Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/2012

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


January 2012[edit]

Unsupported titles/Left square bracket right square bracket[edit]

-- Liliana 14:02, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 03:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

February 2012[edit]


Rfv-sense: "German language". What? -- Liliana 01:49, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone should remove "Could mean "gangsta."". Mglovesfun (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd like to add the sense "gay" to this RFV, and note that the currency sense should (per itself, and the resultso f the g-note vs G-note RFV) be at G. - -sche (discuss) 18:32, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
    • Tagged it. -- Liliana 18:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 23:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012[edit]


Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 04:40, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me the contributor is only disputing the context label, not the entry as a whole. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought about just removing the context labels and the RFV-tag, but I couldn't figure out whether the entire phrase "啥物事" was also doubted or not. I suppose we should do something like this unless cites are provided in the next month. - -sche (discuss) 20:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
It's a common enough expression in the Northern topolect (i.e. Mandarin) and the Wu topolect (i.e. Shanghainese and etc). E.g. Shanghainese 侬啦做啥? - What are you doing? JamesjiaoTC 21:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok. I've made a few changes and struck this. If more changes need to be made to the entry, please make them. Cheers, - -sche (discuss) 22:51, 3 March 2012 (UTC)


I didn't find it in English. Might be a candidate for Appendix:List of protologisms. DCDuring TALK 21:44, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 21:51, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


It is a french abbreviation, not a french noun. It can't be used in place of "courriel" or "messagerie électronique". It obviously has no plural

[1] En revanche, on ne peut substituer mél. à courriel puisque mél. n’est pas un mot plein, mais l’abréviation de messagerie électronique. Il doit s’utiliser uniquement devant une adresse électronique, de même qu’on utilise tél. uniquement devant un numéro de téléphone.
[2] Note : « Mél. » ne doit pas être employé comme substantif.
This is the position of French institutions, yes, but usage prevails. The French Academy is aware of this, as it also says: "Si l’usage se répandait néanmoins de le traiter comme un mot plein (Envoyer, recevoir un mel), il conviendrait de l’écrire sans accent ni point abréviatif, mais cela n’est pas encore admis." => In case of widespread use of "mél." as a plain word, it should be spelled "mel". Here again this is a guideline.
"Mél" might be misused, according to the French Academy, it is nonetheless used as a substantive, including on governmental sites (ironically, culture.gouv.fr is no exception). Anyway, you can mention that the use of mél(s) as a substantive was discouraged by the French Academy in 2003. — Xavier, 00:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, you're saying this word doesn't exist at all in French? You've tagged it with RFV and it only has a French section. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Striking, clear widespread use, even Xhienne's search which isn't as inclusive as it could be gets 339 hits. I use this and people never ask me to explain it. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:19, 4 March 2012 (UTC)


Citations do not seem to support the given meaning. - -sche (discuss) 23:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 19:43, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "isolation of a computing client by a proxy server; blacklisting". Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 04:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

I had a quick hunt around and couldn't find anything. Not heard it in my IT-ish career either. Equinox 00:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 21:53, 18 March 2012 (UTC)


"Agreeable and popular". I initially speedy deleted this (User talk:Mglovesfun#Swick), so if it is to be speedily deleted again, I don't want to do it in order to avoid being called biased. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedied. Equinox 20:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)


Any takers? Seems to be a Scrabble word. Needs formatting if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, but I can't guarantee that the formatting's right. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
and I've formatted your quotations; thanks for adding them! :) - -sche (discuss) 03:13, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I discern two meanings from the citations in the entry and on Google Books: "something edible" (so, perhaps not rags), and "a drunkard". I'm temporarily restoring the RFV tag, until we can see if the original sense ("rags") is attestable. - -sche (discuss) 03:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I thought they were talking about a grape varietal for the most part. The first citation seems to support the definition; the other two are just uses as a derogatory term. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:20, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
(Sorry, I didn't see that you had cleaned it up. Never mind.) --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, the second sense (drunkard) does seem to be an insult. I can't figure out how to note that... I suppose just "(used as an insult)"? I don't think the original sense ("rags") is attested. - -sche (discuss) 03:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I've put "derogatory" on it. Equinox 18:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I've deleted the "rags" sense. I think we've found all the quotations we're going to find, and they only support the other two senses. So: two senses added and cited and kept, one sense (the original sense) RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 04:40, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 23:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

  • There are four Google Books hits for this string of characters, so I'll let it sit here for its month to see if anyone cites it. - -sche (discuss) 05:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted, then. - -sche (discuss) 19:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. Needs durably-archived (not raw web) cites. - -sche (discuss) 23:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

  • There are not any Google Books hits for this string of characters, so I've speedily deleted it. - -sche (discuss) 05:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. Needs durably-archived (not raw web) cites. - -sche (discuss) 23:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

  • There are not any Google Books hits for this string of characters, so I've speedily deleted it. - -sche (discuss) 05:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

misc 1[edit]


This seems to be in the wrong script, but I believe it's supposed to be Greenlandic, not Inuktitut? —CodeCat 21:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

According to w:Inuktitut, Inuktitut can be written in either the Latin script or in syllabics, and according to Qallunaaq#Etymology, the word is spelled the same in Inuktitut and Greenlandic. So if all that is true, we can add a Greenlandic heading to qallunaaq, and we can add an entry for Inuktitut ᖃᓪᓗᓈᖅ, but the current entry itself is also correct. —Angr 23:07, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
There's a regular Inuit contributor on the French Wiktionary, who says that the "white person" sense is definitely ok, but he/she finds no supporting evidence for the "Danish" sense. You can read the discussion in French here if you are able to and desire to. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
Alright, pursuant to this discussion and the one on fr.wikt, I am going to detag this. There is a discussion ongoing in the Beer Parlour right now about whether or not to be sticklerish about demanding three citations for uncommon languages like this... but if any of you do want to be sticklerish, revert my removal of the tag. - -sche (discuss) 01:50, 22 March 2012 (UTC)


Actually seems to mean "not allowed", rather than "capable of being disallowed", so I am RFVing that latter sense. Equinox 17:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


It's hard to tell what sense any quotation is using the word in, but I think I've found three. The 1994 and 2005 quotations especially make sense only when they mean "the legislation is not able to be disallowed" rather than "the legislation is not forbidden", IMO. Take a look. - -sche (discuss) 02:05, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

I found a Raleigh use, which doesn't fit the first, challenged sense, but which I find hard to interpret. I don't think that the other citation for the second is unambiguous in supporting the second sense, rather than the first.
I think of the first sense as normally meaning "liable to disallowance/being disallowed". A law or rule or principle forbids or contraindicates something fitting a certain label or description. I assert some particular thing, for example, by claiming an expense as a valid one on my tax return. An IRS tax auditor can disallow it. My tax attorney may have advised me that the expense was disallowable. I think the word only makes sense in some kind of legalistic process in this sense. DCDuring TALK 02:48, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
FWIW, I've RFV-tagged all senses now. - -sche (discuss) 02:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Meh, the second sense could perhaps be worded better, but both senses have sufficient citations. Striking... (please reopen discussion if you feel this is too hasty or you have more to add) - -sche (discuss) 00:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)



Rfv-sense: WT:BRAND. DCDuring TALK 14:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Just for info, Chambers has Angostura for the tree bark (named after the town), and a sub-entry for Angostura bitters®. Equinox 14:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
That first bit would be fine with me. Do they really have it capitalized? DCDuring TALK 14:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Equinox 14:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The only sense in the entry is now the town. - -sche (discuss) 00:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: just the clause saying (encyclopedically) that the bark is an ingredient in the bitters. WP says not. DCDuring TALK 14:37, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Mizcan, which has exclusive distribution rights to the product, has an FAQ page that answers this question (see question 3). Not quite from the horses mouth, but close: [3]
I've removed the bit about bark. - -sche (discuss) 00:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: To not attend.

I have just added a sense "to fail to meet a commitment". I believe that usage that might be interpreted as "to not attend" is never without a prior commitment to attend. DCDuring TALK 14:44, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Isn't this an rfd-redundant case, due to the sense you've just added? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
I don't think so. There could be citations that support this sense distinctly, ie, to fail to attend an event which one intended to attend or which other people wanted one to attend or to which one had a ticket but no commitment to another person. The citations I provided include event attendance as one type of commitment, but include other commitments as well. DCDuring TALK 23:42, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me the "commitment" need only be in the mind of the speaker. Without knowing the full context, one or more of the cites fit the possibility that the subject had no intention of going ahead, or would certainly opt out if conditions became unfavourable.
RFV-failed/deleted. - -sche (discuss) 18:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)



Linked-to from katagelasticism, which just failed RFV. - -sche (discuss) 05:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Also gelotophobe. - -sche (discuss) 03:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I've cited both, though gelotophobia is on thin ice (one of the citations uses Gelotophobia in the middle of a sentence, and most other possible citations are mention-y). - -sche (discuss) 02:27, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


Someone with preferences. Really? —This unsigned comment was added by SemperBlotto (talkcontribs) at 22:36, 13 February 2012 (UTC).

If all three citations I've added to Citations:preferist check out, this term can scrape through. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:18, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


This is on the thinnest of ice: one of the citations is in quotation marks, another follows it with a copyright sign... what say others? Pass or fail? - -sche (discuss) 02:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

At the very least, needs to be marked as "rare", "nonstandard", and "nonce word", since it looks like each user invented it independently, and I can't find any other suitable citation. Equinox 02:20, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

The requirement for citations is that we want to make sure that the word exists. I find some other uses on Google, which suggest that this is an actual word (Google provides only the tip of the iceberg of language use). Sure, it's probably rare. But even if each user invented it independently (and we cannot be sure), it's worth a mention here,because it's likely to be used again. Lmaltier (talk) 07:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Alright, tagged and passed. - -sche (discuss) 18:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
4 (Coda) + 3 (Usenet) + 2 (Usenet) = 9 points.​—msh210 (talk) 15:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


-- Liliana 15:50, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Invented by some doctor, but I can't find any real usage of the word. JamesjiaoTC 00:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
I agree. No evidence of use. Should go the way of those invented phobia that we seem to delete.--Dmol 07:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
How can a nonce word have usage notes with a common spelling? Seems like it should go. SpinningSpark 21:51, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 18:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


There is no such widely accepted word. It appears to be either automatically generated by some software from word parts or assumed to be a word by some non-native speakers based possibly on words in their native language.

It gets only a few thousand Google hits, about the same amount as the related non-word "railinge" and not much more than half the other related non-word "railingd". — hippietrail 10:47, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand. What do you mean by widely accepted? Do you mean that this word is not included in your paper dictionary? Here are a few attestations:
in 1972: http://books.google.fr/books?id=OUw9AAAAIAAJ&q=railinged&dq=railinged&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=TxxAT-jiM4jMhAfV1IXPBQ&ved=0CD8Q6AEwAA
in 1990: http://books.google.fr/books?id=RtZpZaQn_noC&q=railinged&dq=railinged&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=TxxAT-jiM4jMhAfV1IXPBQ&ved=0CEcQ6AEwAg
in 2009: http://books.google.fr/books?id=obXliU3-7WcC&pg=PA48&dq=railinged&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=TxxAT-jiM4jMhAfV1IXPBQ&ved=0CFsQ6AEwBg#v=onepage&q=railinged&f=false
Thackeray used green-railinged: http://books.google.fr/books?id=t-0tAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA79&dq=railinged&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=Qx1AT7T_GomohAeu69XEBQ&ved=0CGoQ6AEwCDgU#v=onepage&q=railinged&f=false
and it's very easy to find many other attestations. Lmaltier 21:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
  • Three citations added from Google books. Many many more to choose from. SemperBlotto 23:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
    These citations are good enough to meet Wiktionary standards. I'll accept it. Oh and I have many paper dictionaries, not just one. — hippietrail 11:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
    P.S. What are our guidelines for adding adding the rare qualifier? — hippietrail 11:08, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
    None really, add the {{rare}} tag and if nobody removes it assume it's ok. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
    Same lack of guidelines as with "commonness" of misspellings. I suppose that effectively means it is ultimately a vote if contested. DCDuring TALK 13:54, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
    There are some 1400 raw bgc hits (mostly combinations), so this one would not be considered "rare" under our current implicit standards. DCDuring TALK 13:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
Passed. - -sche (discuss) 01:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: English adjective aged; usually in reference to cheese or liquor. Moved from RFD. -- Liliana 15:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Seems like the IP who has done most of the editing on this entry was getting mixed up with the Spanish. His first attempt back in 2005 looked like this :- 1. [Spanish] aged; usually in reference to cheese or liquor. And despite it being removed during the history, he put it back again. But in my opinion, it is simply a confusion on his part with the Spanish añejo I cannot find any support for an Anglicising of the word anywhere. -- ALGRIF talk 15:33, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Ditto Algrif's comment -- this looks like sloppy work, leaving out the tilde. FWIW, I've never seen this term used in general English (with or without the tilde), with it only showing up in my experience in contexts having to do with distinctly Hispanic foods and beverages, and with the tilde: i.e., borrowed from the Spanish añejo. -- Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 20:04, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
I've deleted the English adjective. If this RFV was also about the noun, please delete it too, or cite it. - -sche (discuss) 01:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
The noun looks to be equally dubious, but maybe that's just me.  :) What does anyone else have to say? -- Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 03:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I've created the much-needed añejo#English (add an adjective section to it if needed). As for "anejo": there are two hits in italics (which we dislike) here and here, and one hit where everything is in italics here. Everything else on GBC seems to be misscanning "añejo". - -sche (discuss) 07:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Someone who happens. Moved from RFD. -- Liliana 14:12, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. Of all the strange senses I saw in Google Books, that wasn't one. - -sche (discuss) 00:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


This might not even be attestable as a language name. Anyone willing to roll some dice? -- Liliana 15:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Added it. The book is written (mostly) in Italian though, is that a problem? Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 16:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
No one has objected to Ungoliant's citations, so I mark this RFV-passed. - -sche (discuss) 00:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Looks like 3 (Usenet, more than ten years old) + 3 (ditto) + 3 (Usenet) + 4 (festschrift) = 13 points.​—msh210 (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)


Might be too new to meet CFI yet...? -- Liliana 19:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It's a relatively new commercial product, so you probably won't find it in a book yet. There are plenty of hits on google though on shopping sites and there are plenty of sentences that use the term. The pinyin however will need to be corrected. JamesjiaoTC 21:39, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
RFV-failed (no durably archived citations were found). - -sche (discuss) 03:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


"Alt form of equal weight." This is a very common scanno, but everything I found was hyphenated or spaced in the original text. Equinox 19:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

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


"Caused by replacement of jobs with machines or artificial intelligence technology." Does not seem really distinct from sense 1, despite the existence of things like technological unemployment. Equinox 17:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Added by Tedius Zanarukando (talkcontribs) in 2006. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Included in 1st def, delete. --Hekaheka (talk) 20:11, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Delete per nom. DCDuring TALK 20:32, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Sense 1 might benefit from adding "resulting from". DCDuring TALK 20:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 01:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 04:34, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I've started filling in Citations:Spannungsbogen. - -sche (discuss) 21:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Alright, I've removed the many spurious senses, and added the sense the Duden has, the sense the literature most readily supports. - -sche (discuss) 02:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

waz up[edit]

Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 08:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added two citations and struck this. - -sche (discuss) 03:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

rathole tunnel[edit]

"a railway tunnel prone to excess fumes, generally because of a combination of straining locomotives and poor ventilation". Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 04:34, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed without prejudice: I see exactly three Google Books hits, but on uses "rathole" in quotation marks, and I can't be sure they all support this sense. Please re-add if you can cite it. - -sche (discuss) 01:13, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


"The smaller of two bullies. I'll take on that chump, and you fight the other one." Equinox 00:34, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Amazingly, this goes all the way back to the very first edit of this page by HiFlyer (talkcontribs), who hasn't edited it here since 2005. It seems the first definition also has never been modified in the last 7 years. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 02:52, 21 March 2012 (UTC)


RFV of the Modern English entry, whose sole definition is "Obsolete form of goodly." Given the inclusion in the entry of {{rfquotek|Chaucer}}, I doubt this form survived Middle English. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 02:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

If you find any of these that I've added from Webster 1913, then you can convert them to Middle English as needed. Webster didn't distinguish, and I've just been putting them in as is. Equinox 19:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Resolved. - -sche (discuss) 18:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)


- -sche (discuss) 07:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 07:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


- -sche (discuss) 07:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Besides this guy, I don't see anything. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:17, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait, actually there's [4], [5], and [6]. That should do it if somebody wants to add them as citations. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Oh, no, those aren't "durably archived", which we require citations to be (WT:CFI#Attestation). FWIW, this does have a few hits in durably archived places (books, journals, Usenet), I just don't think enough of them are uses of the term (rather than mentions of it) for it to pass. - -sche (discuss) 05:35, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Bloody. The very nature of the term is one which discourages usage in formats we accept. Books on Iqaluit are few and far between. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 07:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


- -sche (discuss) 07:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

This one has [7], [8], and this tweet. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 07:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 23:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

My brief look-rounds suggest that this is not a word. Takasugi-san, what say you? -- Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 03:10, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
I've added four citations, including one from a major dictionary (though the only part of the preview available was the word itself and its pronunciation). BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 09:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Can someone advise what the correct heading is so it doesn't say "English citations of"? BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 09:59, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
You can add "lang=ja" to the end to change the language. It took me quite a while to figure that out when I was new here, although FWIW it is, in fact, explained on the Template:citation documentation page. - -sche (discuss) 19:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, sche. I don't know how to read the explanation of the parameters on that page and no examples are given. I tried looking for a Japanese page with citations, but gave up after four or five with no citations.BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you Benjamin, those look good to me. If no one else has any objections, I'd say this has passed. (Though the def needs some help, which I'll take care of now.) -- Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 20:58, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
Struck. :) - -sche (discuss) 07:47, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. Was discussed on RFC (here). - -sche (discuss) 23:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a tricky one. I'm way too slow at reading Chinese to be sure, but it looks like it's a phonetic spelling for various foreign words. I've found 3 where context seems to show what is being represented:
  1. Citrus or Tilia trees: [9]
  2. "Lyme" as in Lyme disease: [10]
  3. Given that L and R merge in some varieties of spoken Chinese, I suppose it's not surprising that it would be used to spell out part of the name "Efraim": [11]
The tricky part is figuring out whether it's used as a word, or as the equivalent of our use of IPA. It will take a fluent reader of the language to figure that out. 01:06, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Keep. The word exists and the translation/transliteration is correct. Needs reformatting, though. Will address it myself. --Anatoli (обсудить) 05:12, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok; thanks for fixing it up! - -sche (discuss) 05:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it's a bit tricky and yes, character / is used in loanwords, e.g. 哈姆莱特 (Hāmǔláitè) - Hamlet. Striking -rvf. --Anatoli (обсудить) 05:22, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


Seems to me like a protologism, and it also needs some desperate cleanup. Anyone want to bite? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:09, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Cleaned up. It does look like a protologism, though. Equinox 21:24, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Speedily deleted as a protologism. - -sche (discuss) 19:07, 19 March 2012 (UTC)


I'm revisiting entries added by a known-suspect magic-obsessed IP user. This one isn't in any dictionaries to hand, and the hits at google books:"祝法" "の" (adding the の in there to make sure we get Japanese hits) look mostly like scannos or parsing errors to me, and those few that might be valid don't show enough context to rule out scannos or parsing errors, or confirm the given meaning of "blessing method" / "good magic". Can anyone verify this term? -- Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 15:43, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Although I don't speak the language, this magic-obsessed user has come up so many times, and failed so many attestation challenges, that I think he/she should now just be auto-reverted and blocked whenever he/she appears. Equinox 22:17, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
It makes sense, but I cannot verify it either. The definitions leave a lot to be desired as well. It seems that this user is neither a native English speaker, nor a native Japanese speaker, or maybe he/she is just an extremely poor dictionary definition writer. It doesn't seem to me that he/she is showing any signs of improvement either. So in conclusion, I support Equinox's suggestion. JamesjiaoTC 22:35, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Equinox. - -sche (discuss) 22:49, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
Deleted per this discussion. Cheers, - -sche (discuss) 02:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
A while back I blocked him for 3 months because he reverted another editor's revert of his work on Chinese with that editor's polite warning. I haven't seen him any longer since then. --Haplology (talk) 09:23, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Fascinating. It's a pity to see such zeal and energy go to waste, but when a user is so unwilling to engage in conversation and insists on doing their own thing, rather messily at that, the net result is that I'm glad they're gone. Still a shame, though. -- Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 19:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Contributions by[edit]

This user has added protologisms and 'invented' words in Japanese before, and now they're adding more Japanese words that seem very fantasy and fiction-related, which makes me wonder. Could these be checked? —CodeCat 22:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

  • I try to keep up but there are a lot of them. Also, the same person. --Haplology 03:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 08:29, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I've modified the definition and added three citations. - -sche (discuss) 20:19, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

sofa king[edit]

There are currently three cites, but the first one is not really a use (It's a mention of the Sofa King brand slogan), and the second is not being used seriously, it's a deliberate reference to the controversy over the slogan. Ƿidsiþ 11:28, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a radio station and a band which have taken on this name, so it's caught on in at least a minor way. "I love you sofa king much!" on blogs. Don't know if that counts. kwami (talk) 11:32, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Arlaina Tibensky (2011) And Then Things Fall Apart, Jenny Hollowell (2010) Everything Lovely, Effortless, Safe, Avram Mednick (2010) Pattaya Hash. That should be enough. It is marginal; perhaps we should mark it as rare? kwami (talk) 11:39, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
But "Phở King delicious!" is probably out. I only found one citation of that in GBooks. kwami (talk) 11:52, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I would reserve the word "rare" for terms that were also rare on the Web as a whole. The punning use seems common enough on blogs. DCDuring TALK 12:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I think the first one is a use.
The current definition is too dependent on the proper noun use. "Sofa King" can be used as a generic euphemistic, filter-defeating homophone in a broader context. DCDuring TALK 12:57, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
I have heard of this, in fact more than once, I think. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
The entry needs clean-up, but seems to have sufficient citations. - -sche (discuss) 05:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
Has been detagged by Kwamikagami. - -sche (discuss) 20:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

facebook friend[edit]

"A simple acquaintance especially a known person that is not actually held in high regard or considered to be a sincere friend." I only know it as "a friend on facebook". Mglovesfun (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Capitalisation looks dodgy too, since Facebook is written with capital F. Oh it's Lucifer. Right. Equinox 00:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Facebook logo has a lowercase f. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
Boo yah! And it's typically not capitalized unless its academic writing!Lucifer (talk) 03:43, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
You are simply wrong. Look, it's capitalised in general Web results far more often than not: [12] Equinox 12:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Anyway, can we cite it with this meaning? It's often said that a lot of one's Facebook friends aren't really friends but rather acquaintances, but I don't think that justifies this definition. It's just a common idea, not a definition per se. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:39, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Sounds like calling something other than a definition simply because the term is disliked, all words in all languages and it's a hella set term.Lucifer (talk) 04:48, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Friend has this covered. Are there citations for "Facebook friend" capitalized or not that demonstrate this is worthy of inclusion? BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 06:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 22:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


Supposed to be English. I don't think so. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Contributor cites and Italian-English dictionary in the references, hmm. Presumably if Italian, it's loaned directly from French. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Seems really in French and Italian, more common in Italian, even a search on books.google.fr gets more Italian hits than French ones, and zero hits in English. Humorously, a few of the French hits actually refer to a pregnant woman (that is, a "baby-carrier"). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I have converted it to Italian (after a bit of research). SemperBlotto (talk) 08:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I unstroke the title because it might be a bit hasty. gbc returns some valid results:
  • sense 1 : "A porte enfant is one of Bianca Maria's favourite gifts"; "If Baby belongs to a rich family and has a nurse, he is placed in a porte-enfant (like that described in Babyhood, Vol. I., No. II, p. 337) and is carried out to walk"; "One bore a baby -- In a padded porte-enfant -- Tied with a sarsanet ribbon -- To her goose's wings". And in this modern brochure : "It can be used as a porte enfant and a rocking chair, also with rocking function."; as well as on this site, or this site.
  • sense 2 : "The antiheroic monster figure Abel Tiffauges is motivated by his double mission of fulfilling his destiny as a porte-enfant, the symbolic bearing of a child, as well as by his need to interpret his reality"
Note that sense 1 may be divided into two senses: the modern handheld carrycot and the primitive ribbon wrapping (as in the poem above), which this book defines as "a sort of dainty lace and ribbon-trimmed cushion on which very young babies in most Continental countries are bound."
I agree there are very few examples, but they deserve some more attention imho. — Xavier,
Meh, for now it's kept as Italian (RFV-failed as English pending the discovery and addition of more citations). - -sche (discuss) 09:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


Gilaki language. Seems like an ad hoc adaptation of Gilaki into Portuguese orthography. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 00:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 20:35, 22 June 2012 (UTC)


Okinawan. Tagged but not listed. Also linked-to from [[human]]. - -sche (discuss) 23:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 18:40, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense, the verb "having analogous feelings" (sic). It's plausible (look at the one citation I added, which Luciferwildcat had previously added to [[parkoured]]), but we'll need two more citations and a more intelligible definition. - -sche (discuss) 21:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 05:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


Three senses, none of which I could find in Google Books or Groups. (If it does exist after all, should the plural not be shmen rather than shmans?) Equinox 21:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 02:27, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


"plural of pinyin". Seems not attestable. -- Liliana 12:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

pinyines is Spanish, let it be clarified, although it's not attestable in any language. In English, "Pinyin" or "pinyin" seems to have a meaning "a romanization (such as gou)", of which "pinyins" is the plural used at academic conferences. - -sche (discuss) 18:00, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
Evidently also French, because all I can find is this: [13]. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:46, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
No, in French the plural form is, if any, pinyins. It is ordinarily invariable though. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 22:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


"An exclamation of excitement, boredom, or spontaneity." i.e. no actual meaning. Probably an Internet invention by one or two people. Cites? Equinox 21:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I found two on Google Books searching on "keek" "exclaimed": [[14]] and [[15]]. I found one on Usenet (Google Groups) [[16]], but it is nonsense, spam or something. BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 01:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
At least one of those might be using the other etymology of "keek", i.e. might be exclaiming "look!" - -sche (discuss) 06:17, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree. The other is a children's fantasy book and appears to be simply made up for fun. I see no reason to keep this. BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 00:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 18:48, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

misc 2[edit]


Rfv-sense: (Australian) Earth closet.
Seriously? Note the demonstrably non-durable citation. — Pingkudimmi 12:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

There are hits for the word, but not necessarily for the Australian part: [17] Chuck Entz (talk) 14:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
To clarify: the word is used in Australia, but it doesn't seem to be particular to Australia. It's of English origin, and used worldwide Chuck Entz (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Examples from Google Books, though they differ in capitalization and/or punctuation: [18], [19], [20]. Also something from Commons showing the un-abbreviated version, though I don't know how to link to it without displaying it here(**now I do, thanks!**): Henry Moule's earth closet, improved version c1875. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:36, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I added four citations for e.c. meaning "earth closet," two from the nineteenth century. --BB12 (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, three citations. --BB12 (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I've moved the sense to E.C. per the citations (a few more of which are available). - -sche (discuss) 03:28, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


Tagged for speedy deletion, but it may well be worth keeping. Cites/formatting? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 03:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Did you mean Katakana rather than Romaji, in your change to the entry? - -sche (discuss) 03:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
God, yes, sorry; that was a stupid mistake. I've corrected the entry. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 04:10, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Japanese Wikipedia has a disambiguation page for it, see ja:w:テイラー. —Stephen (Talk) 15:09, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
It is interesting that テイラー almost always means the name Taylor because it is a more modern transcription. The job of a taylor in the katakana fashion is usually テーラー (Google Image: テーラー, Google Image: テイラー). — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:01, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
"テイラー" gets 30000 Google Books hits. Two Japanese-speakers, one of whom is a native speaker, have commented without suggesting that the term is anything but valid. Therefore, I presume it's valid: kept. - -sche (discuss) 21:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


A brand. DCDuring TALK 18:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 21:30, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


Can this be attested please? —Internoob 02:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I've added the entry for succisive that's in the NED [1ˢᵗ ed., 1919]; it quotes William Sclater's 1619 Exposition with Notes, upon the First Epistle to the Thessalonians and Henry Burton's 1629 Truth's Triumph over Trent, so that just leaves one more citation for us to find. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 03:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 21:31, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


It's listed in our oldest RFVs, but doesn't have an entry. The person who added the rfv said "English or Spanish?"; I'm not going to cite it right this second, but a Google Books search pretty clearly shows it used in English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:12, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

google books:"in Gringolandia" and google books:"en Gringolandia" show that it's used, both capitalised and uncapitalised, in both English and Spanish. I'll wave my hand at those cites and detag it soon if no-one objects. - -sche (discuss) 20:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Done. - -sche (discuss) 09:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: the craft of making various porcelain objects.

Added in diff, on 4 May 2009. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:23, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 03:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


-- Liliana 00:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Present participle of withe (to bind with withe#Nouns). DCDuring TALK 01:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I have (more or less) cited two senses of the English verb withe.
I noted mention of an etymology of with that connects it with ancestors of English withe. That etymology doesn't fit with prevailing opinion.
There is a different etymology for a computing sense of withing relating to some way of associating two parts of an Ada program. That might be too specific to be includable, but I don't know. DCDuring TALK 03:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
RFV-failed as Middle English, for now. Thanks for citing the modern English word, DCDuring! - -sche (discuss) 03:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


I only find 1 google hit. --Cova (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

One Google Book hit you mean; that one seems to be valid, but as you say, the only one. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Possibly an error for harquebuze? Equinox 13:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
And it's not archaic either. The book was published in 1998. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 00:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 20:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

reticular information[edit]

meaning the Internet. It refers to a network of stuff in the brain. --Cova (talk) 08:58, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Hrm. The Wikipedia link goes to reticular formation, not reticular information. Equinox 20:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
See [21]. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
See these 6 bgc hits for "r. information" and "r. formation" on the same page. DCDuring TALK 21:29, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Aha, so it's probably in+formation, not "info". - -sche (discuss) 21:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I can't find a medical/biological definition of such an "in-formation" at OneLook, which has a few medical dictionaries. Of course, trying to find "information" or "in-formation" in this sense seems quite challenging. The occurrences of "reticular information" in the biology sense include many that are references to "reticular data". It is hard to find something with enough context to make a definition. DCDuring TALK 22:21, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I think "information" just refers to normal information, or data, making this SoP. "Reticulospinal tracts deep in the white spinal columns transmit important autonomic and reticular information that is essential for survival." Mglovesfun's link, above, suggests that this was added in relation to that Wikipedia article which was deleted as unsubstantiated. Equinox 22:24, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
It would have been cool to find information = "in-formation" in scientific use. There were apparent uses of reticular information that seemed to fit "reticular in-formation". But that might suggest that biological "reticular information" would be SoP with the new definition of information = "in-formation". I give up on being the wiktionary discoverer of this. DCDuring TALK 22:37, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 04:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


and перка, Serbo-Croatian for "feather". Tagged but not listed. Several pages link to it; don't forget to remove it from those if it fails RFV. - -sche (discuss) 22:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 20:27, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

fairy-tale hair[edit]

-- Liliana 06:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I browsed Google for hits and found that the users of the term "fairy-tale hair" do not associate it only with hair that reaches to the gound. In fact, the definition "Any exceptionally beautiful hairdo for a woman* would be closer to the meaning than our disputed definition. --Hekaheka (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
This is a real term with a very specific sense, but I have only ever encountered it online so far, or among hair enthusiants. I am familiar with this term as a technical term used in forums devoted to hair care, where it means hair that has never been cut. There is also the term fairy-tale ends, to designate ends of hair that are pristine. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 19:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
RFV-failed for now. - -sche (discuss) 20:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "goggles"; the sense has been present in the entry from the beginning; it was tagged in 2009 but not listed. To be distinguished (by having a singular form) from "spectacles, glasses", which is listed on lunettes as plural-only. - -sche (discuss) 06:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hm, it looks like the "eyeglasses" sense, which I just noticed is French, is also attested in English: Citations:lunettes. Goggles for swimming I haven't found yet. - -sche (discuss) 06:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
Resolved. - -sche (discuss) 21:41, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


"The Moon or any moon." Requires citations in English, and uncapitalised; compare capped Luna. Equinox 01:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I actually started looking for citations of this sense several days ago (before it was added!), when I started considering it as a possible WOTD. My intention was to add the sense if I could find citations to support it... but I never found the citations to support it. Perhaps someone else will have better luck. - -sche (discuss) 02:26, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
This is a little sketchy, but do you think it counts as a citation?
    • 2006, Linda Rogers, Joe Rosenblatt: Essays on his works[22], page 85:
      How else would you interpret the desperate invocation to the Moon, voiced by a half-sick Pierrot Lunaire, half lycanthropist: "moons moons / luna LUNA / LUNA MOON lovely luna / everybody's inevitable essence../ luna birth / the flypaper man cries for a moon / hungry for a moon...?"

--Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

If we could find a third citation, I'd accept it, though I'd tag it as rare, possibly nonstandard. - -sche (discuss) 18:47, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
RFV-failed for now. - -sche (discuss) 20:39, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


Entered by an IP. The changes in sound and grammar in Old Saxon would have given luva and that's what I find in my dictionary too. This form is not in it at all. —CodeCat 13:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Only thing I can find at all: http://archive.org/stream/verslagenenmede28lettgoog#page/n131/mode/2up – 126, middle. Maybe a major confusion of love and live and cases?Korn (talk) 22:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
Maybe... The source you found mentions that luvu is the dative of luva, which is correct, but that makes this a case form rather than a lemma. However, it is about toponyms, and I highly doubt a word meaning 'love' would be a common suffix for place names. The only definition of 'luva' they give is 'woon' (a rare word for residence, domicile), which doesn't make its origin any clearer as I don't know of any Germanic word that both has that that meaning and could have produced 'luva' and 'luvu' in Old Saxon (if it exists, it would have been homonymous with the 'love' sense already in Proto-Germanic). In any case, it doesn't answer any questions really... —CodeCat 00:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 21:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)



Rfv-sense -- If this were a woman's given name from English, I'd expect the katakana rendering to be セリーン (serīn), in line with how I'd expect the name "Selene" to be pronounced in English. FWIW, I've never come across this name in Japanese. Anyone else? -- Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 22:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't appear in the fairly exhaustive JMnedict Japanese name dictionary, which isn't a good sign. Smurrayinchester (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
No, I didn't expect it to. That leads me to what I realize now is a side-question -- what's the policy on the katakana renderings of non-Japanese names, which セレネ etc. clearly is? Things like マイケル (Maikeru, Michael)? -- Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 23:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth, out of the hundreds if not thousands of people I've met in Japan, nobody had a name even close. I've never heard of anything like it. It doesn't really sound Japanese if you will, not even as an non-traditional name inspired by Western names.
I don't know of any policy about renderings of Western names. I'd feel pretty comfortable with a name like マイケル, because there's really only one way to render "Michael" correctly. My name seems to have two spellings in katakana, but for that matter it has two spellings in English too. JA WP might be a good resource for such widely known names written consistently ja:w:Category:英語の人名 As a small detail, maybe an entry like マイケル should link to Michael rather than using {{given name}}, since every マイケル is a foreigner, a "Michael", not someone with a name that came from "Michael" but isn't a Michael anymore, and マイケル is not a name that parents usually consider for their children, any more than Western parents would be likely to choose "Ryūji" --Haplology (talk) 17:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
There are only five male names under Category:ja:English_male_given_names and two under Category:ja:English_female_given_names, so it's a good time to think of a policy. I think all possible renderings should be given. Under John, "Jon" is given as an alternative form, etc. (Since Michael can also be rendered as ミヒャエル when derived from the Bible (w:ja:ミヒャエル), I'm adding that to the Michael translations.) BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 05:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 04:41, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


Should the noun form be unhyphenated (that is, "near field")? The adjective is correctly hyphenated as it is used attributively. — Paul G (talk) 13:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The unhyphenated form dominates (and I suppose is more strictly correct, although there are so many counter-examples to English hyphenation rules I wonder why we bother calling them rules), but near-field is certainly verifiable. I've put a few citations for both senses on citations:near-field. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Looks good; almost any two word term can exist as a hyphenate. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:46, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
I've moved the noun content to near field, making near-field#Noun an {{alternative form of}}. - -sche (discuss) 04:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

drain the swamp when up to one's neck in alligators[edit]

Tagged but not listed...? I thought this was listed. Ah, well. Notice Dan Polansky's good research, which is on the talk page. - -sche (discuss) 08:07, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a phrase like this, but it's hard to come up with a good lemma form due to the myriad of variations which are each only sparsely attestable per our CFI. -- Liliana 11:24, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
I've moved it, and detagged it per our policy of consolidating / picking (sometimes unattested) infinitive-like lemma forms for idioms, etc. - -sche (discuss) 05:13, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "peckerwood". The sense has one quotation, but that quotation seems like a mention. - -sche (discuss) 20:59, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Replaced with better cites. Smurrayinchester (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I think there are one or two senses of peckerwood, missing in our entry, possibly attestable: a prison slang meaning and a self-identification of some members of a US racist subculture, one or both possibly mostly Southern. It is mentioned in books about prison culture and about skin-head-style racism in the US. Once attested the corresponding senses of wood would appear to belong to a separate etymology as a back-formation from peckerwood. DCDuring TALK 22:55, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I tried to add the prison slang meaning based on the uses of peckerwood I saw as I cited featherwood. Do you think there's still something missing? - -sche (discuss) 23:02, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
I think it is used in all of the senses of peckerwood that can apply to a person. I'm not sure that we can attest each individual sense because it would take boiling the ocean. Perhaps the best we can do is direct folks to [[peckerwood]] with the hint "of a person". I'm not sure that we shouldn't remove some of the context labels that do not apply. An alternative approach would be to cite "authority" on the grounds that the usage is colloquial.
Also, I wonder whether the meaning of this is confounded with that of peckerhead (dickhead). DCDuring TALK 01:07, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
RFV-passed. Tweak the definition as needed. - -sche (discuss) 04:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


This entry gives the impression that this is the everyday British equivalent of "chalk", which is not true at all. "Chalk" is the spelling used in the UK just as it is in the US.

The OED gives "chaulk" and "chaulke" as obsolete forms of "chalk". As this term is obsolete, it should not be given full treatment and certainly should not have a pronunciation (least of all an American pronunciation if this word was obsolete before America existed).

The article also claims Wikipedia has an article on "chaulk", but it does not.

If, however, citations show this to be extant, we can list it as a variant spelling.

Paul G (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

@Paul G, how confident are you that this doesn't exist? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:58, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Chaulk might be a useful entry. It is not too rare as a last name. I replaced the etymology with a reference to chalk as there was nothing about the difference in spelling and eliminated the WP link. I suppose a link to WP's Chalk article might be OK. If the pronunciation was thought to be different we might want it, though we don't have, say, the EME pronunciation of chalk. DCDuring TALK 12:20, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
According to Prosfilaes (Wiktionary:Tea_room#Israelite), the word "archaic" refers to "words that are in use only by people deliberately trying to affect an old feel," which does not seem to match "chaulk." The definition of "archaic" needs reworking at the glossary. What do you think about this case? BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I've never found it easy to gauge intent in a typical text, one not written by a master. "Obsolete" implies that it would not be understood correctly, which doesn't seem to fit this very well.
The cites I've found are not supportive of "archaic by intent". Perhaps "dated". Also see here a mention in Notes and Queries. DCDuring TALK 01:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
obsolete says: "no longer in use; gone into disuse; disused or neglected (often by preference for something newer, which replaces the subject)" and the glossary says: " indicates a term no longer in use, no longer likely to be understood." For dated, the glossary says: "still in use, but generally only by older people, and considered unfashionable or superseded, particularly by younger people." My vote is for obsolete, though if more modern citations like the 1985 can be find, I think "rare" would be more appropriate. BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I think our glossary's definition of "archaic" is accurate: "No longer in general use, but still found in some contemporary texts (such as Bible translations) and generally understood (but rarely used) by educated people. For example, thee and thou are archaic pronouns, having been completely superseded by you. Archaic is a stronger term than dated, but not as strong as obsolete." As DCDuring notes, it can be hard to gauge intent: does a writer intend to create an "old feel"? It is easier to determine, from searching a corpus, whether or not the term is still in use in a few texts, but is generally unused (the test our current def entails). - -sche (discuss) 06:24, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
It seems accurate, but still lacking if intent is involved. Also, the definition includes terms that should be labeled as historical ("Means included for historical information; the thing it refers to is not in current use or no longer exists; e.g. blueshirt, Czechoslovakia. This does not mean the same as "obsolete"; while the thing referred to is obsolete, the word that refers to it is extant.") BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
The evidence of one-time relatively widespread use is mostly indirect: the not uncommon last name and some presence in place names. It is rare in print, especially as a verb, in which form it may not even be attestable. It is probably not obsolete because it is so close to the current spelling. DCDuring TALK 11:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
It's harder to judge intent, but that's what offering a definition demands of us. Certainly "obsolete" requires us to determine "no longer likely to be understood", and in the cases I think about archaic, it's not that hard to tell that the author is no longer writing in a modern mode.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Intent is the worst possible indicator. It might be usable for something literary, where it is reasonable to assume intent. The few uses in books do not signal intent. If we found any uses in groups I'd say that proves intent, but I'd rather say that the effect of the spelling would be archaic if it were used, whether or not it is actually used. In this case one could make the inference based on the parallels with similar spellings of other words ending in "alk". DCDuring TALK 14:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
The chaulk spelling is abundant at Google Groups (which includes Usenet), but a bit less than 1% as frequent as chalk. It doesn't seem archaic in intent. At more than 4,000 occurrences there (including the proper name), it doesn't seem rare to me, not that we have any criteria for "rare" (or for "common" as in "common misspelling"). DCDuring TALK 15:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps we could refer to it as {{context|now nonstandard}} or {{context|obsolete|now only nonstandard}}? - -sche (discuss) 18:33, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
I've never seen this spelling, despite reading loads of British books and newspapers. Would have guessed it was obsolete. Equinox 21:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
How's this? [23] - -sche (discuss) 21:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


Suspicious entry, originally added by known-problematic IP user. google books:"角神"+は generates over 8K hits, but most only show these kanji in other compounds. A couple that use this term clearly on its own seem to be referencing something other than the Wiccan god (no surprise given the very limited Wiccan exposure in Japan). This source gives a reading in furigana of kakugami, different from the tsunokami given at the 角神 entry.

Anyone else able to find anything more compelling? -- Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 18:54, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Moved to 有角神. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 05:53, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

white slime[edit]

- -sche (discuss) 03:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a great find, but unfortunately I don't think it can be verified before 2012. Words have to span at least a year before they can be added to Wiktionary. I did the following Google Books search:
"white slime" "meat"
with the dates set between 2000 and 2011. I didn't see anything that fit into this meaning. Is there a way to set a timer on Wiktionary to search again in April 2013 to see if the word is still in use? It appears 3 April is the earliest appearance [24]. Something slightly earlier might be found, but waiting until April 2013 is probably the best shot for this word :) --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 04:13, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
From what I have read it has been a term thrown around for quite some time and is nothing new, I think if we dig a bit more we can find it, perhaps on some organic/health food magazines?Lucifer (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
That seems possible, but I used "organic food" in a GB and got nothing. Without evidence, I would think it's a derivative of "pink slime," which was coined in 2002 but was only popularized this month. Barring another find, could you put a note on your own page to check next April? That would surely be the easiest way to check on it :) --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 04:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Wiktionary has the Citations: namespace for terms like this (and, I add, #розовая слизь)... terms that have begun to be attested, but which do not meet the "spanning a year" criteria. - -sche (discuss) 05:21, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Let's sit on it then but I am confident we can find something from earlier.Lucifer (talk) 08:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
RFV-failed for now. - -sche (discuss) 02:50, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


English section. I'm seeing PERSTAT but not perstat.​—msh210 (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like there might be some interference from the Latin perstat, which seems to mean "(this condition) persists."
--BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 00:31, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I suggest we move this entry to WT:RFM. The English section ought to be PERSTAT or a CamelCase version of the same. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:08, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I've added the medical sense to [[perstat]] and moved the military sense to [[PERSTAT]]. - -sche (discuss) 02:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


"Filled with glum." Not in Webster 1913, which only has the burnt/scorched sense. Also I'm not aware of glum being a noun. Equinox 20:57, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Webster 1913 has "3. (Med.) Having much heat in the constitution and little serum in the blood. [Obs.] Hence: Atrabilious; sallow; gloomy" and MWOnline has "archaic : of a gloomy appearance or disposition". DCDuring TALK 22:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

::Found this sentence: "In the asexual sporangium, the spores enclose random samples of nuclei taken from a preexisting pool and contain from the beginning the definitive number of [] ". Let's not waste more effort, delete. --Hekaheka (talk) 06:12, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Is this attached to the right topic? Chuck Entz (talk) 06:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
No, it wasn't. --Hekaheka (talk) 09:34, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Well ‘filled with glum’ doesn't actually mean anything. We are missing the classic sense of adust as describing humours, which is very common in mediaeval medicine. Maybe that's what they were getting at? Anyway I'll delete this and write a new one. Ƿidsiþ 06:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
"Glum" would be a phonetically perfectly-logical way for a non-native speaker to spell "gloom" Chuck Entz (talk) 22:01, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Has been resolved. - -sche (discuss) 07:12, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: A brand of Australian lager. Needs citations meeting WT:BRAND. -- Liliana 19:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

There's widespread use of the expression "wouldn't give a xxxx for anything else". This was originally the advertising slogan, but it's escaped in to the wild.--Dmol (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
The page to the right has quite a few citations of that phrase, if they can be accepted as referring to the beer. - -sche (discuss) 06:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
I've reworked the entry so that the beer is mentioned in the etymology, and the sense which the citations support, namely "fuck", is the definition. - -sche (discuss) 21:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "To protest against those favoring increasing economic power of the US federal government." - -sche (discuss) 19:00, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I cited it, but I'm not sure they're all acceptable. What do you think? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:52, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Two of them are for [[tea bag]]. Is it possible to find another of "tea bag", or two more of "teabag"? I'm looking on Google Groups (Usenet), but uses there seem to be of the sex sense or another sense we're missing(?). - -sche (discuss) 01:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Searching with terms like "Tea Party" or the names of prominent political commentators cuts down on the sexual material.--Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:11, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Well, I fully cited tea bag#Verb and made teabag into an alternate form. It still needs two more cites. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:21, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
Nice work citing tea bag. :) - -sche (discuss) 06:50, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
teabag: RFV-failed; tea bag: RFV-passed. :) - -sche (discuss) 04:52, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


RFV for the sense “(botany) Having the form of a cyme.” — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

A cyme is a type of inflorescence, so all you have to do is search on cymoid inflorescence in Google Books to get 76 hits, albeit in rather specialized scientific jargon. There's also a geological sense, though I don't know whether it overlaps with the architectural one or not Chuck Entz (talk) 06:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I see 29 hits for the exact phrase "cymoid inflorescence", 500+ hits for cymoid + inflorescence. I'll RFV-pass it without making anyone format the citations and actually add them to the entry, if there are no objections. - -sche (discuss) 03:31, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Struck as kept. - -sche (discuss) 04:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense noun; I'm pretty sure it's only an adjective. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:39, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Cited. - -sche (discuss) 01:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

- - - -


Rfv-sense. Are some whelks really called purples? Certainly the imperial purple dye comes from them, but wouldn't that be purple whelks, not just purples? SpinningSpark 15:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

  • The OED has, as its fifth noun sense:- "5. Any of several Mediterranean gastropod molluscs of the families Muricidae and Thaididae which yielded the dye Tyrian purple (cf. sense B. 4). Also: any of various other molluscs belonging (esp. formerly) to the genus Purpura (family Thaididae); esp. the common dog whelk, Nucella lapillus." SemperBlotto (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Withdraw - thoughtless of me not to look it up myself. SpinningSpark 02:49, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


The Latin declension table of phlegma was just edited by me. Note that I have basically no knowledge of Latin, but before editing, declensions like phlegmai, phlegmaibus, phlegmaa, and phlegmae were showing up. Not only did they seem non-Latin-ish, but they were linking to pages phlegmati, phlegmatibus, phlegmata, and phlegmate, with the t's. Even worse, these pages have their own problem — in phlegmati, for example, the word in bold is spelled as phlegmai. This is very confusing; I'm not sure if this is a Latin peculiarity where the t is optional or something (even in that case, writing phlegmati/phlegmai would be better IMO), and if it's not, I'm not sure whether this happens in other Latin entries too or not. Could someone with knowledge of Latin explain this? Wyverald (talk) 09:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It's a Greek loanword in Latin. The -t- should be there in all cases except nominative/accusative/vocative singular. (Why anyone would want to address phlegm in the vocative singular, I don't know, but the form exists just in case.) —Angr 09:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
I have manually fixed all the inflected terms, and the lemma page looks right now. They were created by bot after the human typo entered the lemma page. Thank you for pointing that out, Wyverald. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 14:32, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

leather cheerio[edit]

Those anons... --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:51, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Disgusting - but there's a lot of usage in the internet. Certainly not understandable as a sum of its parts. --Hekaheka (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Posted eight citations at Citations:leather cheerio: seven from Usenet, one from a book. "Cheerio" is sometimes capitalised. Astral (talk) 10:50, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
RFV-passed. - -sche (discuss) 20:23, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


I think this is a Pilcrowism (he added a lot of obsolete terms, some of which he just wanted to exist). Can we find three citations that are definitively not scannos? (Of course the inflections are not useful because they look the same as those of acknowledge.) Cf. judg. Equinox 19:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually Doremítzwr (talkcontribs), not Pilcrow. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Oops, yeah, should've checked the page history. But he's also known for archaic-o-philia. Equinox 19:08, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Keep, this is a common 16th-century spelling. Get rid of the inflections though, just use {{head}}. Ƿidsiþ 19:40, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
If it's so common, why not cite it instead of writing keep in bold letters? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:07, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Just saying dude. I've seen it a hundred fucking times. Anyway, now cited and closed. Ƿidsiþ 20:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Cited. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 20:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

have Van Gogh's ear for music [edit]

Can't tell if it is spurious or legit, any cites?Lucifer (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Cited from Google Books (a good place to check). Seems to have been introduced by Billy Wilder, as now noted in the etymology. Equinox 00:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Sweet, wasn't sure if it met CFILucifer (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

breathe sounds[edit]

Another form of breath sounds? But breathe isn't a noun. Only "breathing sounds" would make sense as far as I can see. Equinox 00:36, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I suppose it my be technically gramatically incorrect and therefore has an idiomatic usage here.Lucifer (talk) 01:50, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I have now deleted breath sounds: previously failed RFD, October 2011, re-entered without cites. Equinox 00:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
I added three cites!Lucifer (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Since Lucifer has admitted to being dyslexic, I wonder if this is just a straight error; we might need a definition {{misspelling of|breath}} at breathe mind you, as the two are often confused. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

As it was defined as {{alternative form of|breath sounds}}, which latter has been deleted at RFD, I've deleted this. The citations formerly in the entry are at citations:breathe sounds.​—msh210 (talk) 15:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Dislexia is not an acceptable excuse to reject someone's credibility, perhaps one of you has dislexia too if you conveniently missed the fact that there are many citations available including one that I provided showing I am not dislexically confused, in medical books and among medical professionals we use the terms, respiratory sounds, breath sounds, breathe sounds, lung sounds, and heart sounds, whether you think they fit a narrow view of what is grammatically correct or not, it's all words in all languages, and these are not words simply used at my school, workplace, or unit. They are used in the books that mark the international standards for medicine. Then some of you wonder why I end up mostly adding terms like cuntfucker and dickjuice, you guys never try and delete those, but noooo if it's medical terminology there is suddenly a war against it. That is a really weird and appalling state of affairs and makes this project and its participants look very immature, childish, and sophomoric with rampant weird-faith.Lucifer (talk) 19:39, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
We've nothing against medical terminology, but dictionaries are about single words. Sometimes two-word terms merit inclusion if there are strong reasons for arguing that the two words cannot stand independently, but often they are better entered as Wikipedia articles. Wiktionary does not accept mis-spellings unless they are common. Dbfirs 23:27, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

música para acompanhar[edit]

I found several citations, but they are all clearly SOP. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 02:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Besides, if pt-Wikipedia is to trust, the correct term is acompanhamento[25]. We had that word also in the ttbc-section of accompaniment. --Hekaheka (talk) 05:01, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
So: move to WT:RFD? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I was hoping someone could find citations where this term is used idiomatically. On second thoughts this term is SOP by nature, when applied to the current definition. So I’ll do what you recommend and move to RFD. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 23:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


"penislike; resembling a penis" Equinox 17:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Check Google books for "penisy breath", "penisy Flipper", "penisy-looking" and "glans-penisy". Siuenti (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm adding cites now; since we had an RFV for dangling thing or something like that recently, I'll point out that the uvula is also called "that little penisy-looking thing at the entrance to my throat".--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:06, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Prosfilaes has cited it (thanks!); it looks like it passes. And the previous RFV/RFD was of dangly thing. - -sche (discuss) 06:23, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


Tagged as 'wrong spelling' by a native speaker, but originally created by a native speaker, and no admin has seen fit to speedily delete it. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for my mistake. Yes, it's a wrong spelling. 昨夏 already posted, so please delete 咋夏. Thanks, electric_goat (talk) 13:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I've moved the relevant content over to the 昨夏 entry. 咋夏 should be fine to delete now. (I'd do so myself but I'm leery of being too hasty.) -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 15:40, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
If you've moved content from [[咋夏]] to [[昨夏]], doesn't that mean that we can't delete [[咋夏]]? I mean, we copied the content under a license that required attribution; if we delete the original entry, then the attribution is gone, and [[昨夏]] is a copyright violation. —RuakhTALK 06:14, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, then we just delete the correctly-spelt entry(!), move the wrongly-spelt entry, and restore, preserving the edit history. - -sche (discuss) 06:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
That doesn't really "preserve the edit history"; it merges the two edit histories, making a total mess. I'm not even sure if it really lives up to the spirit of the attribution requirement, because it makes it difficult or impossible to determine who contributed what. We do it when we have to, but we should avoiding having to. ;-)   —RuakhTALK 19:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Case closed. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:51, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

@Ruakh, @-sche --

I somehow missed seeing your posts earlier. Apologies for the late reply.

  • @Ruakh --
I'm confused as to what license you might be referring to? The only content I copied from [[咋夏]] to [[昨夏]] (the only content that [[昨夏]] was missing and that [[咋夏]] had) was a two items in the list of related terms, and the synonym. I reformatted both. These items also appear on (at least some of) the pages of those same related terms. I didn't notice anything about licenses; perhaps you mean Creative Commons as it applies to WikiMedia projects? I just tried looking at the pre-move version of [[咋夏]], but either that went bye-bye when it was moved, or I'm just not smart enough to find out how to get to it. It does appear that the edit histories of the [[咋夏]] and [[昨夏]] pages have been merged; the 昨夏 history page shows two creation events, one by Carl Daniels (talkcontribs) in Feb 2008 with the properly-spelled [[昨夏]] ("last summer"), and one by Electric goat (talkcontribs) in Nov 2009 with the typoed spelling [[咋夏]] ("shouting / chewing / biting / eating summer"). (I'm honestly confused how Electric goat (talkcontribs) managed to enter this misspelling, and why with the archaic reading sakuka, as the character is barely ever used in Japanese; using the Microsoft IME and typing in "sakka", or even "sakuka", [[咋夏]] is not included as any of the conversion candidates.)
  • @-sche --
You gave a move summary of "to maintain edit history for licence/attribution purposes"; what licensing or attributions did you intend to keep?

Just to be clear, I'm not looking for an argument, I'm just trying to educate myself.  :) -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:03, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I meant the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License under which all contributions to Wiktionary are released. If you feel that you didn't copy enough creative content to violate copyright, then never mind: that was my only concern. —RuakhTALK 19:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Gotcha, thank you. Copyright is such a mess, but given my (admittedly dodgy) understanding, I don't think the content I moved from the old page to the new one was enough to run afoul, as 1) it was only one synonym and two related terms, each consisting of a word, a transliteration, and (for the relateds) a gloss; and 2) I reformatted all three such lines, templating and adding detail, so it wasn't just a copy-paste. -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 19:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


Deep passionate love, or something. Ƿidsiþ 05:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

According to "Book of Martyrs" by John Foxe (1831) Agaperos was a young gentleman, who sold his estate, and gave the money to the poor. Later he was seized as a Christian, tortured, and then brought to Praenette, a city within a day's journey of Rome, where he was beheaded. It also seems to be the name of a star and AGAPEROS is the name of a reserch project studying gravitational lenses. Wiktionary defines "agape" as love of God for mankind, or the benevolent and altruistic love (of Christians) for others, but I found no evidence of "agaperos" meaning anything at all. Search for "felt agaperos" gives zero results. Emulating the "definition" given, this appears to be a word beyond any definition. --Hekaheka (talk) 20:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
User's only edit; obvious protologism. Does anyone have a problem with speedying it? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Not me. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Nope. I love that the definition is "undefinable love". If it's love, no matter how deep and passionate it is, it's still defined as love. There is no upper bound on love. Speedy delete as nonsense. Smurrayinchester (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Done. Ƿidsiþ 06:06, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


To me, this phrase is nothing special among phrases in the form X + 代わり. --Whym (talk) 00:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I wonder if this is the correct place for it. If I understand you correctly, this is something that has its meaning already covered by entries for the individual words that it's made from. In English this would only apply to terms written as separate words, but Japanese seems to be different.
If this were an English term: "address-book substitute", I would post it at WT:RFD to be deleted as a sum of parts (SOP) entry. RFV is for terms that would be valid if they were in actual use, in order to verify if they are. RFD is to decide whether they belong in our dictionary whether they're in use or not. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for your suggestion. I'll withdraw here and resubmit this to RFD. I was simply ignorant about the fact that RFD covers sum-of-parts cases. --Whym (talk) 03:50, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Struck. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

misc 3[edit]


And 8=====D~~. Citations please. (And surely, surely it's not a punctuation mark. Symbol maybe?) Equinox 10:41, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

  • emoticonLucifer (talk) 10:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Shouldn't there be more equal signs?? SemperBlotto (talk) 11:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Haha, I usually write it with 8 equals signs but I frequently see it with the five, I guess not all men are created equal.Lucifer (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Can we get someone to do a usenet search on this?Lucifer (talk) 06:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Now tagged 8=====D~~ linking to this section.​—msh210 (talk) 18:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
These emoticons exist. They're sort of like ASCII art since they're depictions using symbols. See http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=8%3D%3D%3DD~~~ and this page explaining them. There are many variants, but all represent the same thing. - M0rphzone (talk) 04:04, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
We need examples of use, not a definition in another dictionary. SpinningSpark 13:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Both failed, deleted. (That independent of any RFD-relevant arguments.)​—msh210 (talk) 19:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "home". Tagged but not listed. The entry is linked-to from several places. - -sche (discuss) 23:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

POS is thoroughly mixed up for this entry- the literal sense is adverbial. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:30, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it means home or family. That's the closest translation I can come up with. A-Cai's edits are sub-optimal. He thought too much of the literal side of this compound. Translations from one language to another are often flexible and do not have to stick to the original POS of the word. I will clean it up a bit so that it's more readable. JamesjiaoTC 05:02, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Translations I'm happy to have loose. However, shouldn't a definition attempt to use the same POS as the header? I.e., if the header is for a verb, shouldn't the definition at least attempt to use verbal phrasing? -- Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 20:33, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
This has apparently been resolved and/or is an RFC issue at this point, so I'm striking the header. - -sche (discuss) 17:21, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Does anyone literally mean it as a person who will die soon (i.e. not joking or meaning "disaster" instead of "death")? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:18, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

In a word, yes. But it should say "a dead person", as will be a goner doesn't mean "will be a person who will die soon". Mglovesfun (talk) 10:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
"Can't we stop it some way, Frank, as long as it's just beginning? He doesn't show it any other way yet. Won't he get well if we keep him away from the weed?" Jimmy's lips looked dry and his voice was husky. Wilson shook his head. "He's a goner if that's what it is. It may be a long time yet though."[26]
"He's a goner, George. He looks bad. He looks like a man in the last stages of--"[27]
I think it is not infrequently used of people who are merely doomed, not dead yet.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
It looks to me like the rfved sense is included within the "doomed" sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I have combined the sense, per my reading of this discussion. Indeed, I have combined all of the senses, because I fail to see how they are distinct in actual usage. If you disagree with the merge, undo my edit and let's discuss. - -sche (discuss) 03:28, 1 July 2012 (UTC)


Supposedly Middle English for with, although with is Middle English for with. I just added an entry for the obsolete early-Modern English contraction wth; perhaps the author meant that. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 04:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It was from a 19th c. reprint of a 15th c. book that does not show superscripts (even when expected/appropriate), so I wouldn't be surprised if you're right. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:20, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Well, I added my reference. As a side note, I have seen at least 4 different spellings of with in Middle English texts. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
Resolved, I think: there are no citations, but the dispute seemed to be over whether wth was attested in that form rather than wth, and I have changed the headword to the later form. - -sche (discuss) 17:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "An apparatus which creates drag by pulling against a surface." Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 20:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

(the following comment was moved from the bottom of the page)
This can be verified. Any apparatus that creates traction or drag by pulling against a surface. In computer printer hardware, tractors are sprockets with which the continuous-form, z-form, sprocket-holed paper is pulled though the printer. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

As in a tractor-feed printer. This is a “piece of machinery that pulls something,” but it neither “creates drag” nor “pulls against a surface.” That definition doesn't describe its function nor its method. Michael Z. 2012-04-05 06:11 z
RFV-failed for now. It may be redundant to the sense "Any piece of machinery, any thing that pulls something." - -sche (discuss) 22:18, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
I've struck the header. - -sche (discuss) 19:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)


"Fox Sports Network" - tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 20:44, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The tagged has been removed by another editor (WF?). Restore it and reopen the RFV if you actually doubt the existence of the term. - -sche (discuss) 00:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)


While trying to track down the Ancient Greek in the etymology (I'm not so sure it's correct), I discovered that this is just a derivative of a term in Appendix:English unattested phobias, and is very thin in actual usage- perhaps not attested enough for CFI. Is this any more worthy of mainspace than its parent? Chuck Entz (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed for now. - -sche (discuss) 19:45, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

( )*( )[edit]

( ).( )[edit]

( * )( * )[edit]

( . )( . )[edit]

In the same vein as 8=====D, above. Oh, they're all plausible, but how can we search for such chars? - -sche (discuss) 22:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Why wouldn't we create an appendix for emoticons? --Hekaheka (talk) 04:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
(Things in an appendix should still ideally be verifiable.) Equinox 18:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
These have got to, probably on usenet or some porn site. I had trouble finding some but a lot of search engines wont allow it. Little help?Lucifer (talk) 01:16, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I feel like we can trust that these are verifiable enough (if only from non-durable websites) to include in an appendix, I just don't know if we can cite them well enough (durably) to keep them in the main namespace. - -sche (discuss) 01:56, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
Difficulty of finding them using a search engine is not the same as nonexistence; indeed, the plausibility of their existence, which you admit, -sche, should arguably imply we keep them even if, due to technical difficulties, we cannot cite them. Moreover, such plausibility, especially when coupled with the difficulty of search, makes me wonder why these were brought to RFV altogether.​—msh210 (talk) 20:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
It's just three little quotations. If we really can't find that, then how can we be so confidant that these are verifiable? Michael Z. 2012-04-10 03:40 z
I've withdrawn my RFV of ( . )( . ), because I've seen it before. I haven't seen the others before. I'll keep looking. - -sche (discuss) 03:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I still want to see each of these cited as a term, because I don't think they are terms. I may be able to find three durable examples of 3-line ASCII-art kitties and circus clowns, but that doesn't mean these pictures belong in a dictionary. Restoring the RFV. Michael Z. 2012-04-11 06:14 z
Dude, don't make me create an entry for
  __            _    
 / _|          | |   
| |_ _   _  ___| | __
|  _| | | |/ __| |/ /
| | | |_| | (__|   < 
|_|  \__,_|\___|_|\_\
A picture of boobs is just a picture of boobs. Michael Z. 2012-04-11 06:26 z
I think since these terms are hard to search for based on the characters that make them up we should hold off and give them an extra long period of time to find the sources especially since various editors have been able to say they have spotted them not we should not enter the ///___ version of fuck because it is not a common emoticon, and in any regards it is more of a drawing or alternate font of fuck and we already have an entry for it. But we have ) and ( etc.Lucifer (talk) 22:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
I don't mind allowing a long period. But is there any evidence that these are used as words rather than just ASCII art pictures? Michael Z. 2012-04-17 20:46 z

Failed, deleted. (That's independent of the argument that these are pictures rather than words, which IMO is valid.)​—msh210 (talk) 19:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

various Polish terms[edit]

The Polish sections of the following (see #headshot and #trance, above, and Talk:podcastować): HP, FIFA, MacBook, Tottenham, Wimbledon, CAF, CONCACAF, AFC, UEFA, Barcelona; also these Polish words: freestyle'owiec, freestyle'ować, fristajlowiec, fristajlować, esemesować. I will accept links to (and I will myself look for) uses on Usenet or in books; it is not necessary to bother actually adding citations to the entries. - -sche (discuss) 03:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

speedy keep the abbreviations. The other words still need cites, of course. -- Liliana 00:16, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
The entry for "FIFA" says it has singular and plural inflected forms like "FIF-om" and "Fifie". Really? "CAF", "CONCACAF" and "UEFA" similarly have inflected forms; in contrast, "AFC" calls itself indeclinable. - -sche (discuss) 00:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
I've RFV-failed the inflection table of CONCACAF (but let the entry stay); surprisingly, UEFA inflections seem to be attested. esemesować is attested [28] [29] [30], as is fristajlowiec [31] [32] [33] and fristajlować [34] [35] [36]. Barcelonę is also attested, as is MacBookowi. To my surprise, even the plural forms of Wimbledonów are attested. - -sche (discuss) 04:24, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
freestyle'ować fails RFV. - -sche (discuss) 04:05, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
freestyle'owiec fails RFV for now; it may be attested in a few years. Tottenham is attested: [37] [38] [39]. - -sche (discuss) 19:34, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
FIFA, CAF and AFC stay, but I've removed their inflected forms as uncited. Only HP remains to be cited. - -sche (discuss) 23:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
Done. - -sche (discuss) 07:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)



I'm not familiar with these, and there's nothing obvious on Google Books (when I sift out the non-German books). - -sche (discuss) 08:59, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I can confirm from personal experience that both terms are widely used in spoken German. I don't know if I can dredge up Google Books hits, though, as the terms are usually used only in the spoken language, as the written forms Juni and Juli are less likely to be confused than the spoken forms. —Angr 21:07, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
What would you think of including the information in the Usage notes or Pronunciation section of Juli and Juni? If the terms are only spoken, not written, that might be most appropriate. - -sche (discuss) 05:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
They're primarily spoken, but I wouldn't say they're exclusively spoken. Certainly if I was transcribing speech or writing a narrative that contained dialogue I would want to spell Julei and Juno differently from Juli and Juni. The terms may be easier to find if you use common collocations like "im Juno" or "diesen Juno". Here's a book that uses Julei directly in its title, and here's a book that apparently uses "im Juno" when quoting a letter or telegram or something, but because of b.g.c.'s restricted "snippet view" I can't actually see it myself. —Angr 13:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Im Juno is common enough on Usenet, but I don't know German and don't know whether it's referring to June each time.​—msh210 (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
I know German, but I don't know how to search Usenet. Can you provide some representative links, or quotes? —Angr 21:12, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
google groups:"im juno"​—msh210 (talk) 22:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
Well, almost all of the hits on the first page are indeed referring to June. Plenty of hits for "im Julei" as well, but none for "im Julai". The trouble with searching unedited writing like this for Juno is that there's no way of telling how many hits are intentional uses of the byform Juno and how many of them are typos for Juni, since I and O are right next to each other on the keyboard. —Angr 22:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
If we know the word "Juno" to be used in speech (as we do from Angr's experience and that one book I found), then we start with the assumption (refutable presumption) that the citations of "Juno" intentionally use the word "Juno", and are not typos. Besides, there seem to be enough hits of "Juno" that even if 2/3 were typos, enough would be left to meet CFI. So, shall we pass "Juno" and "Julei", but fail "Julai"? "Julai" could be a 'blacklink' (i.e. unlinked) alternative form in [[Julei]]. - -sche (discuss) 20:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. —Angr 21:54, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
So it has been done. - -sche (discuss) 07:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

barely there[edit]

Equinox 01:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Surely sense 1 is SoP ([[barely]] [[there]]), sense 2 is really the same sense, just figurative, and the third is likely just plain wrong. How can a woman's legs or cleavage be 'barely there'? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:25, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Poorly worded. They meant that (something) is revealing the legs or cleavage, and that (something) is "barely there" Chuck Entz (talk) 07:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I thought so; so it's the same as #2, which overlaps with #1, which is sum of parts (barely + there). Mglovesfun (talk) 10:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
It is a sort of a play on two senses of bare/barely perhaps, but the play seems to me inherent in barely not in the phrase. DCDuring TALK 13:47, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

No citations, ergo failed. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:05, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


Does this actually exist? All the listed derived terms stem from physio-, and no examples come to my mind right now which would be formed from just phys-. -- Liliana 12:01, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Same for physi- I think, I can't think of anything that exclude the -o-. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:19, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Possibly physiurgy (physi- + -urgy) and physiatrics. -- Liliana 15:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Monophysite? --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
In addition to the examples Liliana found, I found physianthropy and physitheism (for which we don't yet have an entry). (I think it's a stretch to call the phys or physi in Monophysite a prefix.) So I would say there is evidence for physi- as a rare variant of physio-, but I haven't found any words in which phys- occurs as a variant of physio- yet is not followed by i. —Caesura(t) 19:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

rfv-failed as uncited. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:09, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


This looks at best to be an alternative spelling of imbalance. I would say misspelling, but I don't know by what criterion other than no lemming having paved its way at OneLook. DCDuring TALK 18:36, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I've made the English section a {{misspelling of}}-entry. The Spanish section should be checked. - -sche (discuss) 06:26, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the Spanish section. Any objection to keeping the English section as it is now? - -sche (discuss) 20:53, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I actually think it is an alternative spelling, much to my surprise. I suppose the pronunciation isn't distinct enough for someone to tell from hearing this common term. DCDuring TALK 21:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, kept as an alt spelling. - -sche (discuss) 21:58, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


I can't find this in my Old Saxon dictionary, nor is it given in any of the common Dutch etymology dictionaries (which show Old Saxon as a cognate whenever it is attested). Its Middle Low German descendant is listed though, so this is another word that seems to have existed, but not written down at the time. Added by User:Stardsen who I suspect is the IP from earlier RFV requests. He's been adding a lot of Old Saxon, but his formatting leaves a lot to be desired (I've had to clean up almost every entry in some way). —CodeCat 21:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

His formatting is getting better. As for attestation, I have no idea. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:01, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 23:11, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


Again, apparently not attested in Old Saxon in underived form, even though it must have existed. It is attested in derived verbs (gifōlian) and as a Middle Low German descendant (vōlen). —CodeCat 22:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 22:18, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


And again, not attested in uncompounded form... —CodeCat 22:31, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 22:39, 18 August 2012 (UTC)


Looks like it might be a dictionary-only word. SemperBlotto (talk) 18:51, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is one use I find: http://books.google.com/books?id=caUIAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=emacity&source=bl&ots=oDBssnxaSw&sig=IhYVA0eh1ZGa1MGxoXoZ-YOFDF4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=kPNIUNqIIurx0gHiy4HQBA&ved=0CEYQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=emacity&f=false WilliamKF (talk) 19:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Funny enough, the OED's word of the day email is emacity. They cite two 17th century dictionaries, the later one a word for word copy of the earlier, and then "1806 F. Prevost & F. W. Blagdon Flowers of Lit. 347 The disease of emacity, or itch for buying bargains."--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:40, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
Here's another citation:
2009, William Penn, Love in the Time of Flowers, Trafford, ISBN 978-1-4251-6949-7, page 161:
But they had not as yet entirely resisted the energetic sellers’ ubiquitously busy hawking, having bought with a surrender to emacity disciplined in spite of excellent purchasing power and no worrisome creditors at their heels, two or more little inessential gauds and bouquet garni from one and the other boutiques and kiosks….
It's from a vanity press, and it's the most excruciatingly purple prose I've read in my life, but I don't think either of those things disqualifies it as an attestation. —Caesura(t) 00:38, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
I suppose not, but it seems very clear that the author was dictionary- or thesaurus-digging for words appropriate to an older era. Yuck! Equinox 00:40, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Here's a third:
1653, Thomas Urquhart, Logopandecteision, reprinted in The Works of Sir Thomas Urquhart (1834), page 332:
…in some measure I descend to the fashion of the shop-keepers, who to scrue up the buyer to the higher price, will tell them no better can be had for mony, ’tis the choicest ware in England, and if any can match it, he shall have it for nought. ¶ So in matter of this literatorie chaffer, I…went on in my laudatives, to procure the greater longing, that an ardent desire might stir up an emacity, to the furtherance of my proposed end.
And here are even more uses, visible only in snippet view on Google Books—not enough to see the full context but enough to see that they're genuine uses:
So I would call this cited. —Caesura(t) 01:16, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
As an aside, I think the last citation is misusing the word. They seem to be considering it, probably by analogy to emaciated, to be the opposite to obesity. I can't find any other citations of that sense, but I wouldn't be surprised if one or two are lurking somewhere. Smurrayinchester (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

It has been a week with no objections, so I'm marking this one RFV Passed as cited. WilliamKF (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

misc 4[edit]


The definition for bork(rugby) actually belongs to balk in the sense of "(sports) deceptive motion". These two words are almost indistinguishable when spoken, and I suspect the definition under "bork(rugby)" is the result of a misspelling and should be deleted. Raoouul (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Not a single Google books result for "Rugby + bork" or "Rugby + borked" was a use, and I can't find anything from a plain Google search either. I think you're right, this should be balk. Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Shot on sight, likely good faith total error. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Cambodian accessory[edit]

Another dodgy "most outrageous words of the year". It has one Usenet citation, and one newspaper citation which may count, if the article appeared in print; also has a number of non-durable blog links. - -sche (discuss) 21:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep, five (5) total citations, plus three (3) additional references. -- Cirt (talk) 03:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Update: I've gone ahead and done some additional research. I've improved the page with additional USENET citations. Please see Cambodian accessory and new citations page, at Citations:Cambodian accessory. -- Cirt (talk) 03:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Note: There are now a total of four (4) citations to USENET sources, at Citations:Cambodian accessory. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 03:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Three of those citations are just "Cambodian accessory has been declared an outrageous word" and the other two are identical comments posted to different newsgroups. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Yep, there seems to be one valid one of those. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:32, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, clearly the term must have been in use, prior to the American Dialect Society meeting, so I'll do some further research. -- Cirt (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Well hopefully rather than clearly! Mglovesfun (talk) 08:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 07:40, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

ejaculation proclamation[edit]

Another dodgy "most outrageous words of the year". The last sense is cited, though the citations capitalised the term, suggesting that it should be moved to Ejaculation Proclamation; the first three senses lack durable citations. - -sche (discuss) 21:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep, respectfully disagree with assessment, each entry has appropriate citations. -- Cirt (talk) 03:17, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Note: I've formatted a few USENET citations, to make it more obvious that these are NEWSGROUP postings and therefore obviously durable cites. :) -- Cirt (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Sense 1: only one cite, which consists of the term as the subject line, not in running text. There's nothing to indicate that the subject line is anything more than a pun that vaguely alludes to the subject matter in the body. It requires very tenuous reading between the lines to derive the stated definition from the combination of the subject line and the body text. At best we sort of have 1/2 instead of the 3 needed.
Sense 2: More of the same pun, with the 2005 and 2006 cites being really nothing but mentions: all we can determine is that they involve Abraham Lincoln and orgasm. By my count that's 2 out of the 3 needed
Sense 3: The cites support a phrase, "delivering the Ejaculation Proclamation", not the term here. 0 for 3 on this one
Sense 4: I would call this one cited.
Basically, the first three are just wordplay, combining incompatible terms to see what kind of coincidental humor results. Vague common themes to groups of quotes shouldn't be treated as senses that can be defined. The fourth is saved by having become a cliché, and thus being repeated enough for CFI. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:41, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Probably delete: the fact that it has very many senses suggests that the two words are used in many situations and someone just thought it was cute to document them as a pair. Equinox 01:08, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
To expand on this: it is in our interests not to copy the silly, mostly unused words that are published annually as "cool words of the year" (or whatever), and rather to behave reasonably and rely on evidence. Half the "words of the year" were never used. tweetheart? fuck off. Equinox 01:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Keep and delete are for RFDs. We’re discussing an RFV. ~ Robin (talk) 09:41, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
Ideally that were so, but there are various situations where it makes sense to vote "Keep" or "Delete" here. Example of why you might vote "keep": if a request for verification takes the form, "needs citations that ____", and you think that the citations actually do not need to ____. Example of why you might vote "delete": if you think that an entry should be deleted even if cited, and you're concerned that someone might waste their time citing this entry because they don't realize that it's at risk of failing an RFD as soon as they do so. —RuakhTALK 18:21, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
ejaculation proclamation RFV-failed as such; one sense passed as Ejaculation Proclamation. - -sche (discuss) 08:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Florida flambe[edit]

Two senses. The first has two durable citations (I can verify that the first newspaper citation appeared in print, and I assume the second one did as well) and thus needs one more. The second has no durable citations. No hits on Usenet, and only a few mentions in Google Books. - -sche (discuss) 22:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Keep, four (4) total citations, plus six (6) additional references. -- Cirt (talk) 03:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
Last citation is actually Florida flambe-er (no, really!) but if you merged the three citations into one definition it would pass, wouldn't it? With a {{very|rare}} tag. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Since Florida's moving to lethal injection, I don't think this expression's got much of a future. ~ Robin (talk) 15:37, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it might actually be obsolete already, looking at the citations, we can only cite it from 1997 to 2007. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Striking as verified. bd2412 T 16:59, 10 July 2012 (UTC)


Sense: an animal that is rarely seen in the wild; indigenous to South America and has been know to hunt small animals..

Added by anon. Has several hits on Google Books, but it’s hard to tell the meaning. Note that Chiroptera is the order of bats. Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV 20:30, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

This appears to just mean "bat." See [40], [41], (fantasy), [42]. Keep, but change to "bat; member of the order Chiroptera." (Are orders normally capitalized?) --BB12 (talk) 20:47, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Re: "Are orders normally capitalized?" Yes. Names of taxa are always capitalized. (Granted, sometimes specific and subspecific epithets/names are used alone, as though they were the full species or subspecies name, and in that case they're not capitalized; but that's the exception that proves the rule. It's not really correct to write just sapiens; one is supposed to write Homo sapiens or H. sapiens, which is the name of a taxon and therefore capitalized.) —RuakhTALK 21:21, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Well the species is not capitalized. Would you capitalize both words in "Animal Kingdom"? Wikipedia seems to capitalize everything except the species and perhaps lower, though "kingdom" is not and "phylum" is at w:Animal. Even domains are capitalized: w:Domain_(biology). —This unsigned comment was added by BenjaminBarrett12 (talkcontribs) at 21:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC).
The species name is capitalized, as I explained. And "animal kingdom" is not the name of a taxon; Animalia (or Metazoa) is. —RuakhTALK 22:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
But it's Homo sapiens, not Homo Sapiens, so the word designating the species alone isn't capitalized. —Angr 22:14, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, there isn't a "word designating the species alone". The "specific name", sapiens, isn't capitalized, but the actual name of the species, a.k.a. the "species name" Homo sapiens, is. But regardless . . . this discussion doesn't seem to be productive. If you and Benjamin prefer to think of the rule as "names of infragenera and higher are capitalized, whereas names of superspecies and lower are not", then be my guest, as long as the result of applying that rule comes out the same. —RuakhTALK 22:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
I was genuinely just confused. It appears that "species name" can mean either the name used in binomial nomenclature, or the name used for the species level itself. In any case, it seems that there is agreement that the Latin names at each level of the tree of life are capitalized. --BB12 (talk) 23:45, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it's confusing. Technically speaking, the species name is a two-word entity made up of the generic name plus the specific epithet (I don't remember if the author name/abbreviation ("Linnaeus"/"L.") is part of the of the species name or just something that's required to be included with it at least once, then can be skipped in repeat uses: "Homo sapiens Linnaeus"). The generic name and species name together can also be called the binomen. When you're referring to a subspecies, the full name is three words, so it's called the [trinomen]]: Homo sapiens sapiens Linnaeus. In real life, even taxonomists will informally refer to the specific epithet in conversation as the species name, but not when they're trying to be precise. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:49, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
In case anyone missed the distinction, Chiroptera is always capitalized, because it's the scientific name of a taxonomic order, but chiropter isn't, because it's just an English word derived from the scientific name. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:53, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
"an animal that is rarely seen in the wild", and "indigenous to South America" and "has been know to hunt small animals" are the kind of phrases a grade school kid would come up with in order to sound serious and grown-up. The definition is obviously made up. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
I have modified the definition and added it as a synonym under bat. --BB12 (talk) 02:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz, perhaps a non-English speaker attempt to describe a bat without knowing the word for one. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:41, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
No sign of that. The English is perfectly ok, it's just the content that makes no sense as a whole: that is, the meaning of each of the parts is clear and unambiguous, but the parts don't add up to a coherent whole- especially not a description of bats. I don't see how "an animal that is rarely seen in the wild" could possibly be a translation error for anything describing a bat, for instance. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
Bats are frequently seen in the wild in South America, and they occur all over the world. My original guess was that the anon was defining another animal, but I failed to find any citations that refer to something that couldn’t possibly be a bat. Ungoliant (Falai) 17:10, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Closed as verified under an amended definition. bd2412 T 21:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


Nothing whatsoever in Google Books or Groups. Equinox 10:36, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The reference also seems to be made up as well as the entry itself. I can find no trace of this book. SpinningSpark 14:32, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
I've found it. It's not a published book, but someone's personal poetry blog. [43] Thus speedily deleted entry. Equinox 14:34, 23 June 2012 (UTC)
If deletion 7 1/2 years after creation can be considered speedy... Chuck Entz (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Replicated workers [edit]

Apparently a capitalised proper noun. Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 12:58, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Looks like a simple capitalization error (same with Thread pool pattern). Just move it to lower case. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
I've converted it to a lowercase plural and moved it. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)


I'm not sure how many of these citations are durable (is a mailing list considered durable for our purposes?), and more importantly, at least two of them are not citing the definition given. Instead, they seem to be referring to a different sense, meaning "melodramatic, soap-operatic", based on the phrase kitchen sink drama. Smurrayinchester (talk) 19:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Found two more cites (one book and one newspaper) for the "trying to wear too many hats" sense. Also found more cites for the other sense. Based on these cites, I wouldn't define this sense as "melodramatic," but something closer to the meaning of kitchen sink drama, like "depicting social realities in an unstylized and direct manner." Astral (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, looks great. I've added the second sense. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense A word or phrase chiefly used by the transgender community. Geefdee (talk) 09:05, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a usage note, not a definition. SpinningSpark 11:59, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't think it is. I think it's trying to get across a definition along the lines of Britishism or Bushism. That said, I can't find any evidence for this kind of use. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
It would be countable, so it should be pretty easy to search for 'a transgenderism' or 'transgenderisms'. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
None of the Google Books hits for "transgenderisms" are of this sense. - -sche (discuss) 03:04, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Rfv-failed. - -sche (discuss) 23:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


I think evidence is needed that this is not just an alternative form of sloth. The current quotation (Slowth lies behind the difficulties each of us faces in achieving the standard of living we desire) is an abbreviation of slow economic growth, as can be seen in Google books preview. Siuenti (talk) 18:22, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, to be precise (from an etymological perspective), sloth is actually the alternative for slowth, which shows the more, shall we say, "correct" form. Therefore, the definition of "slowness (= state or condition of being slow), tardiness, idleness" would aptly apply. Leasnam (talk) 19:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
I have issue with Etymology_2 derivation as blend of slow + growth. I don't believe that that is a coinage of a new term, but one individual's definition (his/her way of seeing/analysing) of what slowth is. Is is still the same word as above in Etymology_1. Leasnam (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
It was fairly obviously coined in the 1980 book by Kupferman. It does not mean "slowness" as he uses it and as those who discuss similar subject matter use it.
In all likelihood the computer citation indicates a modern recoinage of the word to mean "slowness" using suffixation. -th is productive in contemporary English. The amount of usage in speech of slowth in the years between the 19th and 21st centuries wouldn't seem enough to keep the term alive.
The RfVed sense could either be the old etymology which does violence to the truth diachronically or a third etymology, based on the current productivity. DCDuring TALK 20:07, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
For now I have put the RfVed sense in a third Etymology section. What facts would tell us whether this is a valid distinction? DCDuring TALK 20:16, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
This definitely looks better. Well, I would say that this particular individual formed the word (probably not realising the other, but I could very well be wrong), based on analogy with growth or from slow + -th. However, realising it or not, he/she created a word which I (and a few others) understand to already exist. But I kinda like this. If it cannot stand alone I would put it under Etym_1 as an unconscious alteration of sloth (Personally, I never use sloth anymore except for the animal, opting instead for slowth meaning "slowness, laziness" so at least for me personally, I have made a distinction between the two forms into two words). Leasnam (talk) 20:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
There are now 3 cites. All seem to be recent recoinages based on slow + th (to fill the void created by sloth = slow moving arboreal mammal). Leasnam (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Glas you like it. I personally have heard serial recoinages of coolth by folks who were not well-read enough to have seen it. (One of them was me.) From the self-satisfied looks on their faces (and how I felt) I would say they thought they were inventing the term. DCDuring TALK 21:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "To parse into metrical feet." I tried google books:"footed the verse", google books:"footed the stanza", google books:"footed the sentence", google books:"footed the line"... nothing. - -sche (discuss) 19:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Poetry is not my strong suit, but . . . what does this even mean? Aren't metrical feet scanned rather than parsed? —RuakhTALK 19:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
The closest I got (not very close) was this quote:
  • 2014 November 20, Robert Frost, Collected poems, prose & plays, published 1995:
    They are only lovely when thrown and drawn and displayed across spaces of the footed line. Everyone knows that except a free-verser.
I think it has to be read as meaning "having been versified (put into metrical feet) by the poet". There is ample use of the denominal footed in literary analysis, usually in combination (six-footed, light-footed). I could not find at bgc foots or footing in the same passage as "poetry|line|stanza|verse|couplet|poem". DCDuring TALK 20:49, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
Right, there are plenty of "-footed" combinations, but unless this RFV finds evidence of [[foot]] (foots, footing) as a verb, I think they all belong at [[footed#Adjective]]. - -sche (discuss) 21:28, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
RFV-failed / moved to the Adjective POS section of [[footed]]. Please modify the new poetic def of [[footed]] as needed. - -sche (discuss) 23:20, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


¶ I cou’d not find any Results for this on Google Groups, & Google Books is clogged with irrelevant Garbage Scans (Google Search is truly an abysmal Search Engine). --Æ&Œ (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Zero relevant hits for google books:"I'mn't a|the|in|on".​—msh210 (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I tried with verbs and adjectives, like "I'mn't going" and "I'mn't scared" and pulled up nothing. That approach avoids OCR errors. --BB12 (talk) 18:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
I suspect if this exists at all, it's either {{archaic}} or {{dialectal}} or both, so it may take a lot of hunting on Google Books. (Maybe the dialects that permit the word amn't also permit I'mn't, I don't know. But on the other hand, my own dialect permits isn't but not he'sn't, so maybe this hypothesis is full of shit.) Should this RFV also cover he'sn't, she'sn't, and it'sn't? I notice those three are all labeled {{nonstandard}}, which I'mn't'sn't. —Angr 19:07, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
He'sn't is easily cited (one · two · three), though it's also easy to find books explaining that it doesn't exist. It'sn't is also easily cited (one · two · [44]), which rather surprised me, because this double-contraction thing seems to be originally/chiefly Irish, and I thought Irish English used 'tisn't instead. (Though I guess they're not mutually exclusive.) I didn't bother looking for she'sn't, since it seems unlikely to pattern differently from he'sn't anyway. —RuakhTALK 19:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 23:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)


Pertaining to mice. Really? If anything, I would have thought it pertained to the Muscidae (house flies). SemperBlotto (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Or mosses (Muscineae) Leasnam (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
There are some relevant gbooks hits for muscine mouse. SpinningSpark 02:58, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
AdamBMorgan has cited the mouse sense. - -sche (discuss) 03:00, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
RFV-passed. - -sche (discuss) 04:26, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


Wonderfool entry. The one citation is from a non-written source, i.e. a transcription of a spoken source, so it doesn't demonstrate spelling. Can three citations be found for this? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't have thought so. Easier just to delete it? SemperBlotto (talk) 10:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Huh? It's from a written source, namely a written review of a Simpsons episode. Now, whether other citations can be found for it is a different question, and I suspect the author was just coining a nonce blend of "bestiality" and "terrific" rather than using an existing combining form "-riffic", but I do think RFV rather than speedy delete is the way to go. —Angr 11:59, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Would we call avclub.com durably archived? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
There is (or perhaps was) a print version of the AV Club, distributed with The Onion. I don't know if this was in it or not. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Widespread use This seems to me to be used productively by enthusiastic people to form words all the time. Arguably, for such a suffix the best evidence is not that it has generated attestable words but that it has generated a vast variety of words. What might be easier to attest is -iffic because it has attestable derived terms, such as wonderiffic. I think that whether words ending in "(r)iffic" are blends with terrific depends on:
  1. the spelling difference (double "f")
  2. whether there is meaning not closely associated with terrific
  3. the number of words so ending.
-- DCDuring TALK 12:19, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Fanzines alone would almost certainly provide sufficient evidence of productivity: Bieberiffic and Bieberific each have more than 50K raw Google web hits. DCDuring TALK 12:43, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. It looks to me like a common practice of creating blends based on terrific rather than a productive suffix, somewhat like the -licious in words like bootylicious. I believe it comes from humorous imitation of the fondness of US advertising copywriters for gratuitous blends (I seem to remember a print ad for Lucky Charms saying they were "tasty-o-licious", for example). Chuck Entz (talk) 18:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Could be. But that creative language use has been rented and exploited by advertisers doesn't make it less an indication of what folks can be expected to understand.
Why do you think the spelling difference has arisen? After all terriffic occurs with about 0.5% the frequency of terrific on the Web, whereas Bieberiffic occurs with more than 15% of the frequency of Bieberific. A factor-of-30 difference is not to be sneezed at. DCDuring TALK 18:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to Bieberiffic if it's attested per WT:CFI, is it? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:53, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
That's a canard. The issue is whether widespread use of -iffic or any other affix to make terms that may not be individually attestable isn't good evidence of use of the affix and indeed better evidence of productivity. It would seem particularly unfortunate to have a system that effectively excluded widely used productive affixes until, possibly, their time had passed. I would argue that three attestable uses of the affix, each of a distinct term, would be attestation under CFI. DCDuring TALK 16:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
@DCDuring, you can stop debating now, Ruakh's cited it. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
It's been cited with a whole bunch of different prefixes, I assume no-one is demanding that the terms which have been used must be attestable themselves. Siuenti (talk) 11:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
It seems to be accepted that terms using the suffix need not be attestable, only the use of the suffix itself. DCDuring TALK 13:08, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Closed as verified in light of the foregoing discussion. Cheers! bd2412 T 15:17, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

have had one's Weet-Bix today[edit]

The single citation doesn't use the lemma, and the link appears to be broken. The best I could find is a direct reference to the Sanitarium ad, here. — Pingkudimmi 14:07, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

See eat one's Wheaties. DCDuring TALK 14:14, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I can find cites for the UK/Irish version, to have had one's Weetabix (same product, very slightly different brand names), would they do? (Going to post here in the meantime, rather than putting in the article).
2012, Rob Brown, A Three Weetabix Man, The Grocer.
It’s a good job Giles Turrell has had his Weetabix this morning.
2011, Rod Gilmour and Alan Tyers, England v India: fourth ODI as it happened, The Daily Telegraph
Excellent stuff from Finn. He's definitely had his Weetabix today: steaming in once again.
That said, I wouldn't object to the page being moved to "have had one's Weet-Bix" / "have had one's Weetabix". The today part doesn't seem to be vital - it's often replaced with "this morning"/"that morning"/"yesterday" or simply skipped altogether. Smurrayinchester (talk) 19:11, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
I've moved the term to [[have had one's Weetabix today]] per Smurray's citations. - -sche (discuss) 07:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
Technically RFV-failed, but I haven't deleted the redirect, because I think our practice is to redirect forms of proverbs that are long, like this, and thus unlikely to be terms in other languages. - -sche (discuss) 06:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
Why isn't this at have one's Weetabix today or even have one's Weetabix, with any longer forms redirecting to the core of the catchphrase if we don't trust the failed-search page to lead users to the core entry? DCDuring TALK 11:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
See Citations:have one's Weetabix. There usually is some temporal either explicit or implicit, but it certainly isn't always today and the expression isn't always past perfect. DCDuring TALK 11:38, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


Thimble-collecting. Doesn't look CFI-attestable to me. Equinox 01:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

digitabulist passes. It seems a shame to not include -ism since it is almost certainly used, given the existence of digitabulist, but I cannot find citations for -ism. BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 04:14, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure digitabulist would pass: it is included in some books, but always accompanied by a definition. They tend to be mentions, not uses. Compare all those phobias that appear in lists but never in conversation. Equinox 10:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
On [45], the "Elephants Jump" and the "Grove" citations seem to fit. Searching on the Internet, this word does seem to be in use by thimble collectors, but the only third reference I can find is use as an e-mail address: [46]. BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
RFV-failed, deleted. - -sche (discuss) 03:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "a female hemp plant". - -sche (discuss) 03:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I see a lot of hits for "carl hemp" (and carl-hemp and carle-hemp), but none for just "carl." There are a lot of hits, though, so they might be out there.
I see "carl hemp" defined both as the female and male hemp plant, so I think that should get an entry. Many of the hits have formulations like "carl, or male hemp," so "carl" could be given an adjective entry, but since this is limited to hemp, I think an entry for "carl hemp" would be better. BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 03:58, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
RFV-failed for now. - -sche (discuss) 01:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense, in the Spanish section, "coyote (Mexican paying to be smuggled illegally into the United States of America)". Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 20:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

See [47] and [48] for examples where "pollo" appears to be used for the people paying to be smuggled. Defining "pollo" as "coyote" is wrong, though. If you look at the definition for "coyote" (in English or Spanish) it says it means the person who smuggles people, not the person paying. BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 08:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
RFV-failed for now. - -sche (discuss) 00:55, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

virtual community[edit]

Rfv-sense: "A community that is not defined by physical boundaries but by the interests of its members." Sounds unlikely. I think it's an overextension of the first sense. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I suppose you could use "virtual community" to refer to a collection of individuals or groups of people who surf, knit or hunt rabbits and do not necessarily communicate with each other over the Internet. That's perhaps along the lines of the first definition of virtual. But in that case, I think the second definition fails due to SOP. --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 04:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 01:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


Three citations for a real food product please. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

This is simply an extension of an enWiki debate with POINTy entries here, alas. Collect (talk) 23:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Wiktionary is not Wikipedia. -- Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 23:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
@collect, @eirikr utlendi: Soylent Green and soylent have absolutely nothing to do with pink slime or any "debate" on wikipedia. Please avoid personal attacks and irrelevant commentary. Verification is only meant to discuss the validity of any citations for an entry and nothing more.Lucifer (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Indeed, verification is what I'm happy to wait for. I'm a bit confused about you calling me out for personal attacks or irrelevant commentary? I don't recall making any such. -- Eiríkr ÚtlendiTala við mig 03:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Just a reminded to the two of you and in general and the WINW seemed out of place FWIW.Lucifer (talk) 04:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

This is an interesting word. The origin seems to be the book "Make Room! Make Room!" (if so, that should be added to the etymology) and is a blend of "soya" and "lentil." In the movie "Soylent Green" (evidently not the book), soylent turns out to be made from human meat (after originally being made from plankton). Because of the scarcity of food, soylent steaks are in great demand.

So there is potential for soylent to be a vegan food, a mystery meat and an unpleasant food. In the citation provided, "soylent" appears not to be cheap vegan food, but food that is poor-tasting or somehow synthetic: "Both dishes are an artificially flavored, perfectly balance nutritional supplement.... a cup of green liquid.... Chance walked away, sulking. This certainly isn't Momma's home cooking."

This word seems to be used multiple times, particularly in science fiction. In the story "Cholent", for example, it seems to mean "nasty food": "You can make your soylent or whatever..."' "Cholent!" came back the angry correction.

Here is another science fiction book where it means "nasty food": "I'm talking real Megalopolis cuisine. Not that soylent stuff they feed us at school."

In this memoir, the word is used to mean "nasty food": "My mother's upstairs in a coma.... Tried to force-feed her some green, soylent product."

Here is a mystery using "soylent" to refer to pea-soup green in color: "...it looks like pea soup. Soylent green."

Two other books that seem to have different meanings:

  1. [49]: "Soylent Oil!" Perhaps this means "synthetic." I'm not sure.
  2. [50]: "But can we make it Soylent now..."
  3. [51]: "Ethan is a great speaker, he is teethed in soylent lime today,..." - not sure what this means at all

I would particularly like to know what the "Soylent Oil" meaning is, but either way, I think this should be redefined along the lines of unpleasant/undesirable food that has been processed to the point its ingredients cannot be discerned. --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 04:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

  • motion I believe we now have it verified and well developed and we should delist it.Lucifer (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Those citations are awful. The first one is a use of it as a fictional brand name - fine to cite as its coinage, but not as its use. The second isn't a use of the word soylent but of soylent green, as a direct reference to the movie, and the third is the same. None of these verify its use as "bland vegan food", they only show that people reference the movie Soylent Green (and the lesser known novel it's based on). Smurrayinchester (talk) 22:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
Edit Having checked the actual citations page, the 2003 citation seems like it may be legit (although I think it's just another reference to the book, possibly using it to mean "food made of humans" rather than "bland vegan food"), all the others are just direct references to soylent green. 2006 is especially bad - it's simply taken from a review of Make Room! Make Room! which is quoting the book, so it's not even an independent use. I'm not sure these citations have been properly checked - it seems like simply every passage including the word "soylent" has been copypastaed from a Google Book search, regardless of whether it uses the word soylent in the right way or not. Smurrayinchester (talk) 22:05, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the citations generally seem to point to the book/movie, not the term in general. I don't feel comfortable with the "soylent (color)" examples. I think the citations I provided demonstrate the common usage. Also, I disagree with the definition as rewritten. See for example, the citation above: "I'm talking real Megalopolis cuisine. Not that soylent stuff they feed us at school." One more thing, the etymology says it's a blend, but if the term is from the book, that should be mentioned, too :) --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 22:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The original book uses the futuristic contraction as a common noun – p 24 makes it clear that soylent steaks means “soybean and lentil steaks.”

In the film screenplay, it is the proper name of Soylent corporation, and the brand name of its products, Soylent Green, Soylent Red, and Soylent Yellow – we learn that “Quick-energy yellow Soylent made of genuine soybean,” but there is no real connection to the etymology of the name.

Subsequent uses are mostly allusions to the movie that imitate the brand names for their indeterminate quality. It's perhaps a kind of placeholder word if anything. Michael Z. 2012-04-22 21:45 z

I would call it a suitably-creepy futuristic update on humorous food terms like mystery meat. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
The sense "An undesirable, lackluster, and artificial foodstuff often in lieu of real meat." has three citations, but it could be argued the "soylent red"-type citations don't quite attest "soylent", but instead attest "soylent red", etc. However, some of the citations linked-to above ([52], [53]) seem better. - -sche (discuss) 19:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Closed as verified in light of the citations provided at Citations:soylent. Further discussion as to the wording of the definition is an editorial matter, not a verification matter. bd2412 T 01:44, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


Looks like a dictionary-only word to me. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

There are three citations now. Except in one case, the word is always defined. Two more borderline citations are: [54] and [55]. —This comment was unsigned.
Passes? - -sche (discuss) 03:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Just barely passes. - -sche (discuss) 01:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-senses relating to Cheshire.

These senses were added by Aristidebruant (talkcontribs). I've only ever heard of Cestrian being used to mean someone from Chester, and the only evidence I can find of its use to mean someone or something from Cheshire in general is a school in Trafford called "North Cestrian Grammar School", and that apparently took its name from Latin as a way of getting around rules on naming schools, rather than taking its name from the English word. Can anyone verify this sense? Smurrayinchester (talk) 21:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems likely that if Cestrian is used for the city, it could easily be used for the county. Would it be possible to just generalize to any geographical name of Chester? Here are some citations:

--BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed / semi-merged. - -sche (discuss) 01:46, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


"(computing, nonstandard) A superset of computer software composed of computer viruses, trojans, and worms." Note this is entered as a separate sense from the non-standard plural of virus (usual dictionary plural: viruses). Equinox 13:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The rfv sense was the original one, with the "plural of virus" one added in the second edit by a different IP. Since the rfv sense is obviously also the plural of one possible sense of virus, this looks more accidental than intentional. Also, aren't trojans and worms just particular types of viruses, not members of "A superset" with them? Chuck Entz (talk) 14:01, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
By the definition at computer virus, trojans aren't viruses; trojans don't propagate, at least not in the general sense. According to w:Computer worm, the difference between a worm and a virus is that the virus attaches itself to an existing program and a worm doesn't; I'd accept that, though our definition doesn't show it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
RFV-failed as uncited; it is now merely the plural of "virus", where it seems logical to discuss any broadening of sense. - -sche (discuss) 21:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

head trip[edit]

Rfv-sense: An act of self-pleasure. (masturbation).

Could be, but not in my experience. There is possibly a missing sense of ego trip or self-indulgence for this term. DCDuring TALK 14:11, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 01:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

horse hockey[edit]

Poor man's street hockey, with frozen horse dung. I suspect a hoax. Equinox 15:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

According to dictionary.com "horsey hockey" means "horse dung" [63]. --Hekaheka (talk) 15:42, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Well here's someone describing it, but doesn't specifically call it "horse hockey": http://www.hhsm.ca/4a_custpage_75433.html

Just to save rest of folks from the trouble of checking: the writer uses the term "road hockey" of the game. --Hekaheka (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Rfv failed: no citations provided. I tried to google this and it appears that bits of frozen horse dung called "horse hockey" were actually used as pucks in 1930's but I could not find any evidence of the game itself being called with that name. --Hekaheka (talk) 13:56, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


"(proscribed) A person whose parents are deceased." Really? Equinox 16:43, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

  • Surely not. I have never come across that usage in my long life. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
I think something like, "My parents are dead, so I guess I'm an adult now," sounds likely, but I don't think it should get an entry without some clear evidence. --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 01:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
I found a citation: [64]: "I'm an adult now, my parents are gone." I don't think this works, but perhaps this is what the definer was thinking of. --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 01:07, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
Presumably a child whose parents are deceased, as if it were an adult, they'd already be an adult. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:53, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
It still sounds acceptable to me. It's metaphorical, along the lines of the eldest son being told he's the man in the family (and sitting at the head of the table) after the father passes away. I think it needs solid evidence, but I don't think it's particularly unusual. --BenjaminBarrett12 (talk) 09:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
... but it's just the normal meaning of the word, with an implication that the child has now to behave like an adult, even if he or she isn't technically adult yet. As such, this so-called "sense" does not deserve a separate entry. It's definitely not a synonym for orphan! Dbfirs 15:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Here since December 2005! Ugh! Added by Tedius Zanarukando (talkcontribs). Mglovesfun (talk) 07:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 01:58, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


Needs citations per WT:FICTION. Dominic·t 21:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed, deleted. - -sche (discuss) 03:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


Has to be cited from Usenet, because books are assumed to use letters, whereas this entry uses modifier characters: but if Usenet posts can be found which use these exact characters, this will pass and be kept as attested. - -sche (discuss) 04:55, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Nothing anywhere that doesn't trace back to us- and zilch on usenet. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:28, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Btw, previous discussions are Using modifier letters for superscripts and Wiktionary talk:Votes/pl-2012-02/Handling of superscript and subscript letters. To expand my comment about books: if there are books that use "honble", they support an entry *[[honble]] (likely using the template we have that forces the pagetitle to display partly superscript) or, if it is necessary to distinguish "honble" from "honble" because both are attested (even in different languages), "honble" will be an Unsupported title linked to from [[honble]]. - -sche (discuss) 06:50, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Maybe I don't understand. Revise: Almost certainly I don't understand. Why, for example, is the first page of this book not a valid citation? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:23, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
What -sche is saying (and I agree) is that that's a valid citation for "honble" (hon followed by superscript ble), but not a valid citation for "honᵇˡᵉ" (hon followed by three Unicode modifier letters, which look very much like superscript letters but are actually special Unicode characters intended for use chiefly in phonetic transcription; for example, the "ˡ" in "honᵇˡᵉ" is intended for use in, for example, IPA transcriptions to indicate lateral release). That is, the current entry honᵇˡᵉ is not actually hon plus superscript ble, as it appears, but hon followed by some misused Unicode phonetic symbols. Rather than delete the entry straightaway, -sche has created this RFV to see if this spelling of "honᵇˡᵉ" as hon followed by some misused Unicode phonetic symbols is actually attestable. —Caesura(t) 01:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
And so we're saying that the manner in which functionally identical characters were entered ought to be something that Wiktionary distinguishes? What a mess. Why not send 'em all to RFD/BP/whatever and make redirects? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by functionally identical characters. ˡ, for example, is not functionally identical to l: l is a superscript letter (its function is to be a letter in the spelling of words), ˡ is a lateral release diacritic (its function is to indicate articulation in a pronunciation transcription). Books use letters, unless they're books that contain IPA transcriptions of laterally-released consonants, so that old book gets typed up using l, while we might use ˡ in a narrow IPA transcription of spotless. - -sche (discuss) 02:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
(I'm posting this after an edit conflict, in case it explains anything Caesura didn't.) I can't actually see the book you link to, but I assume it looks about like this, that is, it's got normal-sized letters hon followed (without a space) by small, raised letters ble. Right? Those are all regular letters, though some of them are raised. Thus, that citation proves that "honble" exists, and if there are, as I trust there are, two other similar citations, we'll have an entry at honble (with <sup> tags) or a subpage of Appendix:Unsupported titles. ᵇˡᵉ, meanwhile, are Unicode modifiers (ˡ, for example, is used in IPA transcriptions to represent lateral release). The opinion, expressed more vehemently by some than by others, in the discussions I linked to, is that it would be wrong of us to use them to stand in for superscripts in books : but, if there are citations on Usenet that use those exact characters, that supports having the entry honᵇˡᵉ. - -sche (discuss) 02:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
(after edit conflict- twice!) A good analogy showing the issues involved would be an English entry for рорру (transliterated "rorru") using Cyrillic. Yes, it looks right, but no one is going to search for it with those characters, and anyone who searches for poppy isn't going to find this spelling. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:15, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, I reread that old vote, and all your ec'd explanations. Thanks. I had totally forgotten this problem and the whole discussion surrounding it (FWIW, I voted in favor of regular letters). I am tempted to rerun the vote, just to see if we can gain consensus this time and nullify the need for all this. Do you think that it could work? --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:06, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I don't agree that no one is going to search with those characters. If рорру shows up on Usenet and elsewhere on the net, it's entirely possible that someone is going to copy-and-paste it into a Wiktionary search box.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:22, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
How could it ever show up anywhere? As far as I know, no one uses Cyrillic for English. There are very few English words that can be spelled with lookalike Cyrillic characters, especially lowercase ones. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
I take that back. There are a few hits from bad OCR, but most of the tens of thousands of Google hits are for creations of people playing games with characters. If we accommodate OCR errors, do we need alt-form entries for rnorn (mom), clacl (dad), etc.? Chuck Entz (talk) 15:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Then it's not a good analogy. The argument is that as long as people are using these strings of Unicode code-points, we should record that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:21, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


As above.

Nothing on usenet- as above Chuck Entz (talk) 06:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


As above. This exact string of characters needs to be attested. - -sche (discuss) 05:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

On usenet: a whole lotta nada- as above. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)







Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion#1.CB.A2.E1.B5.97.

All of these misuse Unicode modifier letters as superscripts. The proper entries (1st, 2nd, 3rd, 5th, 7th, 9th) already exist. And at least in the font my computer is displaying the page in, the letters of 2ⁿᵈ don't line up as they aren't the same size. - -sche (discuss) 02:12, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer to move these to RFV. It is misuse of Unicode modifier letters, but if that spelling is citable from Usenet sources, then we should keep it with a usage note.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:17, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Although some of these are used elsewhere on the web, none of them is used on usenet. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


No such language. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

See the term's creator's talk page. It's possible the language exists (w:Anca language or w:Manta language), but it's unlikely the word does. - -sche (discuss) 07:35, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Given the content, it seems relatively obvious that the w:Anca language is the one in question. However, Semper is right. Anca is not a language. It's a cant, and Wikipedia, ISO, and other authorities agree. Moreover, it appears that this term is unciteable in any language. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:44, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
The Wikipedia article for Anca seems highly dubious to me, I've just nominated it for deletion. SpinningSpark 15:14, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Ouch, you're right. I've commented there. --Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
"Anca is a descendant of the spoken Spanish and French languages, yet the closest relatives are the Western Romance languages." That's hilariously bad. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deleted as a fatuous entry. The WP article on the imaginary Anca language has now also been deleted. —Angr 13:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

ferramenta [edit]

Any takers. Needs a headword and a proper definition if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:21, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

[65][66][67][68][69][70] SpinningSpark 13:35, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
  • OK. I have adjusted headword and definition in line with usage. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:10, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "Recently"

I have never heard ultimately used to mean recently. I also can't seem to find this sense in any dictionary I checked online (here, here, here, and here).

--WikiTiki89 (talk) 10:18, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Added by Algrif (talkcontribs) in 2007. Never heard of it either. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
It's likely to accidentally have that meaning when the series (eg, of events) terminates "recently", which makes cites hard to find. That Century and Webster 1913 don't have this sense makes it less likely that it is a historical sense, especially given its etymology ("most remote(ly)", "final(ly)"). OED? Or is it what the evolution of the meaning of the word has ultimately come to? DCDuring TALK 14:13, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Kick it out if you like. At a guess I was probably having a Spanish false friend (read "blond") moment. -- ALGRIF talk 14:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
Done. --WikiTiki89 (talk) 08:39, 3 September 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Female zealot; zealous female.

AFAICT, the only attestable English use is as a title in Roman Catholic religious orders. DCDuring TALK 17:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Sense RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 21:37, 19 October 2012 (UTC)


(Dated, pejorative) A jerk.

This sense is not in any OneLook source except Urban Dictionary. Probably best sought at Usenet or in fiction. DCDuring TALK 17:41, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 00:58, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


"To rake all over"

Nothing at OneLook or in Century. Most of the raw bgc hits were scannos for forms of betake. There does not seem to be any evidence whatsoever at bgc for a verb of any definition in any inflected form. DCDuring TALK 00:25, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles has it. Cited. Definition correct as-is. It appears to be rake (sense 3) in the second cite, which is "to spray with gunfire"; berake = to spray all over with gunfire" Leasnam (talk) 02:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
NOT cited. 2 < 3. DCDuring TALK 02:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Restored RFV tag since not cited. Plus one of the citations looks dodgy somehow: "berakes up fallow ground" — wouldn't you break up, rather than rake up, fallow ground? Equinox 23:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Normally, it is heard that way. I added it because it could be either or a play on words. Leasnam (talk) 14:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 01:01, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


"Noodle like panels for ceilings to dull echoes in large rooms." It seems to be a trademark (WT:BRAND applies) and always capitalised: see [71]. Equinox 15:38, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed for now. - -sche (discuss) 20:15, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Fictional city in The Matrix franchise. Needs to be cited outside of The Matrix fictional universe. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Given that the Matrix city is named in reference to the Biblical Jerusalem, which is already listed as a meaning of "Zion", I see no point to having a separate sense. bd2412 T 04:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Well, the American Birminghams are named after the British Birmingham, but we wouldn't merge them, since they're separate entities. That said, I doubt we'd be able to find independent citations of the Matrix sense. This search might be helpful. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:58, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Not even worth debating. Just delete it, as we had to do in the past with many of another user's fictional entities. Equinox 23:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
Admittedly I don't see how this could pass, if you said Zion without making clear you were referring to the Matrix franchise, people would automatically assume it was one of the other meanings of Zion. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:58, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
I think we should make an Appendix:The Matrix, because blue pill and red pill get frequent allusions in geek culture and probably rate at least appendix entries. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 02:29, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
RFV-failed. Move to an appendix if you like. - -sche (discuss) 20:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


Consider this a combination RFV-sense and RFC-sense of "A system or cult of (often secret) religious rituals and ceremonies involving masks and dances concerned with bringing rain and good crops and with community welfare and integration found in typically western Pueblo cultures in the North American Southwest." google books:"kachina system" turns up a couple pages of hits, but is this what they mean? And is "kachina" alone used to refer to the system? - -sche (discuss) 07:15, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

"Kachina" appears to refer to a head religious person in a Hopi or Pueblo village (apparently distinct groups), the dolls used in rituals, the masks used in such rituals, and to the rituals as well. [72] appears quite sufficient indeed. Collect (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
Not really... it's using "kachina cult", which is logically a "cult involving reverence for kachinas (spirit beings)". - -sche (discuss) 02:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 02:03, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Windows PowerShell[edit]

Proper name of a product, needs to meet relevant attestation policies -- Liliana 11:06, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 19:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


RFV of the adjective sense "Of or pertaining to cayenne pepper." I doubt this can be attested as an adjective (see WT:English adjectives). In "Cayenne pepper/powder", it's a noun. - -sche (discuss) 14:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

If banana can be used adjectivilly then I don't see why cayenne can't. Of c. flavor/flavour [73][74][75][76][77], of c. color/colour [78][79][80][81]. SpinningSpark 15:13, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
"Cayenne flavor" and "cayenne color" are ambiguous; "cayenne" could easily be a noun in both cases (almost any noun can be used this way). I've RFVed "banana". - -sche (discuss) 17:40, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Spinningspark, I think the key point in your statement is "If banana can be used adjectivilly" (sic). Can it? Not to my knowledge. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:26, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
I was following an existing example on Wiktionary, but I see banana has just been rfv'd also. SpinningSpark 21:52, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
If cayenne was an adjective there's no reason why it should be uncomparable. For example a cayenne dressing can have a stronger flavor than another, but we do not call the stronger version "more cayenne", do we? I'm inclined towards thinking that if a word cannot be used as an adjective, it isn't one. --Hekaheka (talk) 05:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
You might not call it more cayenne just because it was stronger, but if it tasted more cayenne, maybe you would... RTG (talk) 02:20, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Tell you what though, the colour of the common (chamberlain?) banana is hardly unique, yellow being a prime, and bananas coming in red, pink, blue, green white etcetera, so you might want to delete that from banana and find significant reference before describing cayenne as a colour? RTG (talk) 02:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I've removed the adjective sense. - -sche (discuss) 06:04, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "a type of child's toy, filled with soft material, usually an animal" Tagged but not listed. The citation unambiguously does not support this definition. Nor does the use example of "plush toy", as if plush were a type of toy it would mean something like "toy toy". Mglovesfun (talk) 22:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Cited. I have moved the existing citation to the other sense, since, as you say, it was not referring to a toy but to a fabric. Equinox 22:57, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:57, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
RFV-passed. - -sche (discuss) 03:43, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


RFV-sense of the Norwegian word's sense "To exert oneself to one's own delight in an area where one lacks basic skills." Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 05:58, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 00:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


Tagged but never listed. - -sche (discuss) 05:59, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 00:32, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

misc 5[edit]


At WT:REE, it was said that "The word is long-obsolete, and has only two cites in the OED, but I'll add it since the OED retains it." If it doesn't pass CFI, it should go to dictionary-only words. A quick search in Google Books revealed this, where fremish was used as an index into the NED (= OED 1st ed) with the actual word being fremeske.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

FWIW I guess it would be from Old/Middle French fremir. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Well I can't cite it using Google Books, and I don't know where else to look. Since it's historical, Usenet seems out of the question. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 04:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


RFV-sense "to dress in stockings". - -sche (discuss) 23:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The noun sense "Something like or suggesting such a garment." seems dubious too. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 04:41, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


The first citation is obvious invalid (it runs other words together, too); the others may also be, given the now-banned contributor's habit of adding invalid citations. If this fails RFV, armpit hair will no longer be protected by COALMINE, and will be deletable as SOP. - -sche (discuss) 07:28, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

The third one is for armpit hair. As for the second one, there's no preview available. We need three citations where it's clearly armpithair and not just a scanno. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:26, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
There's [82], [83], [84] and [85]. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I can't find armpithair in the fourth one, the other three are I suppose valid. Does this mean the term isn't attestable in print, only one Usenet, do we have an {{Internetonly}} label or something? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
{{rare|internet-only|_|neologism}} {{alternative form of|armpit hair}}? - -sche (discuss) 22:19, 2 October 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't call it a neologism. Frankly, I suspect 95% of the attestations of it are cases where people simply failed to hit the space bar while typing. —Angr 07:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with that, I don't see how any of the cites above can be accepted as quality sources. They are all full of grammatical and spelling errrors. [1] fails to capitalize proper nouns (despite doing so correctly earlier), [2] "definetely", [3] "the fucking nerve of comming in my mouth", and [4] is invalid in any case. SpinningSpark 08:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
Also I note pubichair in one of the citations, which is pretty ridiculous, mostly because it looks like /pjuːbitʃɛə/. I was also gonna say they could be typos. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:01, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
A seat found in a pub perhaps? SpinningSpark 09:26, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree with those above who discount the citations. This therefore looks like it will fail RFV soon. - -sche (discuss) 18:09, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 04:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


RFV of the verb. - -sche (discuss) 02:24, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Google gives plenty of results for "catloafing" and also a few for "catloafed", so it is definitely not just a protologism. Unfortunately I can't find anything on Google Books. —CodeCat 11:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)
RFV-failed for now. - -sche (discuss) 04:51, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


Rfv-sense. Spanish. Said to mean "character of the US people" in Cuba. It isn't clear what that means. - -sche (discuss) 03:32, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 04:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


RFV-sense: Samoan word for "small" (as opposed to "young"). - -sche (discuss) 10:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm the only person to have edited that page, and I have no idea why I added an RFV-sense. Be that as it may, both senses are in widepread use (although, oddly enough, Pratt's execellent although dated dictionary fails to list them). I am too lazy to translate the cite I added, but as it appears to refer to a ma'a ("stone") I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean "young". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
Ok, struck as cited and/or withdrawn by nominator. - -sche (discuss) 21:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed in this edit. It's probably trivial to cite this from Usenet, but I haven't checked yet. - -sche (discuss) 10:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Has been cited by Astral. RFV-passed. - -sche (discuss) 04:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


Some anon added this. Never heard of it so I don't know if the definition is correct. But I do think it should be verified to exist before it is cleaned up. --WikiTiki89 07:16, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

  • The OED has it as an alternative spelling of criminy, so I've cleaned it up as such. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:26, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
  • Cited, but I couldn't find anything earlier than 2004. I'm pretty sure it goes back a lot further than that, "Holy crimony!" was a catchphrase of Robin in the Batman TV series of the 1960s so it must have already been current then. SpinningSpark 09:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
    Strange considering the entry originally said it was only used in the 1600s. But anyway, I guess I can close this case. --WikiTiki89 09:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


Really? (nothing obvious on Google book search) SemperBlotto (talk) 10:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Can't tell if this is the right usage or not. --WikiTiki89 10:10, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes, apparently:
  • 1975, David Niven, Bring on the Empty Horses[86], Putnam, OL 5195753M, page 266:
    The popping bulbs reached a sudden crescendo, but Sophia did not realize till too late that she was being "outboobed." Bending low over her right shoulder, with the most famous orbs in the world gleaming in all their creamy glory, was Miss United Dairies herself — Jayne Mansfield.
And two more for attestation:
~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
We would usually not accept the 1998 quotation, because it is full of grammatical errors ("even Ricci tits outboob that of Nikki Cox", "Shoshanna has those huge mellon for a 21 years old"); compare #armpithair. But it shouldn't be too hard to find a better citation. - -sche (discuss) 18:12, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
DCDuring supplied another from The Daily Telegraph, but it uses outboob in the headline and out-boob in the body text. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Sufficiently attested now. Clearing RFV. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 21:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Java Cryptography Architecture[edit]

Java EE Connector Architecture[edit]

can't we just skip the "verification" part and go straight to the "hit delete button" part? -- Liliana 19:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Given the creator's track record, yes. - -sche (discuss) 19:55, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Ok, since you said so. -- Liliana 20:04, 21 October 2012 (UTC)


Is this term too rare? Is the definition inaccurate? --Æ&Œ (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Lots of hits on Google Books. --BB12 (talk) 08:14, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Since it's been brought here, I hope someone'll bother to find 3 cites. I might do it another day. Equinox 21:00, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Done. Astral (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Cleared RFV. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 02:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

James Bond[edit]

Rfv-sense: sarcastic: a person who has very poor spying skills. --SusiCantel (talk) 19:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Any verification would be of an ironic use of the first sense, which can be done with any name of a person having a known skill. For example, if you play basketball and you make a good shot, someone might say that you looked like Michael Jordan; if you miss the same shot badly, the person commenting could say the same thing sarcastically. bd2412 T 19:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
I agree. Compare Sherlock Holmes: there is a sense for someone with great powers of observation and deduction, but no opposite sense, though the general-purpose device of sarcasm means that this flattering sense can be used sarcastically (just as "genius" can be used sarcastically to mean "idiot"). Same with Einstein. Equinox 19:49, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Moved to RFD per above. DAVilla 11:11, 27 October 2012 (UTC)