietrail). IMO, both forms are attestable, but which one should redirect to which, presumably the more attestably popularly used term? TeleComNasSprVen 01:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

At COCA "as is" is nearly 1500 times more common than "as-is". DCDuring TALK 01:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Passed as clear widespread use. I also created as-is. - -sche (discuss) 01:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

the ones[edit]

Specifically the plural of "someone or something unique or special". Requires an imaginative search. DCDuring TALK 10:50, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Noun rfv-failed. Pronoun kept. - -sche (discuss) 23:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


The Italian Wiktionary gives the plural of nizol as nizoi, so I'm concerned about something like that. --Lo Ximiendo 17:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

  • I have asked a question on Venetian Wikipedia's chatroom (at w:vec:Wikipedia:Ciàcołe). SemperBlotto 18:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
    • Answer received. There are three plurals of Venetian words that end in -ol or in -oł :- -oi, -oli or -ołi depending on geography. I shall modify our examples accordingly. SemperBlotto 21:14, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
      • This is one example where {{vec-noun}} needs to be able to handle this without using the template three times on one line. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:56, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Resolved. - -sche (discuss) 23:56, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed by the late Keene. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:53, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like it's attestable. Wonder why Wonderfool tagged it? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
Most of the cites I can find refer to Vincenzo Ioppi, who's also known as Vincenzo Joppi. Searching Wikipedia returns other people with the same; Roberta, Cristina and Marciallo Ioppi, none of which appear in Google Books (presumably too recent). Luckily CFI doesn't care whether the three citations refer to the same person or not; just three durably archived uses in the language. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
There are 37 Ioppis in Italy (link added) and b.g.c. also gives a Selenio Ioppi. I strongly oppose the idea that three citations about the same person would do. Otherwise if you want your name to enter the lexicon, just make up any name and then shoot ten babies and you'll surely be mentioned three times in the media. And every silly invention a pop star gives to his/her child would meet the CFI. --Makaokalani 15:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps, but CFI doesn't mention the matter. I wouldn't be so keen to change it just for given names and surnames. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
To the extent that proper nouns generally can be said to have "entered the lexicon", different rules would seem to apply for many cases. Witness: taxonomic names and toponyms. Surnames would certainly be distinct. Are we saying that only surnames with famous holders should be included? Does the occurrence of a name as an author count? Doesn't this create a cultural bias? I don't see how we can avoid either more specific rules or much more casuistry on RfV and RfD. Or we could leave such matters to WP and Wikispecies. DCDuring TALK 16:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Meh, kept. - -sche (discuss) 19:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


This does seem to be extremely rare, not sure if our one citation is 'durably archived' or not. It could pass as Islamo-Nazism. Islamonazi also might make the grade. --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks easily verified via Usenet. DCDuring TALK 19:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Cited. - -sche (discuss) 00:48, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

dookie hole[edit]

RfV: "(colloquial, African American Vernacular, vulgar) Anus." And an interesting repository of other colorful vulgarities. TeleComNasSprVen 07:44, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Definitely real. I've added two books; it's also used on Usenet. I'd like to mark this passed. - -sche (discuss) 23:43, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Struck. - -sche (discuss) 06:22, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


Wikipedia-Proper noun[edit]

Rfv-sense X 2:

1. (trademark) An open-content online encyclopedia, collaboratively developed over the World Wide Web.
2. [not challenged] (Wiktionary and WMF jargon) A version of this encyclopedia in a particular language.
3. A heterogeneity which encompasses this encyclopedia in its many language versions, the community that develops it and the process of its development.

We have three citations for the proper noun on the citations page. It is unclear what sense they might support. I would bet on them covering the sense not challenged. DCDuring TALK 23:36, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, I think it is obvious that the second sense depends on the first, at least syntactically. But the second citaations given:
  • *2006, Cindy Long, "Getting WIKI With It", NEAToday 25 (2): 40 (October)
It’s because of this open editing feature that Wikipedia draws praise, criticism, and, at times, vandals.
has an interesting part - mention of vandals. So if one thinks of encyclopedia as a product of development (as the first sense suggest that this encyclopedia is), that one might ask where do those vandals come into "equation". For example in the FOSS community when a project is developed, I don't think that there are deliberate vandals, or even accidental for that matter. Of course, I may be mistaken, but even so a project is in my opinion interpreted differently than a product of development. Anyway if vandals are considered then maybe the second sense given would work, since in the part "a version of..." one could imagine that attraction of vandals is possible in some other version. But I may be completely mistaken, since the FOSS arguments I presented are from a person without much experience in that FOSS area. Anyway, your bet, DCDuring, might be profitable, but I wouldn't take much chance on it. ;-) Regards, --Biblbroks 11:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I am simply interested in getting citations for the definitions given or for definitions that reflect actual usage. Much of what you say would be relevant to the word wiki, though most people seem to have exposure to wikis only through Wikipedia and seem to often confuse the general approach with Wikipedia specifically. DCDuring TALK 12:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry if my question appears as one by an ignorant person, but I will nevertheless ask it: can Wikipedia itself serve as a source of citation? That is two of the WP five pillars' ledes give:
  1. from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not there's "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of individuals interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect."
  2. from Wikipedia:Civility there's "Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct, and is one of Wikipedia's five pillars." and "It applies to all interaction on Wikipedia, including on user and article talk pages, in edit summaries, and in any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians."
Regards, --Biblbroks 21:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
No we don't allow citations from Wikimedia projects as they are 'not independent'. It would be a bit like me creating an entry, having it challenged and using it on my blog so as to show it exists. That's the sort of 'not independent' I mean. Some say that Wikipedia isn't durably archived, but I'm pretty damn sure it is. I consider 'durably archived' more of a buzzword than a term with any actual meaning. But I digress, that really isn't on topic. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment - I don't find it that digressive. I understand that it may be interpreted as such - I don't interpret it, though - but informative (to me). Anyway, sorry for _that_ digression. What I wanted is to ask if we find the citations from another Wikimedia project not dependent - 'not dependent' as in not created or used for the first time by the same user - then in that case we could allow such a citation, couldn't we? Because, although it might pose a danger of being dependent, it wouldn't be the same as in the described situation. Right? Regards, --Biblbroks 16:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 05:18, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

get stuck[edit]

This means, of course, "become unable to make progress" = get (become) + stuck (unable to make progress). Our entry claims it means "be unable to make progress" (emphasis added), and I seek verification thereof.​—msh210 (talk) 18:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Can we replace just replace be with become? WordWeb gives "Be unable to move further" for get stuck, bog down, grind to a halt and mire. --Anatoli 09:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
If it just means "become stuck", then it would seem to be NISoP and a potential candidate for deletion. It wouldn't surprise me if it had the challenged meaning. DCDuring TALK 06:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 01:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)


French: Suffix added to the end of any word to make it more incomprehensible. Wonderfool entry, no French interwiki, and I haven't come across this one in casual conversation or Internet chatrooms. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:30, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Hmm. See the etymology section of trucmuche on French Wiktionary - that's all I can find. SemperBlotto 14:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
If you try fr:Special:WhatLinksHere/-muche, that's the only one. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
I think that this page is correct, but that this suffix is rather dated, except in trucmuche. It's also possible to find Ménil'muche (most common use, apart from trucmuche), lacromuche, loucharmuche, and also magistrat'muche (according to http://www.languefrancaise.net/bob/liste.php?motsclef=muche&submit=Gi!&moduless=siterech&exact=1). References: this suffix is mentioned in http://www.commerce-rh.fr/articles/42716914-le-louchebem-ou-loucherbem , http://www.docschnauzer.net/ref19.html Lmaltier 14:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
Meh, I'll tolerate it on the basis of trucmuche and Ménilmuche. If you feel strongly about deleting it, reverse my decision and delete it. - -sche (discuss) 03:34, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: (grammar) A noun or adjective that can be used as a verb. This is not a sense that appears in a OneLook reference, which define it as "a non-finite form of a verb, such as a gerund, participle, or infinitive." DCDuring TALK 15:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 03:29, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

personal space[edit]

Rfv-sense: "The area in which a person or animal habitually moves, and with which they are familiar." - Sounds far-fetched to me. No evidence among first 100 Google hits. --Hekaheka 05:08, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

It's in the OED, as the earliest attested sense. They include the following citations: Ƿidsiþ 06:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
  • 1937 D. Katz Animals & Men v. 95 From the animal's point of view the spot in which it has lived undergoes an internal structuring analogous to the structuring of the functional or ‘life’ space of man. Such an internally structured ‘life’ space we shall call ‘personal space’.
  • 1946 O. Klineberg Social Psychol. viii. 213 William Stern (24) speaks of a personal space and time, differing from one individual to another. Personal space refers to the region of possible movement and contact, and will obviously be different in the case of an international banker and in that of a farmer in the hills of Kentucky.
  • 1958 M. Kerr People of Ship Street ii. 24 The reason seems to be a vague undifferentiated feeling of belonging and the security of moving around in a well-known territory. This may well be an example of Katz's personal space.
The first of those is IMO a mention, and the second is a quasi-mention. RFV-failed for now. - -sche (discuss) 20:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense for upcoming WotD: "In art criticism, art work referencing mundane aspects of everyday life, or something that is a very temporary phenomenon that will date the work." Ƿidsiþ 09:23, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I think it is the adjective. The definition seems very similar to the one here; the latter seems not written with pos in mind, but could describe an adjective. I suspect a number of noun usages is causing confusion. — Pingkudimmi 13:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
Isn't sense three even more clearly a normal use of an adjective as a noun (fused head}? —This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talkcontribs).
RFV-failed for now. I've kept the "Commonplace or mundane things regarded as a class." sense because we also have e.g. the poor. - -sche (discuss) 20:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


​—msh210 (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added some examples of this word's usage at Citations:tweetheart. Astral 05:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
For the first sense, the two headline-only senses don't provide sufficient context to make it clear what the meaning is. Could you provide more context that would do so? If a user has to read the whole article to confirm the sense, then we don't have a good usage example. Headline usage not repeated in the body often seems to me an indication that the neologism is used because it is not understood. In these cases, the author does not really have much incentive to make the meaning perfectly clear as the teaser value is what counts.
Also, the cites in each sense are supposed to span a full year.
The other senses seem OK. DCDuring TALK 12:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I removed the two headline-only usage examples for the first sense per your comment. "Dannii Minogue is a tweetheart!" is a short piece about how Minogue sent InStyle a tweet "the minute she woke up" on the day an issue of that magazine with her on the cover came out, so they probably mean she's a "tweetheart" in the sense of being nice enough to take the time to send them a tweet. "Ashton Kutcher's a real tweetheart" mentions Kutcher was "the first Twitter user with more than one million followers," but in it Kutcher also discusses how he mainly uses his Twitter account to share "content that someone else created," new stories, quotes, and information about charities and causes because he "believe[s] if it's not inspiring, connective, entertaining or educating then you probably shouldn't put it up." So it's unclear whether they mean he's a "tweetheart" in the sense of being a popular Twitter user or being a socially conscious Twitter user.
I've added three other examples where "tweetheart" is used in the first sense in an article's body. One is from 2009, another from 2011, so now there's a two-year spread for that sense.
"Tweetheart" was also added to the Collins English Dictionary last year with the first sense as the definition. Astral 03:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Passes, AFAICT. - -sche (discuss) 03:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

pump ship[edit]

Appears in urban dictionary. No idea where in the world it's used or how prevalent it is. Can't find any written source for it. JamesjiaoTC 11:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be smatterings of results [16] and [17] ---> Tooironic 00:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
RFV-failed for now, though, as I couldn't find durably archived citations. - -sche (discuss) 06:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

June 2011[edit]


I'd like verification for the second meaning, "One who discriminates based on religion.". I've been looking for a word with that meaning. However, I think I've only heard the first meaning for theist. Superm401 04:17, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Added by an IP here in 2005. Probably nonsense; any other dictionaries have it? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I have managed to find one quotation so far. - -sche (discuss) 16:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 20:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: First cousins who are related on both sides. Besides needing to be rewritten if valid, I can't find this sense in OneLook references. DCDuring TALK 23:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 22:30, 29 January 2012 (UTC)


This word was added by an anonymous user earlier today, and it was marked for speedy deletion. I cleaned it up a little and nominated it for RFV instead, because it seems that it might actually be a proper word. —CodeCat 20:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

The definition appears as is in Urban Dictionary under inscriptionizer, to which they redirect inscriptionist.— Pingkudimmi 08:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
It is a word but I don't think it means what the disputed sense claims. I've added and cited another sense. Equinox 16:50, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Sense failed RFV. Equinox 15:06, 18 December 2011 (UTC)




Need sources. halfpastthreeintheafternoonmare doesn't exist on google. JamesjiaoTC 21:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Wonderfool entries, deleted halfpastthreeintheafternoonmare but afraid I don't have time right now to check the others. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
morningmare now has two citations, and seems to be humorous in intent.
For midnightmare, I haven't found citations for the disputed meaning, but as a variation on mid-nightmare it looks OK, at least as an adverb. More citations (including any corresponding to the noun sense of mid-nightmare) would help, but then the undisputed meanings are, um, not in dispute. At least not yet. — Pingkudimmi 10:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
morningmare is now cited with one more citation from Usenet. —Internoob 04:02, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
Outcome: halfpastthreeintheafternoonmare has been deleted, midnightmare "mightnight + mare" has been deleted ("mid + nightmare" kept), morningmare passes. - -sche (discuss) 21:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


Moved from verse in accordance with spelling in sole citation. Contraction of universe. Plausible, but needs cites as other dictionaries don't have it. DCDuring TALK 05:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Better? It also appears in combination. Buffyverse we have; also possible are Angelverse, X-verse, Jossverse and Whedonverse—the latter two of course encompassing multiple universes. — Pingkudimmi 11:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
The first cite is from a blog, which we don't consider durably archived. I appreciate how hard it is to find cites for this sense at bgc, but there must be a way to search for just a relevant subset of Usenet for the usage.
I would hypothesize that the sequence was: 1., blends ending in "verse"; 2., the shortening "'verse"; and, 3., a backformation "verse". DCDuring TALK 15:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I have added a Usenet cite, based on a search limited to "alt.tv.*" groups. AFAICT, cited DCDuring TALK 15:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
In the meantime I found another book citation. This makes it all Joss Whedon (apart from the blog cite, which I've commented out). That fits with something I read in my search, indicating it is/was usage within his fan base. — Pingkudimmi 17:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I think this falls under “terms originating in fictional universes”. I’m pretty sure that the universe of Firefly and Serenity is referred to as “the ’verse” within the works themselves — it’s not like Buffyverse, which I presume was originated by fans — and all four of our quotations are referring to that universe, rather than supporting a general “fictional universe” sense. Admittedly, one quotation has “In the Firefly/Serenity ‘verse (as in ours)”, which tends to imply that “’verse” is simply “universe” (no one would ever write, “In the Star Trek Federation of Planets (as in ours)”, even after pages of explaining how the Federation is that universe’s U.N.), but even that implication doesn’t quite support a “fictional universe” sense. —RuakhTALK 16:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I've made the definition specific to Firefly. If you think the term should be now deleted on WT:FICTIONal grounds, delete it; otherwise, I'm leaving it be. - -sche (discuss) 20:20, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


Probably attestable in French, but I can't find 3 for English. Nadando 23:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

A verb majusculate looks plausible, though rare. I found hits for majusculated and majusculating. — Pingkudimmi 07:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
It's French now. - -sche (discuss) 21:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


I found bitcoin on Wiktionary:Requested entries (English). I thought this would be a simple page to start off with, and created it.

Spoken with various users, including User:Leftmostcat, and one of the key issues is whether this meets CFI right now, mainly that bitcoin is new, and is still in the sink or swim stage, and so could disappear.

Any comments? AbstractBeliefs 17:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

It's very honest of you to nominate your own entry, I commend you on that. Regarding the nomination itself, 'created in 2009' so yeah I'd imagine citations are quite hard to come by. There's a chance that even if it fails now, if the concept remains in use then it might meet CFI later on (2012 or 2013, for example). Mglovesfun (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
I can't say I chose to nominate it purely myself. Leftmostcat suggested it, and I chose to do this myself as it would just be more experience. The two things I'm looking at are CFI, as above "right now". I'm sure in the future this *will* be an interesting topic so long as it doesn't go belly up, as well as the stylisation of "[B|b]it[C|c]oin" AbstractBeliefs 18:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
It would be citable on usenet, I think. We need to consider whether "bitcoin" is a common misspelling in English of "Bitcoin" or "BitCoin". DCDuring TALK 18:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
This is a matter of some thought. There's a brief discussion on the talk page. Main issue here though is CFI. Depending on if you have free time, would it be possible for you to pick up one or two older, well discussed threads on Usenet? And if you don't have the time, possibly point me on? Thanks AbstractBeliefs 18:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Of the current references: the Guardian article takes pains not to use bitcoin as a common noun, only using Bitcoin in the manner of a trademark; and Forbes and SmartMoney use it freely as a common noun but always capitalised (a Bitcoin, Bitcoins). As yet we have no valid citation for a lower-case bitcoin or bitcoins. Equinox 20:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
RFV-failed for now. - -sche (discuss) 21:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: math senses "injection", "bijection", "bijective". I'm only familiar with this as an adjective meaning "injective", except that the phrase (in) one-to-one correspondence means "(having a) bijection". —RuakhTALK 13:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

...which latter is already covered by the other (not nominated) adjective sense "Matching each member of one set with a member of another set".​—msh210 (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, the "matching" covers both. I think both this entry and the American version one-on-one would benefit form a single mathematical definition covering both interpretations. Do you really want some citations from text books? I would question the assumption implied in our first definition that the relationship should necessary be "especially sexual". I think we should phrase it so that it depends on context.Dbfirs 10:34, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 20:48, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: English proper noun "A caenism, something from Herb Caen, the late, incredibly long-term columnist for the San Francisco Chronicle." --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 21:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


"(informal) Said of something that is rubbish or broken." Equinox 19:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Not strictly on topic, but why have the adjective before the noun and the verb? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
What's the best order is not always clear. IIRC some page recommends alphabetical order absent a reason for another order: I thought it was ELE, but apparently not.​—msh210 (talk) 05:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 21:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


I think this is just the name of a website; but it gets over 600 Google Book hits, so I brought it here. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Yet all the hits do seem to be for "Meconomy.com" or related to it, or "meconomy", the meaning of which I can't work out. - -sche (discuss) 21:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense Mathematics sense. I changed the existing def to make it slightly more rigorous (the concept of a function having two derivatives at a given point is definitely nonstandard). But is it used? The citation I included now seems unconvincing, seeming rather to refer to a more intuitive notion of corner. — Pingkudimmi 13:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

RFV-failed for now. - -sche (discuss) 21:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


google books:xiāngzào gets one hit, and it's English, not Mandarin. --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

"Google Boooks" are not the only means for attestation. We shouldn't use "Google Books" as an excuse to ban Pinyin enrties. "Mandarin pinyin" likes "Min Nan pinyin", "Min Nan pinyin" sometimes also doesn't pass the "Google Books check" (Please see here). Anyhow, Pinyin entries are allowed by the rule of Wiktionary. If someone wanted to ban Pinyin entries, first of all, Wiktionary should has a new rule instead. However, a rule shouldn't be abolished rashly, otherwise Wiktionary will be harmed. Engirst 21:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Resolved. - -sche (discuss) 20:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


rfv-sense: to muster the strength or motivation to do something.

Not in any other OneLook reference in this sense. DCDuring TALK 14:40, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 20:45, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: listening, specifically for sounds produced within the body.

I don't think this is ever used outside a medical context, based on a bgc search. DCDuring TALK 19:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Actually rfd-redundant, isn't it? And if it is a less well worded form of #2, surely if #2 is attested, then so is this! Mglovesfun (talk) 23:24, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Failed; deleted. It was redundant as worded anyway. Note though that it was added originally as just "listening" (by SB). That sense might exist. I'll try to find cites and will re-add it if I can do so.​—msh210 (talk) 17:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

The first 100 results at google books:+auscultation -body -stethoscope -intitle:auscultation -abdominal -abdomen -bowel yield only one not in the not-nominated sense, at [18], but I see it as a "snippet" and can't tell what the word means in it. There's also [19]: again, I have no idea what the word means. (See also [20].)​—msh210 (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Alt.Support.Diet (newsgroup). -- Prince Kassad 15:39, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 21:01, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


"The square of a distance, especially that of the length of a side of a triangle". I can't find anything much to support this. Equinox 21:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 23:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Nickname of two models of car made by Volkswagen. Needs citations with this capitalization, since I think it's written in uppercase only. They might also need to meet WT:BRAND. -- Prince Kassad 15:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 21:05, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


Asserted to be a noun. No example sentences provided. —RuakhTALK 17:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

The IP users who added it are highly suspect. The same editor is responsible for a number of sections below. Haplology 14:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Noun rfv-failed and converted into an adjective. - -sche (discuss) 21:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense (English): Anything that is flat and round.

Not to be found in the small number of English dictionaries that have this spelling. Also not found as a sense of crepe. DCDuring TALK 02:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 21:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


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)
Sense RFV-failed, other senses kept. - -sche (discuss) 02:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


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)
RFV-failed for now. - -sche (discuss) 03:04, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


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

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 03:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

steel guitar[edit]

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.' — Pingkudimmi 12:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I think my request is resolved. Entry included? --Lo Ximiendo 05:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Yep, rfv-passed. :) - -sche (discuss) 05:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


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

Kept. If we revisit CFI with regard to famous authors' nonces being allowed, please renominate. - -sche (discuss) 03:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


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)

Etymology removed, sense broadened, tags removed. Re-nominate here or on RFC if problems remain. - -sche (discuss) 03:34, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


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

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 03:37, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


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

  1. 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. 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)
RFV-failed for now. - -sche (discuss) 06:52, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


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)
RFV-failed. No citations were in the entry. Some of the hits on Google Boosk were mentions, others supported different senses. It does not appear to me that three support any one sense, but please do restore and cite if you can. - -sche (discuss) 05:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

rescue squad[edit]

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. — Pingkudimmi 15:37, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
RFV-failed for now. - -sche (discuss) 05:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

July 2011[edit]


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)
Tagged and kept for now. - -sche (discuss) 03:39, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


"(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)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 03:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


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)
Moved. - -sche (discuss) 03:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


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

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

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 03:54, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


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)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 03:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


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. —Angr 10:41, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 03:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


-- Liliana 12:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 03:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


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)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 22:02, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


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

Perhaps lowercase and Esperanto, see arbo. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 09:53, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


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'? —CodeCat 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 [21] (literally, "the it finished"), but not el acabame. -Aleator 22:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 06:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


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

RFV failed. Equinox 18:55, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


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. JamesjiaoTC 05:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
But RFV is reasonable since as a commercial toy it needs to meet WT:BRAND. Equinox 18:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 06:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


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)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 06:12, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


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

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 06:15, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


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)
Seems to be cited. Passed. Equinox 18:52, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


"(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)

RFV failed. Equinox 19:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


"(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)

RFV failed. Equinox 18:50, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


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

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 06:21, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


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

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 23:18, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


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)

RFV-failed for now. - -sche (discuss) 01:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-senses for all of Etymology 1 section.

  1. Utility, profit, advantage.
  2. Affair, matter, concern.
  3. An event, occasion.
  4. Business, usually needful in nature; Expedition, undertaking, enterprise.
  5. 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:
  1. To use; make use of; employ.
  2. To enjoy.
  3. To use for food; eat.
  4. 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)
Uncited senses RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 02:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


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. — Pingkudimmi 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. — Pingkudimmi 08:52, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Removed as RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 03:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


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)

I've removed the adverb as RFV-failed. The adjective senses, combined into one, just barely passes, IMO. - -sche (discuss) 06:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


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. — Pingkudimmi 18:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 03:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


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)
RFV-failed for now. - -sche (discuss) 03:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Yosemite Sam[edit]

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

Had only 2 citations. RFV-failed for now. - -sche (discuss) 07:54, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

faute de mieux[edit]

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." — Pingkudimmi 05:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 03:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


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)
Verb RFV-failed. Merged with the adjective quadfurcated. Most of the hits msh210 calls past participles I find it easier to consider adjectives, specially in the absence of any other evidence that this is a verb. - -sche (discuss) 08:06, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
This is just a rare and incorrect form of quadrifurcate, which gets 1,730 b.g.c hits as compared with quadfurcate's 20. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


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)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 06:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


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)
I found one excellent citation, but only one, so I've RFV-failed this and removed it from the main namespace. - -sche (discuss) 22:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


​—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)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 03:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


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

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 03:18, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


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)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 03:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


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)
Had no citations, so: RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 03:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


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)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 03:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


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

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 01:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


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

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 08:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


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)

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 03:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


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 [22] is where the anon found this? From googlebooks I could only find [23] and [24] 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)
Passed. Needs only the one cite it has, 'cause it's a (mostly) dead language — at least, that's my understanding. - -sche (discuss) 22:01, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


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)

Resolved. - -sche (discuss) 03:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


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

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 03:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


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:


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)
I don't see any reason to make a difference between a manga and another kind of book (NPOV, we don't judge words). Lmaltier 08:44, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Had no citations in the entry, and Google search hits themselves don't count, because most webpages are not durably archived by our definition. So I deleted it. - -sche (discuss) 03:22, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


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. JamesjiaoTC 23:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
I've removed most of the content as RFV-failed. Because the symbol itself does exist, I've left it on RFC, where it will presumably languish for years. - -sche (discuss) 04:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


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. — Pingkudimmi 09:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Resolved. - -sche (discuss) 03:26, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

lose the plot[edit]

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.Pingkudimmi 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)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 03:24, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


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)
Resolved, AFAICT. - -sche (discuss) 03:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


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 [25] and [26]. (That's two.)​—msh210 (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
And a third: [27].​—msh210 (talk) 23:38, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Right then. Kept. - -sche (discuss) 03:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

August 2011[edit]


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? JamesjiaoTC 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)
Passed, as in widespread use (just search for "status Indian"). Passed as an adjective per [[rainbow]]: it can't be attributive use of a noun sense if there isn't a noun sense for it to be attributive use of. Of course, an alternative way of handling this would be to make it a noun sense, "The state of being registered..." {{context|almost always used attributively of a noun}}. - -sche (discuss) 22:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

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

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" (BooksGroupsScholarNews 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)
Deleted. If you disagree, reopen the issue here or at WT:RFD. - -sche (discuss) 01:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
There's no basis for me to disagree, it was never attested per WT:CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

cash instrument[edit]

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)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 22:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


"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)
I'm going to take the rare step of letting this stay without citations, because it's clear there are citations on Usenet. I have tagged it "rare", though, until someone bothers to actually cite it and prove otherwise. - -sche (discuss) 22:10, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


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)
So, struck. - -sche (discuss) 01:25, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


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

I'm not convinced the citations I've added all support the given sense; take a look. There are a few more citations that could be added. - -sche (discuss) 01:31, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Strike that, I've found a less gibberish-y citation. I'll call this cited. - -sche (discuss) 01:32, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I'm afraid not. The 1987 quot. used a participial adjective (octaviated) and the dateless quot. uses a verbal noun (octaviating). The 1992 quot.'s fine, however. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 02:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Right you are, and I could find one more citation (to make 2 good ones), but not a third. Banished to the citations namespace. - -sche (discuss) 04:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


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

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 01:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

GOAT list[edit]

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. JamesjiaoTC 21:53, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 01:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


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)
RFV-failed, moved to citations page. - -sche (discuss) 01:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


Maro 19:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

This has not been cited at all since Maro RFVed it, so, trusting Maro's judgment that it isn't a valid word, I've deleted it. - -sche (discuss) 01:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


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)
Yep, struck. - -sche (discuss) 01:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


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)
Has been resolved. - -sche (discuss) 04:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


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

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 01:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) at 02:46, 10 January 2012‎ (UTC).
Deleted like [[democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner]]. If you disagree with the deletion, please bring it up at RFD. Cheers, - -sche (discuss) 21:59, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


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)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 22:05, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


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)

I have deleted the Adjective and common Noun sections as RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 01:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

breaking bad[edit]

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)
Apparently resolved. Struck. FWIW, despite having lived for a time in the Southern US, I haven't heard this and am baffled by it, so I think [[break bad]] should stay (if that's what's being discussed); I don't think it's SOP. - -sche (discuss) 22:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Elmer Fudd[edit]

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)
Struck. Move to RFD if desired. - -sche (discuss) 01:45, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


"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)

RFV failed. Equinox 18:49, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


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)

I've completely overhauled the entry, and added many citations. - -sche (discuss) 02:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


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)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 06:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


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)

Failed RFV. Equinox 18:48, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


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

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 06:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

life child[edit]

"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)
Failed RFV. Equinox 18:47, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

financial doping[edit]

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)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 07:06, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

September 2011[edit]

abacus harmonicus[edit]

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)

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 22:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


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

RFV failed. Equinox 19:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

situational awareness[edit]

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.) —RuakhTALK 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)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 07:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


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)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 07:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


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)
Resolved, AFAICT. - -sche (discuss) 22:10, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


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. —This comment was unsigned.
English section deleted. Spanish section kept, despite having only one citation. - -sche (discuss) 22:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


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)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 01:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


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 [28] 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)
Verb passed, noun failed. - -sche (discuss) 06:41, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


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)


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)
Passed, per my cites. Reopen this discussion if you dispute that it meets BRAND or whatnot. - -sche (discuss) 22:19, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Clinton bond[edit]

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. JamesjiaoTC 01:53, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Had no citations and needed massive cleanup, so I deleted it as RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 01:48, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


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)
Passed as a distinct sense. :) - -sche (discuss) 07:17, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


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 ÚtlendiTala 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)
Deleted. Make it an {{only in}} if you like. - -sche (discuss) 22:22, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


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)
Alright, I'll set about citing this over the next week or so, and find out which senses are supported. - -sche (discuss) 07:28, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done - -sche (discuss) 03:41, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


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, [29] and [30]. 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 ÚtlendiTala við mig 19:17, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 07:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


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

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 07:31, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


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)

Was cited some time ago by Fugyoo. Actually, I'm not familiar with the "dawdle" sense, but that's for a new RFV. - -sche (discuss) 03:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

pumping lemma[edit]

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. :) —CodeCat 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)
Meh, kept. Re-open discussion here or at WT:RFC or RFD if you feel you must. - -sche (discuss) 03:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


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)
Gong! Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 03:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
w:The Gong Show. DCDuring TALK 04:29, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Broken English[edit]

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)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 03:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


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)

LOL. RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 03:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Unsupported titles/Double period[edit]

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)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 07:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


Equinox 04:02, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 07:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


"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. JamesjiaoTC 23:24, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 22:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


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 (talkcontribs) entry. If this is valid, then it's very very regional. Maybe Gtroy would care to tag it as such? JamesjiaoTC 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)
Done. - -sche (discuss) 03:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


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

It's the only contribution of (talkcontribs). 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? 04:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 03:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


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 [31], [32], [33], and [34].​—msh210 (talk) 22:11, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, passed as in use and per those links, even though no-one's bothered to put them into the entry yet. - -sche (discuss) 03:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

kol çekmek[edit]

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? JamesjiaoTC 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)
It gets an uninspiring five Google Books hits, not all of which are visible. I've deleted it as RFV-failed pending citations that show use. - -sche (discuss) 03:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


rfv entry. Note the usage notes: Shitly is almost never used. I giggled when I saw that. JamesjiaoTC 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. JamesjiaoTC 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 : [35] ("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)
Passed. Cites are on the cites page. - -sche (discuss) 07:37, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Portuguese: albo[edit]

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

RFV-failed. Please re-add with citations. - -sche (discuss) 03:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


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
Symbol keep vote.svg  Appendicize them under Appendix:Pokémon. ~ Robin 00:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Moved to Appendix:Pokémon/Mewtwo, Appendix:Pokémon/Charizard, Appendix:Pokémon/Meowth. - -sche (discuss) 22:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


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

Moved to Appendix:Pokémon/Mewtwo, Appendix:Pokémon/Charizard, Appendix:Pokémon/Meowth. - -sche (discuss) 22:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


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

Moved to Appendix:Pokémon/Mewtwo, Appendix:Pokémon/Charizard, Appendix:Pokémon/Meowth. - -sche (discuss) 22:42, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


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)
Passed. Thanks for citing it, Equinox! - -sche (discuss) 03:59, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


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. 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 [36] (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 (dīng) and Roman letter T are used alternatingly when one needs to express the T-shape. Look at 丁字 entry (T-shaped). (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.). () 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. JamesjiaoTC 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)
Well, no-one provided three actual citations, so I deleted it. - -sche (discuss) 22:45, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


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

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 04:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


"(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)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 22:47, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

October 2011[edit]


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)
Passed. - -sche (discuss) 22:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

pelvic lines[edit]

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)
Meh, I'll close this RFV (now that I know the meaning) because it can easily be cited. If you think it's SOP, well, take it to RFD. - -sche (discuss) 01:55, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


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...'? —CodeCat 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.) —RuakhTALK 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. —CodeCat 17:47, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
Meh. Kept. Ausnahmsweise (as an exception to our usual policy). If you disagree... well, we'll have the problem CodeCat describes. - -sche (discuss) 02:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Postscript: this arguably passes regularly, because its inflected forms are attested, and inflected forms count (AFAICT) towards attestation of other forms, and we only require one citation for extinct languages. - -sche (discuss) 02:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


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

"op server" has lots of Google hits (rfv removed) —Saltmarshtalk-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)
RFV-failed for now. - -sche (discuss) 02:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


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)

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 23:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)


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. 18:48, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
Resolved. - -sche (discuss) 23:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Pepé Le Pew[edit]

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

RFV-failed as uncited. - -sche (discuss) 02:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Road Runner[edit]

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

RFV-failed as uncited. - -sche (discuss) 02:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Tasmanian Devil[edit]

Tasmanian devil[edit]

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)

RFV-failed as uncited. - -sche (discuss) 02:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


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

RFV-failed as uncited. - -sche (discuss) 02:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


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

RFV-failed as uncited. - -sche (discuss) 02:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Wile E. Coyote[edit]

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
RFV-failed as uncited. - -sche (discuss) 02:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


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)
I'm going to pass this, based on the "pestre" cite, the "pestres" cite, and the many "pestred" cites that are available. - -sche (discuss) 22:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

cam quất[edit]

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

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 22:16, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

dog's bollocks[edit]

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

Was added by usually reliable contributor Mzajac (talkcontribs), 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
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 02:12, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


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)
Done. - -sche (discuss) 02:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


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)
Done. - -sche (discuss) 02:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


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)
    Done. - -sche (discuss) 02:16, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


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)

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 20:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


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

Had no citations at all, AFAICT. Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 22:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

aluminum shower[edit]

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. — Pingkudimmi 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)
RFV-passed, in that it is cited. Moving to RFD. - -sche (discuss) 02:49, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


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

Right, I've deleted the specific sense and made it a general {{alternative form of|stir}}, per Google Books. - -sche (discuss) 20:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


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

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 07:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

hot hotdog[edit]

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)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 03:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


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

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 03:49, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


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

RFV-failed, made into an alt form entry. - -sche (discuss) 22:21, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


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)
Transitive sense modified and passed. Intransitive sense still needs to be cited. I'll see what I can do. - -sche (discuss) 07:46, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Intransitive sense now cited, I think. - -sche (discuss) 07:56, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


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

I'm familiar with this sense, but it seems to have been subsumed into a broader sense, which is also OK by me. Striking this as resolved. - -sche (discuss) 20:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


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

Struck as in clear widespread use. (Look on Usenet.) If anyone feels strongly that this should be deleted as uncited instead, I don't mind. - -sche (discuss) 05:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

a la minute[edit]

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 [37] 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)
Kept. Both senses are clearly in widespread use (look in Google Books). - -sche (discuss) 02:54, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

politically correct[edit]

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)
Resolved-ish. - -sche (discuss) 02:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


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. —Saltmarshtalk-συζήτηση 09:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Resolved, AFAICT. - -sche (discuss) 02:59, 4 March 2012 (UTC)



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)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 03:03, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

November 2011[edit]


Rfv-sense: An epithet for Michel Foucault.. Moved from RFD. Needs to be cited, I suppose. -- Liliana 00:11, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 08:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


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! —CodeCat 19:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
RFV-failed and banished to Talk:arfarfanarf. - -sche (discuss) 03:07, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


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.htmCodeCat 21:52, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, doesn't ring any bells with me, either. I've deleted it. - -sche (discuss) 03:09, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


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)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 03:01, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


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)
This has sat here uncited for several months... it's time for some tough love. In accordance with policy, I have deleted this term. - -sche (discuss) 03:12, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


English: "(UK, slang, MLE) A friend, a mate." I see it on the web, but not finding it at google groups:"for my|your|his|her blud|bluds" or google groups:"my|your|his|her blud|bluds" or (the usex provided by the sense's author) google groups:"alright blud".​—msh210 (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

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)
RFV-failed. It can't have an eye dialect entry unless it's attested. - -sche (discuss) 03:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


As preceding.​—msh210 (talk) 01:38, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

"Preceding", for the record (when this is archived), was "blud". - -sche (discuss) 03:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 03:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


"(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)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 07:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


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. —CodeCat 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)
Passed. Thanks, Equinox! - -sche (discuss) 02:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


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 ÚtlendiTala 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 ÚtlendiTala 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 (juui), 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)
Resolved...? As kept...? Strike headers and close discussions, or make some note like "right then, we're keeping this", when you remove tags, please! Thank you! - -sche (discuss) 03:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


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)

RFV-failed for now. - -sche (discuss) 00:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

family dissident[edit]

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)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 09:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


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 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)
Struck. - -sche (discuss) 03:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


"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)
Au revoir à jamais! - -sche (discuss) 04:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


"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)

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 08:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


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. —RuakhTALK 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)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 04:16, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

cum junkie[edit]

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)

l'art du déplacement[edit]

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)
Not cited, therefore deleted. - -sche (discuss) 00:12, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


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)

Windows Forms[edit]

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. JamesjiaoTC 01:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 23:29, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Commodore 64[edit]

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
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 23:33, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

spinal immobilization[edit]

  1. (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)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 23:38, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


"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.
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 04:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


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)
Meh, kept. Raise this at RFD if you dispute that the citations meet BRAND. - -sche (discuss) 23:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

cheese blocks[edit]

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)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 23:44, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


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)
Passed. Thanks for citing it, Mg and Lucifer! :) - -sche (discuss) 04:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Binary Application Markup Language[edit]

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)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 23:50, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


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 ÚtlendiTala 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 ÚtlendiTala 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.) —RuakhTALK 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)

Yes check.svg Cleared. ~ Robin 04:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


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'seditor'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)


"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)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 04:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


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 neoprotologisms. 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)
RFV-failed, deleted. (PS, for when this and other entries are archived: I frequently use "deleted" as shorthand for "rfv-failed, deleted".) If you want to put it into the LoP, go ahead. :) Cheers, - -sche (discuss) 03:06, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

December 2011[edit]


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)

something else[edit]

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). —RuakhTALK 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)


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)

real estate deal[edit]

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)


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)


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? —CodeCat 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)


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 !. —CodeCat 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)


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)


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)
Resolved. - -sche (discuss) 04:48, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

yn unig[edit]

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. —Angr 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)


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)


As above, same originator, cross-referenced. --Hekaheka 09:56, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 06:42, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


"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)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 04:50, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

お母さん#Min Nan (khà-sàng)[edit]

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)
Struck. - -sche (discuss) 04:52, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

zero gravity[edit]

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)


"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)


"(publishing) To edit mercilessly with an iron hand. Laurie needs to stark this asap." Equinox 01:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 06:46, 22 February 2012 (UTC)


Milda (talkcontribs) 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 (talkcontribs) 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)

toilet baby[edit]

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)
Passes, apparently. - -sche (discuss) 03:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


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)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 03:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


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)
Was not actually cited, so I have RFV-failed it for now. - -sche (discuss) 03:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


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. 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)
I agree with Internoob and msh210 and have passed this (although I've failed so many things that I just typed "RFV-failed" out of habit and had to stop and correct it, hahaha). - -sche (discuss) 03:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


Added by known-suspect IP user Special:Contributions/

Hit counts:

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 ÚtlendiTala 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)
No durably archived citations. Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 03:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


Any takers? SemperBlotto 08:04, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Looks like tosh. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 23:53, 3 March 2012 (UTC)