Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for verification

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup add new \| history \| archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.	Requests for verification/English add new English request \| history \| archives Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.	Requests for verification/CJK add new CJK request \| history Requests for verification of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.	Requests for verification/Italic add new Italic request \| history Requests for verification of Italic-language entries.	Requests for verification/Non-English add new non-English request \| history \| archives Requests for verification of any other non-English entries.	Requests for deletion/Others add new \| history Requests for deletion and undeletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.
Requests for moves, mergers and splits add new \| history \| archives Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.	Requests for deletion/English add new English request \| history \| archives Requests for deletion of pages in the main namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.	Requests for deletion/CJK add new CJK request \| history Requests for deletion and undeletion of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.	Requests for deletion/Italic add new Italic request \| history Requests for deletion and undeletion of Italic-language entries.	Requests for deletion/Non-English add new non-English request \| history \| archives Requests for deletion and undeletion of any other non-English entries.	Requests for deletion/Reconstruction add new reconstruction request \| history Requests for deletion and undeletion of reconstructed entries.
{{attention}} • {{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfeq}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

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

Scope of this request page:

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

Templates:

{{rfv}}
{{rfv-sense}}
{{archive-top|rfv}} + {{archive-bottom}}

Shortcut:

WT:RFV

October 2008

at the high port

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

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

A picture of "high port". This suggests that "at the high port" should be moved to high port. Also see port arms. DCDuring TALK 01:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to various positions referred to as "high port". The one shown seems to be for drill. It does seem to have been used in bayonet charges in battle, as recently as the Korean "police action". DCDuring TALK 01:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

	Input needed
	This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

Although it may be a specific position in certain contexts, it seems more commonly to mean any of several positions above standard port/port arms. I saw one drawing in which someone was carrying a stretcher "at high port". In the first instance it seems to mean a position perhaps as little as three inches above "port". I'm not sure that the above-the-head port position has any point apart from its roles in punishment and discipline and carrying something across a body of deep water. Some positions seem like things only for the parade-ground. DCDuring TALK 18:20, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008

December 2008

craft

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

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

clocked out without attestation. DCDuring TALK 16:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ultramontane

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

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

There we are. This is likely attestable, but someone now has to do the clerical work of finding the quotations, formatting them, and copying them to the "ultramontane" entry. Clocking out this request as the process suggests seems wrong. --Dan Polansky 12:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clocked out without attestation. DCDuring TALK 16:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Islamic fascist

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

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

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

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

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

Sources: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] — This unsigned comment was added by WritersCramp (talk • contribs).

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

Clocked out without attestation other than single G W Bush quote. (That wouldn't seem to count as "well-known work".) DCDuring TALK 16:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, widespread use. Perhaps send to RFC as the definitions are unclear and/or overlap. I'm not sure there are three different definitions of this term. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:04, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not widespread use AFAICT.—msh210℠ 19:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sloom

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

The following quote speaks more for slumbering:

The squire sloomed and slept in his chair; and finally, after a cup of tea, went to bed.^[1]

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

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

^ Barr, Amelia Edith Huddleston, 1831-1919 "The Squire of Sandal-Side A Pastoral Romance"

According to the online Dictionary of the Scots Language ([8]) the Scots meaning suggests light sleeping: A dreamy or sleepy state, a reverie, day-dream, a light sleep, slumber, “an unsettled sleep” for noun and To sleep lightly, doze, slumber fitfully for verb. --Duncan 12:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clocked out References added, but noonly one citations. DCDuring TALK 17:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

arcana

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

dingleberry

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

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

The "stupid person" sense is easily attested as slang [9], but I can't say what its etymology might be, or whether the senses might be etymologically related. --EncycloPetey 21:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unfortunately the references in the DARE are mentions, not uses, so I don't think that's sufficient (though it is definitely worthy of note). The Range Plant Manual of 1937 may contain a use, but snippet view is not cooperating.[10] This may need to be relegated to "Etymology" if we can't get some more satisfactory attestation. -- Visviva 06:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2009

gẃraidd

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

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

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

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

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

christer

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

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

India Pale Ale

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Made it so. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

valence

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

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

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

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

RFV failed, sense removed. Note that DCDuring, shortly after starting this discussion, added a {{alternative spelling of|valance}} sense, which I am not removing. If anyone wishes that sense gone, please feel free to RFV or RFD it. —Ruakh_TALK 22:01, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moxie

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

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

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

variation

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

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

It might make sense if restricted to biology/genetics. See [11] DCDuring Holiday Greetings! 15:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

-ia

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

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

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

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

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

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

apostle

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

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

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

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

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

gound

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

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

vocal

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

broken

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

I'm not familiar with it, or with the usage your example — though I have heard "busted down to private" — but borrowing your example, minus the "down", just searching for "broken to private", I find tons of durably archived hits. But I wonder if it's just the normal past participle of a sense of (deprecated template usage) break that we're missing, firstly because the uses I find seem eventive (things like "he had been broken to sergeant", meaning "X had demoted him to sergeant"; contrast the stative "the window was broken", meaning "X had broken the window"), and secondly because "broke him to private", while quite rare by comparison (less than one-tenth as many hits on b.g.c.), is definitely cite-able. —Ruakh_TALK 16:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

saoirse

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

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

куна

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

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

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

Striking as failed, as the Bulgarian entry for "куна" was removed by the contributor of the entry[12]. --Dan Polansky 12:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

куница

This request refers to the previous request for verification on "куна". Bogorm asked whether "куница" can be verified, on 19 January 2009. Ivan Štambuk said "куница" is listed in Vasmer's dictionary as a Bulgarian cognate, on 19 January 2009.

This request seems so far unserved. --Dan Polansky 12:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ish

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

New citation of this word usage:

Using -ish in a non-standard way as in "Good(ish) News from Procter & Gamble: No Ad Cutback Here"[13]

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

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

key

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

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

12 months, one citation. Looks like a fail to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An array of quotes here: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]; are any of these sufficient? Caladon 20:17, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was asked to comment herein. Many of Caladon's array seem to support the sense added, though there may be difficulty in distinguishing our seventh sense from the eighth ("To mark or indicate with a symbol indicating membership in a class."); for example, this one seems closer to the latter than the former. I don't find either of these senses listed in the OED's entry for the verb, though, FWIW, it lists many senses we don't and vice versa. Nota bene as well that the OED has five etymologically distinct entries spelt (deprecated template usage) key for four nouns and one verb. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 12:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two from the list. They require checking to see if they describe the correct sense. Caladon 14:40, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 1976 and 2006 quotations pretty unambiguously support the seventh sense; however, the 1960 quotation could be taken as a citation of the eighth sense. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:31, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

quasi

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

I would gloss it as "as it were". It is in the OED as an adverb ("now rare"), which seems about right. On the other hand, many of the OED's cites are either in italics or quotes. The cites that I came across on my own were also mostly in italics (thus presumably intended as quasi#Latin): [23] [24]. On the other hand, this one isn't: [25] (on the third hand, I can quite tell what the guy is on about). For now I'd go with probably real, probably an adverb rather than a conjunction, but needs a bit more looking-into. -- Visviva 07:59, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009

catch up

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

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

foo-foo

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

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

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

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

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

tête-bêche#French

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

fall

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

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

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

It's in the OED also, but the "tree" sense is given separately, tagged as dialectal and specific to US, AU and NZ. Shakespeare used the general sense in Richard III: "To morrow in the Battaile, thinke on me, / And fall thy edgelesse Sword, dispaire and dye". [26] -- Visviva 17:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

assault rifle

There are currenly three definitions for assault rifle,

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

An earlier definition covered this better with

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

To this was added a usage note with ...

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

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

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

Point of order: this seems like an RFD discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

paramukti

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

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 14:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2009

slay

Rfv-sense: to defeat (presumably without killing). Seems dubious. -- Visviva 11:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colloquial usage in UK. (Many Google hits in British newspapers etc. - especially sports) Dbfirs 09:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

contribulated

A nice Books result, but not enough context for me to see what it means. Someone with more brains or with access to more context may be needed. Any other hits? Likely tosh as defined, but who knows.—msh210℠ 17:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Definition seems wrong. The Books use MSH found seems to be a translation from w:Tertullian elsewhere translated as (deprecated template usage) contribulate. It must be a translation of the past participle of (deprecated template usage) contribulo, that is "much afflicted". Many of the cites are Latin or Italian, of a humorous complication of "contribute", or scannos. DCDuring TALK 19:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The definition actually looks like discombobulated. Author's confusion? Equinox ◑ 23:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rephasing

Rfv-sense. debt rescheduling. Plausible, but never heard of it. DCDuring TALK 03:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See [27] for a mention. SemperBlotto 13:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

quantitative analysis

Rfv-sense: Template:finance The process of analyzing hundreds of factors to reach a financial decision, such as when to buy or sell common stock. I'm not familiar with anything in finance called "quantitative analysis" that is not SoP. DCDuring TALK 00:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

maximum pain

Price of stock at option strike price. I'd like to see it in actual use, not mention, in this sense. DCDuring TALK 00:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 00:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

passive

Rfv-sense: Not bearing interest. Possibly a dated sense. DCDuring TALK 00:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

loose scrum

Seems plausible, but Web hits suggest that "scrum" and "loose scrum" might actually be synonymous?

—Ruakh_TALK 15:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand them as being separate terms. A "scrum" is an organised, tight pack, usually put together by the referee. A "loose scrum" occurs during play when the ball becomes free, and is pretty much as per the definition given, being open and not tight. It is part of the sport's terminology. -- ALGRIF talk 16:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, but your explanation doesn't seem to match our definition, either. Our definition says that a "loose scrum" is a kind of scrum, but your explanation suggests that "loose scrum" and "scrum" are mutually exclusive? —Ruakh_TALK 17:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a big fan of rugger, but I used to play it at school, and as I understand it, the terms are mutually exclusive. (Perhaps with a small, grey, overlap) We need the input of an amateur expert. -- ALGRIF talk 19:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Pedia give us the following: "Originally there was no distinction between an awarded or "set" scrum (today officially called simply "scrummage") and a "loose" scrum (today officially called a ruck). The side awarded a scrimmage simply had one player put the ball on the ground and let go of it; there was no requirement of a tunnel, although players were required to be onside, i.e. not ahead of the ball. The most common way for a scrimmage/scrummage to be so awarded (there being no referee to actually award one, but as the rules specified) would be the occurrence of a stalemate between the player with the ball (who would declare "held") and opponents holding him (who would call, "Have it down"). A scrummage could also occur as a ruck today, in which opposing players simply close around a ball already on the ground." See also ruck. -- ALGRIF talk 15:03, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ramp up

"To be in the process of learning a new ability". Equinox ◑ 20:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I could “ramp up my skills” in a particular field, but to me this looks like an application of sense 1, with the more specific meaning only provided by the appended object skills in this example. —Michael Z. 2009-03-16 21:30 z

I partially agree with Michael. I've added a sense and examples, transitive and intransitive, that refer to start-up or a project, which might fit the RfVed sense better. Take a look, please. DCDuring TALK 22:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

form

"To develop a conception in mind". I don't think the example sentence is plausible and I think the intended sense is sense 1 (as one would "form an image": shape it). See User_talk:EivindJ#form_new_sense Equinox ◑ 21:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just couldn't possibly see how you give an opinion "visible structure", when you "form an opinion" or "form an idea". When it comes to the example sentence: you're probably right ... my bad. Someone who can do better? --Eivind (t) 21:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MWOnline has 9/12 senses/subsenses for this verb, 3 for intransitive, 6/9 for transitive. Encarta has 8. We have 4 total. DCDuring TALK 23:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

digger

[ digger Etymology for sense meaning Australian soldier. ]

Etymology is given as - Derived from Australian Colonial goldfields terminology. The term represents the mateship of common interests and activities where most of the population were gold miners, and almost everybody was a mate, a "digger", with a common cause against the troopers, the traps, the mining licence inspectors.

This does not show how the term came to be used as an informal term for an Australian soldier, nor does it match any other definition given. I also took out the "See also cobber" from this etymology, as cobber does not match any digger definition. The closest I can think of is that both are sometimes used as a term of endearment among friends, but this is a tenuous link and is not part of either the definitions or the etymology.--Dmol 00:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:Dmol#digger. Equinox ◑ 00:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC) (I have copied it below, may as well keep it on the same page)--Dmol 05:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From Chambers 2005: "digg'er n a person or animal that digs; a miner, esp a gold-miner; an Australian or New Zealand soldier; an informal Australian term of address; a machine for digging." This suggests that the stuff you removed was correct. Equinox ◑ 00:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

But the term cobber does not mean any of the terms listed at digger and this is why i removed it. I have just added rfv-sense to the etymology, as nothing in it explains the origin of the term meaning an Aussie soldier. The quote you show means ~~we are missing a definition~~ (has now been added), which I alluded to in the listing of RFV, but does not explain the soldier meaning.--Dmol 05:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)--Dmol 00:47, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I always assumed that "Digger/digger" came from Word War I due to the trench warfare which ensured years of trench digging for many young men of the period. I am also pretty sure "digger" applied equally to New Zealanders. It is certainly dated now and you're most likely to hear it in period drama cinema or on Anzac day to refer to old age war veterans.

"Digger/digger" can equally be used as a term of address, but "cobber" I have only ever heard as a term of address or perhaps a synonym of "mate". As in "G'day cobber" for the former, and "He's out playing with his cobbers." for the latter. I can't help with the etymology of "cobber" but both "digger" and "cobber" are definitely synonyms for "mate" with their own nuances, and both dated. — hippietrail 08:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an extra sense, meaning an informal nickname for a friend. It matches the quote given above by Equinox, and i have marked it dated. BTW, the soldier sense is not dated, and is commonly used today. It is heard regularly on the news in Australia.--Dmol 07:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Qapla'

This passed RfV before the current WT:CFI#Fictional universes policy. I just removed two citations that did not pass the policy's requirement (one was in-universe, one was introduced as a Star Trek quote in the text before its use). Of the remaining citations, the South Park one doesn't seem to have anything to do with the sense being cited. I haven't seen the video, but the transcript makes it seem just like an attempt to represent a scream in writing, not this specific word. This needs further verification. Dominic·t 10:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If someone has access to the script of Team America: World Police, I think you'll find Qapla' used there. Angr 11:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this it? [28] I couldn't find that word in it. Equinox ◑ 22:24, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but missing the ending apostrophe. bd2412 T 23:15, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I presume that the Team America web transcript doesn't qualify as an attestation of the spelling Qapla!, but it does serve as evidence for us of the spoken attestation in the movie. —Michael Z. 2009-03-25 00:11 z

Good point. I don't think anyone doubts the spelling, given the language is artificial, so what we really want are instances where the term is used. Being spoken would be superior in some ways, no? DAVilla 23:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why on Earth would you remove citations? Just because they don't meet the CFI requirement does not mean the quotation can't be listed on the page. 72.177.113.91 10:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, good point. We can be clear that a given quotation does not meet the CFI citation requirement; but if illustrative (and an in-universe quotation, particularly the first use, is good) they should stay. Likewise, CFI-meeting citations that don't help illustrate the term can or should be relegated to the Citations: page. There is seldom any reason to delete them entirely, unless weeding out heaps of them. Robert Ullmann 12:28, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, and I wasn't thinking about it when I removed it. (But if we want an in-universe citation a more illustrative and certainly an earlier use could be found.) Dominic·t 12:45, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The two quotations that remain seem to indicate different use. One is a proclamation of success, the other is wishing success. Either way the single word "success" doesn't really cover it as a definition. DAVilla 23:30, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not convinced - if I shout "Success!" before the match, I am wishing success; if I do so afterward, I am proclaiming it. Either way, it's the same word, and I'm not sure the nuance would justify a separate sense. bd2412 T 18:35, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone really shout "Success!" before it happened? Equinox ◑ 18:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

“To success!” “Wishing you success!” “To our success!” —Michael Z. 2009-03-27 20:10 z

Only if they're native speakers of Klingon. ;-) —Ruakh_TALK 20:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added more cites, some where the word is explained as being Klingon but not used in the same Star Trek universe, others where the word is not explained but I don't have access to the surrounding context, e.g. the movie mentioned above. DAVilla 05:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

defenestration

Sense 3 seems dubiously close to a protologism. Any thoughts? This, that and the other 10:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, I thought this had already passed RFV, but I don't see any history even of discussion. DAVilla 23:21, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

defenestrate's related sense passed RfV, though now that I look all of its citations actually use "defenestration." Dominic·t 12:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009

façade

RfV for third sense:

(Organ building) the prospect

–Firstly, what is an “Organ building”?, and secondly, the definition is not at all elucidating; (deprecated template usage) prospect has no suitably explicatory sense. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr ﴿ 18:08, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lua error in Module:quote at line 2659: Parameter "indent2" is not used by this template.

DCDuring TALK 18:44, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then it means the front side of the organ. Is this generalizable to some sense of "visible side of anything", which is also a generalization of the building sense (sense 1)? Not durably archived, but [29] has "facade of the car" (meaning its surface). Other examples?—msh210℠ 23:01, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WNW has the more general sense which they combine with the "misleading false front" sense. They keep the building sense separate. I think we c/should have at least three senses. The organ sense does seem to have a distinctive synonym: prospect. It is less than obvious to a non-church-attending, non-musical person what the façade of an organ might be. A visual-dictionary-style drawing might help more than a wordy definition. DCDuring TALK 23:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

बुल्ला

Requesting verification of sense 2, vulgar slang for the male member. — [ R I C ] opiaterein — 17:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed, sense (and language section) removed. —Ruakh_TALK 03:11, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

waggon

wagon

Rfv-sense: Ireland,slang immoral woman. Spelling? DCDuring TALK 14:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've marked it as dated. It was common enough when I first lived in Ireland about 30 years ago, but haven't heard it much since. But like most insults, they often don't end up in print. Spellings in Ireland are typically British rather than US.--Dmol 00:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The 2 "g" spelling is very rare in US and much less common (not rare, not dated) than the one "g" spelling in the BNC. (I didn't check for this sense in any spelling.) I put a tag at the same sense with the US "wagon" spelling. Was it in "widespread" colloquial usage there at that time, previously, or after? Should 0, 1, or 2 of the spellings remain? DCDuring TALK 00:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May 2009

poloniumed

Anything for WT:CFI? Equinox ◑ 01:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added two citations from news sources. There's more references circulating on blogs and forums. Goldenrowley 03:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

	Input needed
	This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

act

Rfv-sense: obsolete, uncountable: A state of existence. Does the OED have a cite for this? Date? DCDuring TALK 14:55, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like OED 2 (obs.), roughly meaning a state of fact as opposed to possibility. Quotations follow. —Michael Z. 2009-05-11 05:27 z

1398 TREVISA Barth. De P.R. IV. i. (1495) 78 The noblest thynges of shappes of kynde and of crafte that be hydde comyth forth in acte and in dede.
1595 SHAKES. John IV. iii. 135 If I in act, consent, or sinne of thought Be guiltie.
1662 MORE Antid. agst. Ath. Ep. Ded. (1712) 2 Plato, if he were alive again, might find his timorous supposition brought into absolute Act.
1677 HALE Prim. Orig. Man. 109 They are only in possibility, and not in act.

Sounds like a suitable def might be 'actuality'. Pingku 11:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

long goodbye

References and citations all say that the disease may be referred to as the "long goodbye". Can we find any text that actually uses it? Equinox ◑ 23:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added one more quotation which provides a use, not a mention, of the term. But only to humour you. This defn was already adequately substantiated. (BTW, the title of the article given in the Wisconsin Healthlink reference also uses the term in my opinion). -- WikiPedant 05:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is it substantiated? Texts that say "'the long goodbye' means this" are not evidence. Equinox ◑ 23:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By authority. Academic journals and medical school links are authoritative with respect to this term. -- WikiPedant 03:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we usually accept words only on the grounds that an "authority" (however that would be defined) says they are words. Need to meet WT:CFI as with anything else. Equinox ◑ 13:59, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attestation, not authority, is the very foundation of lexicography. We accept authority for non-English terms. We are influenced by those authorities who take attestation seriously (the "serious" dictionaries, OED, MW, AHD, RH, Longmans, Cambridge, Macquarie, etc.). It would definitely be preferred that the quotations not surround the headword with quotes or otherwise mark it as not an ordinary part of the language of the writer/speaker and reader/listener. It might be attestable. DCDuring TALK 15:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attestation and authority are different albeit related concepts. Attestation of a term pertains to the function performed by the quotation (whether it uses or mentions the term). Authority pertains to the source of the quotation. Each attestation carries with it its own degree of authority. Attestations sourced from literary classics or refereed academic journals are rightly recognized at WT:CFI as having greater authority (since only 1 such attestation is needed to satisfy CFI). Like you, DC, I prefer to avoid quotations in which the definiendum is set off in quotation marks, but I'll settle for them as long as it is clear that this is not a one-off coinage by the author. -- WikiPedant 06:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The straight uses (not mentions) that I find come up in many contexts and always refer to an extended departure. One amusing quote is about it most literally. Others are about extended departures from the public view. The Alzheimer's sense is included in that sense. I am not at all sure that any sense really is idiomatic as opposed to simply an SoP metaphor or figurative use. I also not that is much more common in attention-grabbing titles than in ordinary text. DCDuring TALK 16:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The specific nickname "long goodbye" for Alzheimer's is widely used in North America by health professionals. I've heard it used this way for many years. I honestly believe it qualifies as a distinct sense. Since you still have doubts, DC, I shall look for more quotations. -- WikiPedant 06:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added 3 more quotations (all uses, not mentions) and expanded the defn and the etymology. -- WikiPedant 22:56, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This b.g.c. search produces many hits for "cancer" as affording a long goodbye. It just seems like a nice turn of phrase for the situation generated by many diseases of aging or indeed any debilitating disease without institutionalization. DCDuring TALK 00:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, DC, I saw a few in this vein when I was rummaging around. I see the Alzheimer's sense as a separate, established sense (which has its own wrinkle of meaning since it involves progressive loss of the ability to recognize and communicate with friends and family), but think a 2nd, broader sense is probably attestable with respect to any lengthy, degenerative disease (or even process) which is ultimately fatal. -- WikiPedant 03:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

	Input needed
	This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

The current 57-word definition is clearly not supported with the quotes given. There are not enough quotes in existence to support the sense. It is not the name for a disease. It is a lovely turn of phrase that makes a great title for books, poems, plays, movies, essays, albums, songs, etc. It is not limited to the particular aspects of terminal Alzheimer's, being used relative to cancer. Moreover, it is used for all kinds of extended (ie, "long") leave-taking (ie, "good-byes"). We can hardly justify a separate definition for each application of the term, ie, to Alzheimer's, dementia, terminal cancer, terminal Lou Gehrig's disease (ALS), a protracted divorce, a long breakup, etc). Whether it is supportable at all as a dictionary entry is an open question. I think we need to harden our hearts and our heads and make a decision. DCDuring TALK 16:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

macrolanguage

A case of {{only in}}? -- Prince Kassad 08:42, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two citations. If anyone has access to ISO 639-3:2007 itself, we can have three; or, we can stipulate to its existence, and count it despite its not actually appearing in the entry. (Alternatively — is either LOC's FAQ or SIL's "scope of denotation" document considered durably archived?) —Ruakh_TALK 14:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now cited IMHO. —Ruakh_TALK 02:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yngling

Note: this section was formerly titled yngling.

Can't find much on this. Is the capitalisation correct? Is it a brand name? Equinox ◑ 15:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a brand name (see w:Yngling (keelboat)), and since the original editor included a {{see|Yngling}} at the top, I surmise that (s)he did think this sense existed in lowercase (though w:Yngling (keelboat) capitalizes it throughout, so (s)he may have been mistaken). Searches through b.g.c. seem mostly unproductive; google books:"a yngling" has exactly one relevant hit, and it's capitalized. (Plus, it's snippet view, which is a pain.) —Ruakh_TALK 20:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., it somehow hadn't occurred to me till now to try google books:yngling keelboat. It pulls up a fair number of relevant hits — all of them capitalized. So, moved to Yngling. —Ruakh_TALK 20:44, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kathleen Mavourneen

Rfv-sense: Open-ended prison sentence. There's evidence this may be for some kind of undetermined period. Not specifically prison though. Alas, tis a fine tune - my grandmother sang me this. --Jackofclubs 19:48, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's not much I can find outside of dictionaries, both online and printed. The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English, (2006) lists it with two meanings, a habitual criminal (1917) and an indefinite jail sentence (1970).
Theres an earlier example in A Dictionary of the Underworld (1961) which lists kath with a def of "an indeterminate prison sentence" from 1910, listing it as Australian and New Zealand slang and having an origin in the song.

So are we missing a definition for the criminal, and are we missing the definition I expected to see - that of a poetic name for any Irish girl. It should be noted that Movourneen is just the English version of the Irish for "my darling" mo mhuirnín. (mh is pronounce V in Irish). One example is "THE WHISTLIN' COLLEEN" which I could not find a date for but it was on google books as out of copyright. More recently is the Wolfe Tones song from the 1980s Irish Eyes, which has the line - My rose of Old Erin my Kathleen mo mhuirnín.--Dmol 21:51, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

baffie

	Input needed
	This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

Rfv-sense. Shoes --Jackofclubs 09:48, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit of a "mention", but D Dakers, Conserving the past - building for the future: Inverness 1987 has this: "In addition tae Ayrshire Scots, ma mither introduced exotic Fife words like baffies for slippers, an bocht for ill..." Equinox ◑ 14:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cited, -ish. I couldn't find a single usable cite in the singular, which means that I couldn't demonstrate whether the spelling is (deprecated template usage) baffie or (deprecated template usage) baffy. Even the reference I included has it in the plural, though b.g.c. implies there are some no-preview-available dictionaries that do have it in the singular. How should we handle this? —Ruakh_TALK 11:52, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

defenestrate

Rfv-sense: Windows sense. I previously marked this "RFV passed", but Dominic has since pointed out that some of the cites were actually for "defenestration". Further, in trying to clean up the cites, I've discovered that they don't all still seem to exist — ~~and Googling the text, I find different sources for them~~. Never mind that last part; that was due to a later editor's attempt to clean up the cites. Non-standard formats engender so much confusion … All told, this bears re-evaluation. —Ruakh_TALK 23:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

note#Etymology 1

Rfv-sense x 2: noun:

Use.
Business, need.

Has this been in use after 1500? It might belong under an Middle English L2 heading. OED might help. DCDuring TALK 14:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

beat up

Rfv-senses

In some out-of-date dictionaries, "to alarm by a sudden attack"
Repeated verbal assault

The second definition isn't even a verb at all. Maybe tosh? --Jackofclubs 06:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first sense was in Websters 1913. I've marked it obsolete and removed the quotes. I will convert the other one into a verb to give it a chance. The whole entry could use a clean up. DCDuring TALK 09:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

babes in the wood

Defined as "(obsolete, slang) Criminals in the stocks, or pillory." -- WikiPedant 05:25, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

google books:"babe|babes in the wood" pillory works (though one needs to weed out the mentions).—msh210℠ 16:37, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

array controller

Rfv-sense: Very particularistic sense, might be rendered obsolete or miss part of what ought be included. Has rfc tag, but may not be worth cleaning up. DCDuring TALK 01:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

clock out

Rfv-sense: to run out of time. Apparently my use of this is idiosyncratic and unattestable. I couldn't find it among hundreds of collocations at b.g.c. I have added 2 other senses. The electronics one should be looked at by an electronics engineer-type. DCDuring TALK 18:25, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might also try chess. I can't find a cite, but I seem to remember it being used in a chess sense for timed games. --EncycloPetey 21:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard it used as a euphemism for death, which might be an extension of the RFV sense. - [The]DaveRoss 22:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, DCD, I always read your "clocked out" as a transitive verb rather than an intransitive one: "I am hereby clocking out this term" (closing it because of elapsed time). Equinox ◑ 19:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clocking out is not official terminology, though 30 days is considered to be the earliest at which something can be stricken.

I think it would be ergative, both transitive and intransitive, with the meanings relating in a predictable pattern. I thought that with the passage of time the RfV would "clock out" on its own (intransitively). Its time ran out. I didn't do it. It's not my fault. I was merely drawing attention to the fact, especially for entries where I had entered the RfV and thereby felt debarred from striking. DCDuring TALK 20:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had interpreted this use as intransitive, just as you intended it, and it didn't strike me as being at all odd. Until you listed it here, it never occurred to me that I'd never heard this use anywhere else. —Ruakh_TALK 00:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

English: the language of easy invention. DCDuring TALK 01:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, what's a good substitute. "Expired"? "Out of time"? "Past 30 days"? "Past its attest-by date"? Is it useful enough to keep as wikijargon (in WT:GLOSS)? DCDuring TALK 01:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

finnoc

No language given, but not found either. --EncycloPetey 19:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it might be Scots, not sure about the overlap into English. Nadando 20:01, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

peas and rice

Plausible, but I can only find the one poor citation I've already added, even after a cursory look on Usenet. Equinox ◑ 21:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I've heard that one a bit, but I don't know whether it's primarily a spoken term. I've more often heard cheese and rice. --EncycloPetey 21:46, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now cited, but it looks like the definition could use work. Two of the cites take the form "Jesus Christ, peas and rice", so I don't think they're using peas and rice is a euphemism, even an ironic one. The third one does seem euphemistic, however. (Unfortunately, b.g.c. has gazillions of hits for actual peas-and-rice dishes, so it's really hard to find representative uses of the interjection.) —Ruakh_TALK 17:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFV passed, but I've replaced the definition with {{rfdef}}. —Ruakh_TALK 12:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pretty

Rfv-sense An anon had deleted this and another sense on the grounds that they are merely ironic or sarcastic use of the word. One of the deleted senses is well supported in dictionaries. The other I'm not so sure about. I'm sure that we'll find quotes for all senses that could use illustration. DCDuring TALK 12:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this a usage note? "Pretty" (attractive) may be used in a derogatory fashion to describe something that is seen to be pretty (attractive) but not, as it should be, functional. (The current sense is wrong at least in that it wouldn't be used for anything that was ugly and unfunctional.) It reminds me of an RFD/RFV a while ago where somebody suggested that "good" had an extra sense simply because one might sneer, "Oh, she's such a good girl." Equinox ◑ 21:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it is even a usage note, but I can't quite reconcile the Hemingway quote with the senses we have -- or even those in MWOnline. It may be a good example of why not every quote really fits under a single sense or usage note.

The sense in "Now this is a pretty mess" seems like it might have evolved from ironic use of the original straight senses. (This doesn't sound like a US usage to me, BTW.) Maybe another negative sense is emerging or has emerged. If it doesn't seem that way to anyone here, maybe not.

And don't forget that "bad" acquired an opposite meaning that it accepted by most dictionaries. And consider "goody-two-shoes" and goody-goody. DCDuring TALK 23:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The negative use of pretty isn't new, and could very well have been strengthened by it's use in the popular operetta The Mikado (Gilbert & Sullivan). In the second act is a trio piece that twice uses the phrase "Here's a pretty mess" to describe the difficult situation they're in, and ends with all three characters singing a protracted "Here's a pretty how-de-do" in unison. --EncycloPetey 02:12, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether there is a second negative sense. The opposite-to-normal-valence meanings of "bad", "goody-goody", and "goody two shoes" are all fairly old, "bad" being at least 80 years old. DCDuring TALK 02:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tittle

RfV-sense for “[t]he dot, or diacritic replacing it, on the Latin letters (deprecated template usage) i and (deprecated template usage) j”; can the term (deprecated template usage) tittle really be extended to the diacritic that replaces the dot normally found atop the <i> and <j>? This sounds like a non-standard overextension to me… † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr ﴿ 11:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, OED says: "1. A small stroke or point in writing or printing. a. Orig. rendering L. apex ‘point, tip’, applied in classical L. to any minute point or part of a letter, also to the mark over a long vowel, as á, later also to a line indicating an abbreviation. More recently applied also to the Spanish tilde or circumflex over ñ, formerly to the cedilla under ç. By extension, any stroke or tick with a pen. b. The dot over the letter i; a punctuation mark; a diacritic point over a letter; any one of the Hebrew and Arabic vowel-points and accents." --Duncan 12:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Webster's third says that the term may be applied to any small stroke or diacritical, including a cedilla. Our definition is apparently not broad enough. --EncycloPetey 15:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

vintage

Rfv-sense: Adjective senses 3 and 4. Both try to demark specific time periods for the meaning covered by sense 2, but while I have found plenty of examples that don't fit the given time period restrictions, other than an unsourced Wikipedia article for vintage car, I can't find anything that gives those as the definition to be used. Possibly might be used by specific collector organizations, but no evidence of general use being restricted to those definitions. — Carolina wren discussió 01:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OED, vintage, n.: “4. attrib., [. . .] c. transf. Denoting an old style or model of something, esp. a vehicle; vintage car, a motor car made between 1905 (or 1917) and 1930; cf. veteran car s.v. VETERAN n. 3.”

They've combined the general sense of old model and the technical sense of car model from particular years. A good approach.

I like our approach of separating the two, so one person might say vintage car meaning “car of 1915,” and another may say vintage car meaning “my old ’57.” The former is really a subsense of the latter, and in many cases it may be impossible to tell which sense is being used. But the problem with this is that we must list every attestable standard as a separate technical sense: cars, watches, etc. —Michael Z. 2009-05-31 02:54 z

After edit conflict

Yuk. That [the OED def.] doesn't seem very lexicographic. It seems more like something written by an aficianado, perhaps someone with a garage full of pre-1930 cars. When was that written? Assuming it ever reflected usage beyond the owners of pre-1930 cars, is it still generally used that way? In the US? UK? Hawaii? NYC? In another ten years, will this still be the definition? If we are going to have definitions like this with dates, we're going to have to flag the entries for periodic review to make sure they don't get out of date. DCDuring TALK 03:07, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entry is marked Second Edition 1989. Whether we're happy with the OED's details or not, it's not bad support for keeping vintage adj. sense 3. EtymOnline says that cars have been called vintage since 1928, so I'm assuming it didn't always mean 1930, and perhaps it won't always.[30] —Michael Z. 2009-05-31 04:39 z

This is one case where I can't accept the OED definition at face value. For instance, The Vintage Car Club of Canada uses a definition of vintage that covers any car that is 25 or more years old. Perhaps there is a British collector organization that uses the 1919-1930 definition the OED gives, but we have conflicting use that can be well documented, so at best such a hyperdefined sense would need considerable context marking. Moreover, without primary cites to back up the sense, keeping the current sense 3 based on it being given in the OED would not only violate the attestation requirement of CFI, but be a copyright violation to boot. — Carolina wren discussió 01:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not copyright violation. The facts related in a dictionary are not copyrighted, including the definitions of words. Only the writing is, that is, the precise wording. Even so, all dictionaries necessarily borrow from others—there are only so many ways to irreducibly define some words. The OED doesn't label British usage, so one could presume that their definition of vintage (car) is restricted to British usage.

OED also has an interesting quotation under Edwardian: “1968 Woman's Own 28 Sept. 28/1 Can you tell me what is the difference between a veteran car and a vintage car? A veteran is a car built before 1905 and a vintage car is one manufactured between the beginning of 1919 and the end of 1930. The period in between is covered by the category ‘Edwardian car’.” —Michael Z. 2009-06-05 02:33 z

I can add three citations for 1919 to 1930 if that would help. There are minor variations, but most countries seem to adopt the British dates. Dbfirs 21:37, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009

hé

Not in DRAE, maybe obsolete spelling? Matthias Buchmeier 09:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

google books:"hé tú" and "he tú" suggest that both are "in mention", at least. From more "natural" searches, such as "hé hecho", I can't discern if either one has ever been in use. I wonder if this is one of those nigh-theoretical things; the imperative used to be (deprecated template usage) hé, then when the Academy took the accent off of (deprecated template usage) hé (yo), they officially took it off of (deprecated template usage) hé (tú) as well, but by that point the form was no longer in use. (Like if an English Academy decided to simplify "thou" conjugations by removing the "dost"/"doest" distinction in favor of common "dost" — it wouldn't really change anything.) But the distinction that our entries are making ((deprecated template usage) he is yo-indicative, (deprecated template usage) hé is tú-imperative) definitely requires support. —Ruakh_TALK 12:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at google books:"hé tú", the first is an OCR error from the words "he said". The rest are separated by punctuation, as "yo he, tú has" ("I have, you have"). "he tú" is also separated by punctuation as "yo he, tú has". All of the instances under "hé hecho" that I looked at were either typos or misspellings. The spelling hé does exist, at least theoretically, as the tú-imperative, but I haven’t seen it in use before. —Stephen 21:12, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, b.g.c. must be showing you something different from what it's showing me. At google books:"hé tú" I see a bunch of relevant mentions (including the one you link to below). (I mean, I also see Irish and Pinyin and other irrelevancies, but about a third of the hits I see are relevant mentions.) —Ruakh_TALK 19:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It’s difficult to find an example. I finally found a simple mention in Anuario de la Academia colombiana. —Stephen 21:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

vaina (Spanish)

Rfv-sense sense 3: case. Not in User:Hippietrail's dictionaries (as of 2007). --Jackofclubs 16:07, 21 June 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Yes, it means case. Hippietrail's dictionaries must be small. Por ejemplo, una vaina de cartucho = cartridge case. Also, the reinforcing hem along the edge of a sail (tabling), or the edge of a flag that is folded over and hemmed in order to pass a rope through it, is called a casing, which is Spanish es una vaina. A vaina is a sheath, scabbard, case, husk, or pod. A synonym is funda, as in pillowcase (funda de almohada). There is also the "cuchillo provisto de vaina", or case knife. To put something into a case is envainar. Case is a very common translation of vaina, and vice versa. —Stephen 11:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got the tiny Collins Spanish Dictionary Complete & unabridged, 8th edition, 2005, 84-253-3940-5, over 2000 pages; the miniscule Larousse Gran Diccionario Español-Inglés, 2nd edition, 2004, 970-22-0656-1, over 1600 pages; and a little Diccionario de la lengua española, 22nd edition, 2001, 84-239-6813-8, over 1500 pages. But yeah even though they must be some of the smaller Spanish dictionaries available, any dictionary can be incomplete (-: — hippietrail 13:21, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ארי

Rfv-sense 2: Used as an honorific for an important man.

Was tagged by User:Ruakh but not listed here --Jackofclubs 16:09, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marmite

This should be attestable in attributive use. DCDuring TALK 13:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A look on Google books suggests that marmite (ie, minuscule) can also be used to mean the yeast spread. Does that seem right? — Beobach972 02:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't surprise me. But I am fairly sure that the upper-case brand name preceded the lower case for the yeast stuff. The brand name is apparently derived from the container it was sold in which resembled the French (deprecated template usage) marmite. If "Marmite" can't be cited in attributive use, we can still have the lower-case entry and include the brand name in the etymology. DCDuring TALK 02:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be a medically-useful substance called Marmite, but I'm not sure whether it's the yeast spread or not. It seems to be. Take a look:

1940: the Indian Council of Medical Research, The Indian Journal of Medical Research, pages 377–378
In this group there were 3 cases which showed only extensive scrotal involvement that cleared up completely after Marmite was given for 3 weeks. [... In another case,] the dose of Marmite was not doubled as was done in the other cases, where the desired result was not obtained.
1963: Donald Stewart McLaren, Malnutrition and the eye, page 261
Calcium, phosphorus, and nicotinic acid were not of value but Marmite gave slight improvement in all cases who received it.

(The 1963 one is also an interesting use of 'who'.) — Beobach972 15:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1917: Robert Hutchison, Food and the principles of dietetics, page 98
Recently, extracts prepared from yeast have been introduced as substitutes for ordinary meat extracts. A good example of these is the preparation known as Marmite, which has the following composition [...]
1997, Bessie Head, Maru, page 81 or 87
Moleka's kisses taste like Marmite sandwiches. Moleka's kisses taste like roast beef with spicy gravy.
2008: Elizabeth Hartley Winthrop, December, page 197
"Do you like Marmite, Belle?" Isabelle pauses to inspect the brown stuff now on her knife. She has never had Marmite before, and it smells terrible [...]

— Beobach972 15:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think only the "Marmite sandwich" case fits the attributive use criterion, but I'm not sure. The broad sense of attributive might include this:

Template:quote-news

—DCDuring 16:06, 1 July 2009

This is lowercase, but I thought I'd put it here for now.

1919 (?): Lawrence J. Weidmann, The Battle of Bourges, page 92
Two girls were on the night stretch and three on each of the others, one making sandwiches, one acting as cashier, and the third, called the marmite girl, [...]

— Beobach972 19:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another example of 'Marmite sandwiches', referred to both with article and without:

2007, Annette Laing, Don't Know Where, Don't Know When, Confusion Press, page 28
Brandon, hungry, decided he would prefer something savory, and was offered a choice of sardines on toast or Marmite sandwich. [...] Brandon didn't know what a Marmite sandwich might be, but it sounded better than crunchy eyeball fish, [...]

Also, I'm sure someone could find examples of 'Marmite kiss[es]' in usenet. — Beobach972 19:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009

microgenesis

I can't verify the meaning of this word. Will need formatting if OK. SemperBlotto 18:56, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how best to define it, but a b.g.c search returns many uses. --EncycloPetey 18:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

nest

"Template:computing A structure in a programming code, like blocks, functions, subroutines, etc." The verb is well known. For instance, if you have an inner loop that looks at every column in a grid and an outer loop that looks at every row, you can "nest" them, which means you put one inside the other (and thus consider every grid cell, every combination of row and column). I learned this term in the 1980s. But I've never heard of this being a noun, and I distrust anybody who talks about "a programming code" as though it were singular. Equinox ◑ 01:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some use of this mainly as "loop nest". Conrad.Irwin 01:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

zanzy

The etymology is incredibly suspect. Does anyone know this word? Equinox ◑ 02:31, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The etymology is what other dictionaries have. I'm unfamiliar with the word, but it appears at [31] and [32].—msh210℠ 16:01, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

jack

Rfv-sense: baseball slang interjection. DCDuring TALK 16:37, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very hard to search for this using Google. (Do the BYU corpora help? I'm unfamiliar with them.) This page (equivalently, in case that's 404, this one) make it seem like a noun, and capitalized. Of course, that's not durably archived. I've found the following book hit so far, but POS is unclear:

1994, April Sinclair, Coffee Will Make You Black, 2000 Harper Perennial edition, ISBN 0380724596, page 27 [33]:
I could hear my brothers clapping and yelling. "Home run, jack! Home run, jack!"

Make of it what you will.—msh210℠ 16:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other Web hits concur that it's a noun.—msh210℠ 18:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm used to hearing it as a noun "23 jacks on the season" (sounds really silly in British English, that). It does exist as a verb, but I don't think either sense is quite correct. And the interjection is right just shouting the noun "jack". That should REALLY go. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:44, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

malent

In some limited English use - maybe a combo of mull and lament. Or maybe a borrowed French or Latin word? Goldenrowley 02:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

application delivery network

Was Application Delivery Network before renaming.

Protologism? Commercial product? Capitalised? SemperBlotto 11:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a bit of cleanup, based on the fact it might meet CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:01, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fibber McGee's closet

The current example sentence is not adequate because it only says something is like Fibber McGee's closet. Equinox ◑ 23:47, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Citations:Fibber McGee's closet. Some are similes, which shouldn't qualify. Others are metaphorical uses, which should. DCDuring TALK 00:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the research. I'd say that five or six of your eight should qualify. Equinox ◑ 12:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our definition is "household clutter', whereas most of the citations are just for a clutter sense, not household-specific.—msh210℠ 17:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed definition and closed, as cited'. Equinox ◑ 21:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

waffle

Rfv-sense: Police slang. Any takers? --EncycloPetey 14:47, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added one cite. This is a hard one. Incidentally, based on the hits I found, we seem to be missing some senses; I added a few that I could figure out (people waffling their hands to indicate vacillation; a waffled surface), but there seem to be yet others, if anyone's up to it. —Ruakh_TALK 18:57, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yyster-bossie

ysterbos

What a strange word. I suppose the capitalisation is wrong (look at the citation), coming purely from the older English habit of capitalising Important Nouns. I also can't find any text with the word in. Equinox ◑ 15:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't actually a definition either, it just gives a meaningless red link. Seems to qualify under "no usable content given" if you ask me. Mglovesfun (talk)

AFAICT, it seems like it might be a scanno of an Afrikaans word. The plant in question seems to be from the genus wikispecies:Dodonaea, w:Dodonaea angustifolia, the sand olive. w:Carl Peter Thunberg gave his name to a lot of plants, especially in South Africa, but some seem to have been taken away. A google source gave sandolien and ysterhout as names for the plant, presumably Afrikaans. "bossie" might be an Afrikaanized word from an African language. DCDuring TALK 01:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Afrikaans yster = iron; hout = wood, this is yet another species called ironwood.

I can't find or guess what bossie might be for this. DCDuring TALK 01:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Mglovesfun: the definition is a couple of species names. Assuming (I haven't checked) that those are real species, that's a valid definition, if one that can be worded better.—msh210℠ 17:17, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MG was reacting to the unexpanded species names. What's there now is what I've found. As it was, the snippet quote didn't give enough context to determine that "D." was Dodonaea. DCDuring TALK 17:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've got this right now. If the multi-problematic original cite can be accepted as a citation of ysterbos, then ysterbos is cited. DCDuring TALK 18:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trudeau salute

Same editor, I think. —Ruakh_TALK 03:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This term is an authentic Canadianism (I'll add quotations later) and the behavior very much in character for the late w:Pierre Elliott Trudeau. But the only sensible POS is noun. -- WikiPedant 06:22, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it should be a noun, not a verb. Equinox ◑ 18:46, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

mistakes were made

Matching the definition given, above and beyond the mere sentence on its own. Equinox ◑ 00:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It approaches idiomacity, in that equivalent statements (e.g. "mistakes occurred", "errors were made") would seem not to convey quite the same sentiment. See, e.g.:

2009, Suzanne Brockmann, Into the Fire‎, p. 162:

"I'm assuming we're talking now about the Hollywood assignment," she said, "where . . . mistakes were made?"

Cheers! bd2412 T 19:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

	Input needed
	This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

chocolate soldier

Digger slang. By same contributor as various other RFV-failed bits of supposed Digger slang. —Ruakh_TALK 16:19, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The New Partridge Dictionary of Slang and Unconventional English (2006) has it: "a member of an Australian militia during World War 2 who did not serve in a theatre of war". Looks hard to cite in usage. Equinox ◑ 15:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

snarler

Digger slang. By same contributor as various other RFV-failed bits of supposed Digger slang. —Ruakh_TALK 16:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

crimenetly

US slang interjection. Never heard it. Might be yet another like "crikey". DCDuring TALK 15:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have thought there was anything unusual about this. It's very small-town Midwestern, I would have said. Try it like this: "oh, cry-ma-NET-ly!" Slightly more common spelling appears to be criminetly. The most common spelling by far, though, seems to be criminently, which is weird because I've never heard the "ent" in it. -- Visviva 10:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

birther

Prove in quotes, please. Goldenrowley 02:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruakh has deleted it. Equinox ◑ 22:45, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did, but I think I was wrong to do so: the term doesn't seem to be a year old yet, but it gets enough relevant hits on Google News that I think it warrants the full RFV period. The entry's creator objected on my talk-page, and I've now undeleted it pending the normal month. (And given how long a lot of these remain open, it may have been around a year before anyone gets around to RFV-failing, it anyway. :-P ) —Ruakh_TALK 23:09, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

out the door

Rfv-sense: Irish idiom 2 senses. "exactly" or "the exact image". The Irish news quotes I found (at Citations:out the door) make it seem more like a general-purpose intensifier. Which is not inconsistent with the usage examples. DCDuring TALK 02:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

all over grumble

dated idiom. 3 mentions at google books no usage. DCDuring TALK 03:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ar-

I have never come across this one. SemperBlotto 15:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As noted in w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ar-, other people have. ☺ Uncle G 19:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aromatic Organic Chemistry gives us "ar-tetrahydro-1-naphthylamine", but is that even valid? Is there any hope that this prefix will be verified? My Word Parts Dictionary lists it only as a variant of (deprecated template usage) ad- (as in (deprecated template usage) arrive). ※ Raifʻhār Doremítzwr 〰 ⓤ · ⓣ · ⓒ 〰 00:33, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. I could only find hits relating to derivatives of naphthalene and naphthol and naphthylamine and such, but I suspect that that's because the distinction is only relevant to derivatives of double-benzene-ring compounds? I dunno, I never did much organic chemistry. —Ruakh_TALK 18:25, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Closing. Equinox ◑ 21:31, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2009

Mac OS

RFDed, kept, sent hither.—msh210℠ 21:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added 3, but I don't know if they meet the brand-names guideline. They refer to computer stuff generally, but don't specifically identify the type of product or refer to the company. —Michael Z. 2009-08-03 01:30 z

The 1999 quote is fine AFAICT.

The 2005 quote is problematic: it has "the Mac OS" rather than "Mac OS", so I assume it's just using the normal abbreviation "OS" ("operating system") with the attributive modifier "Mac". (The phrasing was presumably influenced by the existence of the brand name "Mac OS" — "the Mac OS" gets about three times as many Google hits as "the Windows OS" — but I still don't think it counts.)

The 2008 quote is probably fine, though I'm not sure. People so often refer to Mac OS X as just "OS X" that I think of it as {Mac {OS X}}, but it probably is supposed to be {{Mac OS} X}, so it's probably O.K.

That said, I'm really not sure how the brand-name thing is supposed to work when the product's name says what it is. The context doesn't need to tell us that Mac OS is an OS, because the name itself does that.

—Ruakh_TALK 01:02, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ghost-tweeter

Title was: ghost twitter, ghost-tweeter.

Attestable? I think not. Equinox ◑ 03:04, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both pretty attestable, especially the first one which spells out the definition pretty well. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot find three suitable citations. Equinox ◑ 21:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

	Input needed
	This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

Baruch HaShem

Baruch translates as Blessed; Ha = the; and Shem = Name. HaShem being the common Hebrew substitute name for G-d. — This unsigned comment was added by 67.225.40.55 (talk) at 02:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Right. So, what did you want verified? —Ruakh_TALK 03:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, is this English and are the caps okay? Mglovesfun (talk) 08:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether this is English is open for debate. My vote is "yes", since it's used in English contexts. The caps on "HaShem" are O.K.; in order of frequency, the second word is sometimes written "Hashem", sometimes "HaShem", sometimes "haShem". The caps on "Baruch" are wrong IMHO, just as the lemma form of "Thank G-d!" would be (deprecated template usage) thank G-d. —Ruakh_TALK 15:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, it all hinges on if we're a descriptive or prescriptive dictionary. Baruch hashem, in descriptivist terms, is most certainly an English word, just like (deprecated template usage) burrito or (deprecated template usage) Beijing are.

Relent (transitive)

I can't recall any usage I have heard of relent as a transitive verb. Is this an obsolete sense, or have I missed something obvious? Dbfirs 21:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... (later) ... Sorry, I've found it defined in some dictionaries now, but they all say obsolete, so was I correct in marking it obsolete, or can anyone find any current transitive usages? Dbfirs 21:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... (and even later) I've added an example that I would consider non-standard in modern UK usage, but is it standard in the USA? Dbfirs 22:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so: I don't think I've ever heard anything like it. (But it's a big country, and I've only ever lived in one region of it. It's quite possible that it's standard somewhere else.) —Ruakh_TALK 23:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

waiting

Rfv-sense: (obsolete) Watching, hence, an ogling. Is this modern English or Middle English? What does OED have to say? DCDuring TALK 17:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OED has the sense "Watching, observation. Obs." Nothing about ogling, though. -- WikiPedant 19:40, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do they give a cite with a date or an author? DCDuring TALK 20:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, three quotations, all well before Shakespeare: 1377, c1430, and 1526. I've emailed more info to you, but don't want to post their full citations, since it feels too much like a (moral, if not legal) copyright violation. -- WikiPedant 20:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

September 2009

Star Wars stuff

These need to be attested as English and German words per WT:CFI#Fictional universes. They also need out-of-universe definitions, and the Star Wars restricted-use label should be removed. —Michael Z. 2009-09-01 11:29 z

See also #Vader, WT:RFDO#Template:Star Wars. —Michael Z. 2009-09-01 11:45 z

Good to see the citations being added below. We'd prefer to see attributive or generic uses, rather than specific mentions of characters. See for example the distinction in Citations:Princess Leia, and Han Solo. —Michael Z. 2009-09-02 13:34 z

Chewbacca

Darth

RFV failed, sense removed. —Ruakh_TALK 18:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Death Star (old)

Star Wars sense RFV failed, converted to etymology. Other senses moved to a separate section (below). —Ruakh_TALK 20:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

droid

I think the definition is wrong; it's an intelligent robot period, not just from the Star Wars universe. Lucas may have coined the term (as an abbreviation for android, which is definition #2), but it has come to mean the thing wherever encountered.

2005, John L. Kundert-Gibbs, Dariush Derakhshani, Maya Secrets of the Pros, p. 96:
For a quick venture into ambient occlusion, we'll render a CGI robot droid in several passes and composite them back together in Photoshop to show the flexibility of ambient occlusion as well as rendering in layers for different lighting passes.
1995, J. D. Robb, Glory in Death, p. 39:
The bartender was a droid, as most were, but she doubted this one had been programmed to listen cheerfully to customers' hard luck stories.
1985, R. A. Montgomery, War with the Evil Power Master, p. 92:
The droid nods in agreement and begins to arm the ship's defensive weapons.
1981, Paul Friedman, Computer programs in BASIC, p. 37:
Each droid can move one square at a time. The computer and you each "own" a droid, but each of you can control the other's droid if you so desire.

Cheers! bd2412 T 03:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Implemented, thanks! —Ruakh_TALK 17:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet ironically, "BD2412" could well be a Star Wars droid himself.. Ƿidsiþ 17:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beep whrrr-boop boop beeep! bd2412 T 04:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ewok

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 18:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jabba the Hutt

Easily attestable; here's one:

2009, Theresa Rebeck, Three Girls and Their Brother‎, page 267
"I think she looks like Jabba the Hutt. I've been calling her Jabba the Hutt in my head. Don't you think she looks like Jabba the Hutt, or some science project, some science project gone hideously awry, in that green dress?"

Not really. This is simply a direct reference to the character in the movie. “She looks like Scarlett O'Hara” wouldn't show that that characters name is part of the English language either. Please see WT:CFI#Names of specific entities for an explanation. —Michael Z. 2009-09-03 01:25 z

I disagree. The comparison here depends on a particular attribute rather than a general physical resemblance. It thus assumed that the reader is aware of the Star Wars character and ties a specific physical attribute to that character above all others. The comparison is not made for lack of legs, vertically-slitted pupils, or the presence of a lengthy tail. Only the obesity of the character is intended, as there is a single attribute associated here with the charatcer. It's the same as calling someone "like Florence Nightingale", whose name implies an attribute of compassion and service to those in need of medical aid. --EncycloPetey 04:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps the excerpt is missing important context, because I don't see any physical attribute of comparison mentioned here—not Jabba the Hutt's size, his ugliness, his obesity, or his lack of neck, for example. In fact it exactly depends on the unspecified, general mention of resemblence alone (unless I missed the Star Wars movie where Jabba wears a green dress...). —Michael Z. 2009-09-03 13:31 z

Yes, Jabba the Hutt is partly green, but I don't see him described as green (e.g. in w:Jabba the Hutt or in Wookieepedia). Wearing a green dress doesn't make someone akin to Jabba in any way, and something else or something more is implied—if the “she” in the citation were a thin, pretty woman, then this would make no sense. The author implies only general unattractive appearance, and hedges her bets by throwing in the science project comparison. —Michael Z. 2009-09-03 14:34 z

As I recollect, we haven't been accepting quotes where the challenged Proper noun was used in a simile. The cite above uses the word "like" twice. The other use looks more like a mention. DCDuring TALK 23:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recollect any such restriction. CFI certainly says nothing, as it only gives one positive reason for inclusion. It doesn't restrict the use of other rationale. --EncycloPetey 00:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think accepting similes is going to have good consequences. DCDuring TALK 03:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added attributive use quotes for "Jabba the Hutt torso", "Jabba the Hutt voice", and "Jabba the Hutt moment". And.... ooH! I find a cite for (deprecated template usage) non-Jabba-esque. --EncycloPetey 04:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's looking a lot better. Some of the quotations might be using some a fictional character's specific nickname, which arguably wouldn't qualify as an English-language use, but I think this and a few of the other entries are looking more like keep than delete to me now. —Michael Z. 2009-09-08 05:31 z

I tried to formulate a definition based on the citations, but this is only a character's name in every quote. It's not an adjective, nor a common noun. There is no “widely used meaning” beyond the scope of Star Wars. (By the way, “Jabba the Hutt” and “Tatooine” are properties of Lucasfilm Inc.) Delete. —Michael Z. 2010-05-06 00:35 z

Jedi

Easily attestable; here's one:

2008, Gary Berntsen, Ralph Pezzullo, The Walk-In‎, page 222
Lescher launched into another assault, "The president and I still can't fathom how you could let a man like Freed disappear and then present his findings at the eleventh hour like he's some kind of Jedi warrior back from—"

Aren't citations for "Jedi master" and "Jedi mind trick" necessarily also supportive of the word, Jedi? bd2412 T 15:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily—English Jedi mind trick jocularly describes “magically” persuading someone: if it is an English term with a life outside of Star Wars, then that implies that it is probably used by people who are not Jedis. Another way to look at it, by example: English coup d'état doesn't make état an English word. —Michael Z. 2009-09-08 16:32 z

I don't see how the example is comparable, since "Jedi" does not originate in any language other than English. Otherwise, the same could be said of the phrase "Jedi warrior" in the citation above, and Jedi would be excluded from inclusion simply because it can be used as an adjective. bd2412 T 16:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether Jedi is a word in English according to our criteria, no matter where it originated. If Jedi mind trick is idiomatic, then Jedi would have to be attested separately. It's possible for either one or both of these (or neither) to meet our criteria, so it would save a bunch of haggling if both were attested independently. —Michael Z. 2009-09-08 17:49 z

Jedi Master

Easily attestable; here's one:

2007, D. J. MacHale, The Lost City of Faar‎, page 3
It's like he's some kind of Jedi master who only drips out information on a need-to-know basis. Well, I need to know bad. — This comment was unsigned.

Do we call this attributive use? Jedi master and Jedi Master are each three cites short. DCDuring TALK 02:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now each two short. DCDuring TALK 13:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a specific entity or proper noun, so this doesn't depend on attributive uses, although we should have at least three solid examples which are independent of Star Wars (as in, scan the reference to ensure it doesn't explain the term or refer to Star Wars at all). I wouldn't separate the capitalizations, though—they are just variants of the same term. —Michael Z. 2009-09-08 16:36 z

Jedi mind trick

Easily attestable; here's one:

2005, Lou Schuler, Alwyn Cosgrove , The New Rules of Lifting: Six Basic Moves for Maximum Muscle‎, page 205
I've met personal trainers who were phenominally good at figuring out their clients' starting wieghts […] Maybe it's some kind of Jedi mind trick. But unless you have one of those trainers, you have to figure it out on your own. — This comment was unsigned.

Entry needs three more cites than it has. DCDuring TALK 02:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it needs two more cites. It already has one, and only three are required. --EncycloPetey 04:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were none in the entry when I made the remark. I don't understand why this page is ever used as a quote repository. It is one of the bulkiest pages we have. It does not need to be cited; the entries do. DCDuring TALK 23:47, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now has three cites. --EncycloPetey 05:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. Equinox ◑ 23:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lichtschwert

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 18:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sith Lord

Bad caps: the Sith are a race, and as a title this is usually written Sith Lord. Equinox ◑ 23:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whichever form, but please capitalize by attested usage, not Star Warsy facts like this representing a race. —Michael Z. 2009-09-08 17:52 z

Changed caps to match what I said above. Equinox ◑ 18:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 13:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Skywalker

stormtrooper

I don't think "stormtrooper" is particularly a Star Wars word, at least any more than, say, "hyperspace" or "blaster". bd2412 T 01:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the challenged sense it looks like it is. DCDuring TALK 01:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm - "Imperial Stormtrooper", on the other hand...

2002, Christopher Brookmyre, Country of the Blind, p. 87:
The young policeman had given up on playing the Imperial Stormtrooper and had sat down, loosening the strap on his semi-automatic so that it lay across his lap under the dismal tabloid.
2003, Paul McAuley, Whole Wide World, p. 66:
The security guards in Imperial Stormtrooper body armour, better armed than any police, were not much impressed by my warrant card...
1999, Arthur Charles Clarke, Michael P. Kube-McDowell, The Trigger, p. 431:
... the young man with the short black hair and what looked like an Imperial stormtrooper’s utility belt under his black-and-red flannel shirt.
1997, Gerrie Lim, Inside the outsider: a decade of shooting the pop culture breeeze, p. 31:
There'll be a little bit of the Imperial Stormtrooper thing with the boombox, along with a little bit of casual fingerpicking.

Cheers! bd2412 T 04:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

stormtrooper Imperial Stormtrooper and Imperial stormtrooper entries are all 3 cites short. DCDuring TALK 02:11, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above three cites suffice for Imperial Stormtrooper, which I would submit is the only one of the three to actually originate in Star Wars. bd2412 T 04:55, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed, sense removed from [[stormtrooper]]. Thanks, BD2412, for the (deprecated template usage) Imperial s/Stormtrooper cites; I've created those entries. —Ruakh_TALK 18:48, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tatooine planet (old RFV)

This may be of interest : w:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tatooine planet

It appears to be a term coined by one of the discoverers of a triple-sun planet, and not used by other people. 76.66.196.139 08:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to a separate section below. (Not actually a Star Wars term per se.) —Ruakh_TALK 19:28, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Todesstern

RFV failed, entry deleted (together with entries for inflected forms). —Ruakh_TALK 19:33, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wookie

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 13:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yoda

Easily attestable; here's one:

2006, Briton Hadden, Henry Robinson Luce, Time‎
It wasn't uncommon to see therapists gazing at him between presentations as though he were Yoda.

As with Jabba the Hutt above, this is a mention of the specific (fictional) person, not an example of Yoda becoming a word in the language. Doesn't help for inclusion. —Michael Z. 2009-09-03 01:25 z

You have questioned the fictional character sense in the entry. I provided a quotation outside the Star Wars universe, so it meets the request you posted. The quote assumes that the reader is familiar with the connotation of the character and his attributes, so it does qualify. --EncycloPetey 04:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem is with the definition. The Star Wars content may be better in the etymology with the actual definition covering the meaning it has in the three attributive-use cites once there are enough to infer the meaning. DCDuring TALK 10:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EP, I have asked for verification, based on our CFI. Please don't assume that I would want anything else. I don't see any evidence in the content of this quotation, or in, say, an overwhelming volume of similar quotations, indicating that this is any more than a pop-culture reference aimed at readers who have seen a Star Wars movie. It's possible that this quotation might support a body of cites, but alone it doesn't look helpful to me.

DCD, yes I think some of these definitions may change based on the attestations found, as in how I amended Han Solo. —Michael Z. 2009-09-03 13:44 z

2008, Cecelia Ahern, There's No Place Like Here, p. 41:
I expected Mr. Burton to be a wise old man with a head of wild gray hair, a monocle in one eye, a waistcoat with a pocket watch attached by a chain, a brain exploding with knowledge after years of extensive research into the human mind. I expected Yoda of the Western world, cloaked in wisdom, who spoke in riddles and tried to convince me that the Force in me was strong.
bd2412 T 03:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that EP's example doesn't cut the mustard. By that token, we should have an entry for Marilyn Monroe because there are equally plenty of texts that refer to Monroe and expect the reader to know who she is. Equinox ◑ 20:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be interesting to cite a Marilyn Monroe. It might be possible if there are enough accessible works from 1955 to 1975. Please take a look at Citations:Yoda. Two seem like use of noun in attributive position. The other is an out of context use as a noun that uses him as an exemplar of wisdom. DCDuring TALK 23:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

“Yoda doll” and “Yoda mask” are direct pop-culture references to the character, and probably don't belong here at all. The other's look not bad, assuming the context doesn't explain who Yoda is. The mouse example may be using the name in a different sense than the others, for something small and old, rather than a sage. —Michael Z. 2009-09-08 17:57 z

We now have citations for Yoda that appear to be a common noun meaning "wise overseer" (the Yoda of the operation) and "long-lived dwarf" (the Yoda of rodents). --EncycloPetey 22:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These uses of his name just mean “Yoda,” the specific person in Star Wars, and property of Lucasfilm Inc. (Heck, your “wise overseer” quotation starts with “If the invasion of Iraq was Star Wars . . .”) I'll find you a dozen quotes like “the Churchill of Brazil,” “the Churchill of his generation,” or “illuminating our darkest hour like a Churchill,” but the specific name Churchill continues to refer to Sir Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill (1874–1965), the specific man, with his specific history and qualities. —Michael Z. 2010-05-06 01:05 z

bavaroise

I think, this should be bavarois. IS this a misspelling? bavarois has only one definition of a pudding - maybe a bavarois is different than a bavaroise, or the user was mistaken. Etymology is claimed to be German, but bavaroise#French is not German, it is a French word. --Rising Sun 19:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I think (tbc) that Bavarie is the French for the German region Bavaria), but that's a bit like saying Naples is an Italian word because it's a place in Italy. I guess we are disputing the English senses, here, not the French as well. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:34, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bavière actually, I'll correct it. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In English these could be expected to refer to be the names of prepared foods. A quick review of bgc leads me to suspect that both bavaroise and bavarois would warrant an entry. I will leave it those who could eat such things the pleasure of citing them. DCDuring TALK 20:33, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Daivajna

Reference is to a Sanskrit dictionary. Definitions also seem to be of a Sanskrit nature. Obviously the Sanskrit entry should be (only) at its proper written form, not a transliteration. Any evidence that this is used in English? With any/all of these meanings? -- Visviva 02:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to दैवज्ञ as suggested by the article itself. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

email

Rfv-etymology/senses related to émail. I can find no attestations of such use in English texts on BGC. The only specific hit in English (1883 report) is actually an OCR error for 'small'. (here) Can anyone else find this usage? - Amgine/^talk 18:57, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I added this in response to a request somewhere. It's in the OED without an accent (cites from 1877 to 1957).

As of June 2009, the OED accepts email (sense 1) without the hyphen. ~~Should we remove the non-standard tag?~~ I still use the hyphen! Dbfirs 19:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... Sorry, I was looking at an old version of the page. The tag has already been removed. Dbfirs 19:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

redamancy

Only hits on b.g.c are to Elisha Coles' dictionary of difficult words, and to two other sources that cover dictionary words. (Plus a scanno for redundancy.) One source indicates that this and its evil twin (deprecated template usage) redamation can be found in the OED, but I don't have ready access to that and some others here do. For all I know the OED could be citing Coles' as well. Good luck finding it. If you do, could you verify the etymology an IP poster provided. — Carolina wren discussió 22:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your access is better than you think, at least to the 1st edition. Try here, page numbered 293 (= page 307 of the PDF). Click "Read online" if you don't want to deal with a monstrous file.

Anyway, this is in the OED1 and OED2. However, the only cite is a definition in Glossographia, a 17th-century dictionary by w:Thomas Blount (lexicographer). Absent actual evidence of use, it would not appear to meet our criteria for inclusion, even if it (apparently?) meets the OED's. "Redamation" has only one cite, so it might also face an uphill climb. -- Visviva 07:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For your linky convenience: [34]. :-) (I know, layout needs some work.) -- Visviva 09:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

well done

Means "well cooked" in general but "overcooked" when talking about steak? Seems subjective and debatable. Equinox ◑ 19:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the "well cooked" sense UK? I am only familiar with this with respect to meat, mostly red meats. I have added the sense that I know, but without a regional tag, and also the postpositioned adjective because of its archaic grammar (position). DCDuring TALK 20:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1958 (George W Hodges, Swamp Angel): "When both 'possum and potatoes were well done, they were ready for the table." I doubt any typical BrE text would talk about possums, so it's probably not British-only. Equinox ◑ 19:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only rare people think that well done means overcooked. Shouldn't we combine all these senses into one line?

A bgc search for "well done" +cook brings up dozens of usages from around the world.

I suggest we combine senses 2, 3 & 4 into one line reading (cooking) Thoroughly cooked; cooked through to the centre center, sometimes to the point of overcooking. Dbfirs 16:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to see if there is any clear support for the two challenged senses, such as what Equinox has found. If not, then we can consider combining them, though I would challenge any definition that included "overcooked" without support. In the end any element of a definition should be supportable by three quotes, IMO. The best way to minimize the need for attestation is to generalize the sense, eliminating unsupportable elements altogether. When I express this demanding standard, I wonder how we will ever get enough contributors to attest to what ought to be attested to. DCDuring TALK 18:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they are separate senses. Perhaps the overcooking overtone is just an example of meiosis?

1829 (Louis Eustache Ude, The French Cook): "White beans must be well done before you dress them ..." and "Let the onions be well done."

1902 (Lida Seely, Mrs. Seely's cook book: a manual of French and American cookery ...): "Boil rice, well done, in a rice boiler"

Will these suffice? I would have suggested a dated tag for non-meat cooking, but the expression is still in use where I live. Dbfirs 19:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They look good to me. If the application to food in general is, say, {{dated|_|now mostly|_|UK}} for the non-meat usage, then that is what would warrant an additional sense, I think.

I had a touch of meiosis once, but a quick visit to the field surgery and I was right as rain. DCDuring TALK 20:33, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

phœnomenon

phœnomena

These spellings are etymologically inconsistent; let’s see if they’re actually used. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr ﴿ 18:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems they are valid archaic spellings. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yes, it seems ~~they~~ it exists (not that they’re valid by dint thereof). The following can explain why I doubted it, however:

¹¹⁄₃₀ of the first hits for "phœnomenon" are scannos for (deprecated template usage) phænomenon: [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45] — many more are inaccessible, in another language, or are in some other way erroneous.
⁴⁄₃₀ of the first hits for "phœnomena" are scannos for (deprecated template usage) phænomena: [46], [47], [48], [49] — the caveat attached to *(deprecated template usage) phœnomena also applies here; moreover, I didn’t find any undoubtedly verifiable instances of *(deprecated template usage) phœnomena in the first thirty hits, so I maintain my request for the verification of the plural form.

Heaven only knows why this error occurs (at least in the singular); still less explicable would be if only the singular saw such use, and the plural were unattestable. Quotations with links to visible scans of the source texts’ pages, please. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr ﴿ 23:11, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've cited phœnomenon, can someone copyedit that for me, please? Mglovesfun (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve done what I can; please check them to make sure what I’ve done is correct. (I didn’t know how to present the one that looks like it was written in 1785.) No offence, but these citations are of a very poor quality; they need page numbers, links, &c. — see WT:QUOTE. Please fix in them what I cannot.

I’ve written usage notes for (deprecated template usage) phenomenon that explain the situation with these spellings and with the term’s plural use. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr ﴿ 14:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

phœnomena failed, deleted.
phœnomenon not acceptably cited as far as I can tell; I can't confirm that the sources actually used the O-E ligature, but I do find evidence that they didn't. Please find citations that can be confirmed; Google's "No Preview Available" is just a euphemism for "probably a scanno". :-P
—Ruakh_TALK 05:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

phœnomenon failed, moved redirectlessly to Citations:phœnomenon, with a warning-box explaining the issue. —Ruakh_TALK 23:44, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

zodiac

Rfv-sense: of the 13 constellations of the ecliptic. Do astronomers use this sense, or do they normally use the 12-constellation sense (despite knowing about the extra constellation) that the rest of the population is familiar with? --EncycloPetey 05:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

B.g.c turns up hundreds of hits for the search: Ophiuchus thirteen zodiac. A slight majority of the references appear to be for astrology uses, with the rest being aimed at amateur astronomers or false positives. — Carolina wren discussió 05:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the hits are actually astronomy-related sites using it as a way of "disproving" astrology, in fact. I imagine scientists don't have much need to reference the ecliptic and the constellations at the same time, but when they do, they'd mention the 13th. Also, what does "B.g.c" mean? 69.182.67.82 07:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

b.g.c is books.google.com --Dmol 07:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. The constellation was also known as "Serpentarius" back in the day, if that aids in the search. 69.182.67.82 17:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else? I think it's been verified. (I'm the above IP) 69.177.201.49 01:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it hasn't been verified yet, sorry. A word or sense is verified once citations have been added to the entry, or to its citations page, that demonstrate that it meets our criteria for inclusion. —Ruakh_TALK 06:07, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

chek#English

Is this really English? Needs verification. 124.214.131.55 07:31, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sizes.com references a 1966 UN compilation of obscure units, gives this unit with the spelling check. Wouldn't be surprising if it is in Hong Kong English, with one or both spellings, but likely not more broadly used. — Carolina wren discussió 07:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[50] It is legally defined, in English, for the jurisdiction of Hong Kong. 76.66.196.139 07:59, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

doppelganger

"A person who has the same name as another"; "A crooked male erection". Both of these look dubious to me (especially the latter...) Korodzik 18:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MWOnline has the first sense so it should be possible to cite it. Unsurprisingly the second doesn't seem to be in any OneLook dictionaries or even Urban Dictionary. DCDuring TALK 21:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Second sense RFV failed, removed. I'll see about citing the first one. —Ruakh_TALK 01:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

google books:doppelganger "same name" has quite a few hits in the relevant sense, but I couldn't find a single one that didn't use an umlaut. Further, all but one italicized the word, and one really went all out with the Germanism both by capitalizing it and by using the German plural. I've put them all at Citations:doppelgänger (which already had a 1977 cite from Hippietrail). What I don't get is, is "doppelganger" usually spelled with an umlaut in English? If so, then our main entry should be at doppelgänger. If not, then how come this specific sense seems to be overwhelmingly umlauted? —Ruakh_TALK 14:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

herm

Rfv-sense "Derogative term for a female body with both male and female sex-organs and the sexual attraction there of." Nadando 18:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a slang for 'hermaphrodite'. Altenmann 21:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, herm.=hermaphrodite is botanical/zoological abbreviation [51]. Does this require a separate page, herm., or this meaning can be added to 'herm? I am not well-skilled in wiktionary; please add this meaning appropriately. Altenmann 21:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe past discussions leaned towards dropping the dot, since the dot is likely to be dropped in some contexts anyway and it would be silly to have separate full entries at abbr. and abbr. -- Visviva 12:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed, sense removed. Altenmann has added the senses that (s)he mentions. —Ruakh_TALK 19:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

excoriation

The meaning "Stripping of possession; spoliation." seems reasonable, but it is not given in dictionary.com. neither for "excoriation", nor "excoriate" (nor in "excoriate"). If it is a technical, e.g., legal, or otherwise uncommon meaning, then perhaps a reference would be good to have.Altenmann 21:36, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shown as obsolete at “excoriation”, in Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, Springfield, Mass.: G. & C. Merriam, 1913, →OCLC.. So noted and referenced in entry. DCDuring TALK 19:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

gain-buy

Meaning "redeem". See gainbuy which has one citation (only one visible on b.g.c.). No cites for either term in OED. Many spurious hits like "...to gain, buy ...". I could not find one valid one for "gain buy" or "gain-buy" in the first hundred of ~400 at b.g.c. A Partridge dictionary had it as one of a small number of words derived from the Old English "gean". It may be that it was spelled differently in Middle English and Early Modern English. More citations for gainbuy would be welcome, too. DCDuring TALK 21:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had found a nice batch of inflected forms (gainbuying, gainbought, etc.), but all proved to be from the same modernization of Misyn's translation of two works by Richard Rolle, the "Hermit of Hampole". The OED3 does have some citations, but none with this spelling (mostly something like "gainby") -- and in fact, all but one is from Misyn. All of their citations for both this and Wyclif's preferred "againbuy" are solidly ENM, IMO. What are we to do with words that are used only in modernizations of a single Middle English work? They would seem barred from inclusion under the independence criterion, unless we make like the OED and file all of the Middle English spellings under the modernized spelling. Even then it's touch and go for this one. -- Visviva 10:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, probably the usual form is againbuy Rosswood40 08:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

white coal

the woodchips sense seems from a google to be some companies marketing term, but maybe there's something on google books I missed. Conrad.Irwin 15:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so, no: the marketing term seems to refer to a process applied to low-grade coal to make it better. I can't find any uses or mentions, spammy or otherwise, of this chopped-wood sense; however, there does seem to be a sort of vague general sense along the lines of "any fuel seen as cleaner than regular coal". (See e.g. http://www.indianexpress.com/news/pune-to-take-cue-from-blore-waste-disposal/476222/.) But the hydroelectricity uses dominate; even looking at just the past ten years (in Google Books and in Google News Archive), most hits are either reprints of old works talking about hydroelectricity, or new works talking about how hydroelectricity was once called "white coal". —Ruakh_TALK 21:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed, sense removed. —Ruakh_TALK 19:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

monkery

Plausible but... Mglovesfun (talk) 17:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OED has these meanings. It also has it as tramp's cant for (deprecated template usage) countryside etc. SemperBlotto 21:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hake

Hi, the 2nd and 3rd etymologies in the English section (I don't know about the Finish), lack, can anyone verify and add citations, etymologies etc? Thanks Rosswood40 09:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not really clear on what you're asking for. Are you doubting the existence of any of these senses? —Ruakh_TALK 06:38, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bout

Rfv-sense: "An outside circuit of a field made with a plough or implement to mark the ground and create a headland." Not in any OneLook defn I checked, although (deprecated template usage) bout can mean any sort of circuit. The OED's closest defn is "the going and returning of the plough along two adjacent furrows". -- WikiPedant 02:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OED sense seems to fit the 19th century US usage I find at google books, though I was confused by the noun that referred to the heaping of the soil, the furrow. The OED has cites, visible without subscription at the same family of sites at BYU are consistent with those uses in the 1700s and 1800s, but not before (I think) or after. DCDuring TALK 17:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

regression tree

Rfv-sense: {operations, computing) a decision tree that gives a numeric value as the output. This is a little vague. I haven't heard of it though I have heard of CART and of regression trees in the context of statistics. If the term has a specific meaning in operations and computing, some cites would be nice. DCDuring TALK 19:39, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following link might be more helpful than ones in the entry page: w:Decision_tree_learning#Types. And you can find another similar definition in the second paragraph of this page. As for the context label, probably I should've used data mining ― a field in which this usage is quite common, I believe ― instead. I've also confirmed that it is defined similarly in a reliable introductory data mining book in Japanese:

2001: Fukuda, et al., Data Science Series #3: Data Mining, page 95, Kyoritsu Shuppan

[...] Template:Jpan

[...] in problems in which a numeric value like the amount of purchases is to be determined, the tree is specifically called a regression tree.

Anyhow, as I'm certainly relatively new to data mining and machine learning techniques and their terminology, this definition might not necessarily be accurate enough. Thanks for drawing attention to this. ―Tohru 14:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New revision: (data mining) a predictive model which takes the form of a decision tree and gives a numeric value as the output, usually built by using a data mining technique ―Tohru 15:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The definition is better. I will also add the link and add it to the statistics context, which is the best of our existing contexts. I will try to find quotations that illustrate the fields of application or have other interest. We would welcome having more technical definitions, especially from contemporary fields like data mining. DCDuring TALK 16:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

spijten

As far as I know this is an impersonal verb, i.e. it only occurs as het spijt me just like "it rain" with an indefinite pronoun. Can the template be altered not to produce non-existant we rain and they rained forms? Also the translation is rather imprecise. "It causes me regret" is closer. Jcwf 23:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So it's a cleanup rather than a verification job. Maybe ask AugPi (talk • contribs). Mglovesfun (talk) 22:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

tuigen

I cannot find any corroboration for either translation. Tuigen is a very uncommon verb nowadays, in contrast to its derivatives aftuigen - to give a trashing, intuigen - to strap in (a horse before a cart) optuigen - to decorate, to put sails/mast etc on a boat.

If found some pretty obscure quotations from literature and internet, see nl:tuigen. Most are pretty old hat

The main meaning today seems to be the strapping in, putting a harness onto a horse. Jcwf 23:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what you're rfving here. If both senses failed, the entry would be deleted, yet you insist above that it exists. If it's just an archaic verb, tag it like that. If you don't use {{rfd-sense}} and {{rfv-sense}} people don't know what it is we are even talking about (I don't). Mglovesfun (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

articulation

Rfv-sense: accounting A state in which the elements of financial statements are fundamentally interrelated in two ways: (1) assets = liabilities + equity (2) Beginning balance + changes = ending balance.

Never heard of it. Not in OneLook. Seems like something that one might call articulation in a moment of "theorizing" or exposition. DCDuring TALK 22:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The concept does seem to exist in accounting, see e.g. this online tutorial[52]. The definition should be reformulated, though. I offer this as a basis for further refinement:

The interrelation and congruence of the flow of data between financial statements of an entity, especially between the income statement and balance sheet.

Another possibility would be to expand definition #1 so as to make clear that the use of the concept "articulation" is not limited to things mechanical. --Hekaheka 12:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the rfv as it seems adequately cited and nobody has challenged the new formulation. --Hekaheka 17:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2009

gra mo chree

Angicization of Gaelic. Ever attestably used? DCDuring TALK 20:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly widespread long-term use. I found three songs with it included, The Boys of the Old Brigade, Last Night I had a Happy Dream (which uses gra mo chree as its alternate title), and another song of the same title but with different sports related lyrics. I didn't go through the books or group listings, but there are a few of each.--Dmol 08:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should it have an "Irish English" tag. Is it used widely in UK or Australia/NZ? I'll have to see whether it's in use among Irish-Americans. DCDuring TALK 14:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an Ireland tag. I've heard it in Australia, but only among Irish friends and family.--Dmol 06:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to confirm usage here. I hope someone can just declare it in widespread use in Irish communities. I should have just brought this to the Tea Room. DCDuring TALK 14:25, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find more gra ma chree than this spelling. Is that a gender difference? DCDuring TALK 14:29, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. It would seem that this is used in transcription of a Gaelic lyric and is rarely used in normal English writing. We don't keep transcriptions, do we? The lyric might be a good usage example for one or more of the constituents in Gaelic. DCDuring TALK 14:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

skirmish

Rfv-sense: English: Noun #3: In warfare, a tactic of attacking with missile weapons without making contact.; Seems to me to be just more specific version of sense 1. Unless some reference or examples can be shown where the more generic meaning is excluded, it out to be deleted or merged into sense 1. — Carolina wren discussió 17:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's only applied to early warfare. Missiles? I don't think that user meant Tomahawks or SCUDs. Besides that, the definition is a bit strange (no contact = not melee or not the intention of hand to hand). --User:Mallerd (Zeg et es meisje) 12:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed, sense removed: no one has added any quotations, and the various comments haven't been enough for me to figure out what exactly this means so I can write a usable definition. Anyone who can define this well and provide quotations, please do so! —Ruakh_TALK 07:45, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

good night

The US Army sense, while plausible, could do with some verification, considering its obscurity. It may very well be a protologism. Dominic·t 09:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fairly sure I've seen it used in English literature at least once. Could've been anywhere between 1900 and 1970 (give or take). I couldn't even begin to try and track it down, though. (I don't know where the US Army part comes from.) — SheeEttin {T/C} 04:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed, sense removed. Anyone who can cite this (either as a U.S. Army–ism, as the definition had, or not, as SheeEttin suggests), please re-add it and do so. —Ruakh_TALK 07:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ninja

"(Internet, slang) To post a particular thing on an Usenet newsgroup or an internet forum faster than another person." Equinox ◑ 10:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't have a durable cite, nor am I interested in slogging through g.g.c to find durable cites, but I have seen this term used in the wild in this sense on an non-durable internet forum that I am member of. Added a generic verb sense, "to act in the manner of a ninja", since verbal usage of (deprecated template usage) ninja is trivial to demonstrate. The exact action being attributed to being something a ninja would do varies based on the context, so perhaps the generic sense is all that is needed. — Carolina wren discussió 19:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed, sense removed. —Ruakh_TALK 18:57, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ailihphilia

Usual garbage, I just want to check before deleting. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness this gets six hits on Google Books, two of which are usable (if you allow Ailihphilia). So I think it merits at the very least a whole month. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, [53], [54], [55], and [56] all definitely use it, whilst this one is unclear. It satisfies the CFI, but the way it’s used clearly requires that it be marked as a nonce word. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr ﴿ 18:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed, entry deleted. I clicked on Doremítzwr's links, and despite his statement that it satisfies the CFI, I'm not convinced. I did put one of them on the citations-page, though. —Ruakh_TALK 07:55, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

land of fruits and nuts

Is this real? Needs a bit of cleanup if OK. SemperBlotto 06:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks very real, more than 200,000 Google hits. Did some clean-up. Here are some clips [57], but the source is not an original one:

1970 Terry Galanoy Chicago Tribune (Aug. 30) “Ted Liss—talent polisher” p. 42: You can make book on some of the people who were there. That is, if you get a chance to see them peform before some midnight rider from the William Morris Agency makes off with them to the land of fruits and nuts.

1982 Al Strachan Globe and Mail (Toronto, Can.) (Sept. 7) “NFC West holds surprises Falcons should soar; 49ers must dig deep” p. P61: Last year, San Francisco 49ers came out of the land of fruits and nuts to surprise almost everyone and become NFL champions.

1990 Ronald Reagan An American Life (Nov. 15) p. 201 @ (Oct. 1, 1999): In the presidential race, I knew we’d have to confront a different stereotype: the bias many Northeeasterns held against Californians—the one that says since California is a land of fruit and nuts, it’s a great place if you’re an orange.

2003 Mary Starrett NewsWithViews.com (May 14) “You Can’t Make This Stuff Up”: From the land of fruit and nuts comes word of the Oreo lawsuit. A San Francisco lawyer has sued Kraft foods because the popular cookies contain “trans fats.”

--Hekaheka 08:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That Reagan quote doesn't count, I don't think: It's not referring to the proper noun referent California but rather to a generic land of fruit and nuts. Also, the last quote neither is archived AFAICT nor uses fruits (rather, it uses fruit). The first two look good if accurate, though.—msh210℠ 15:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

double dog dare

Mglovesfun (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a probable pass, see here. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

gift horse

The example given is idiomatic, and if it implied this, the completion of the sentence, don't look a gift horse in the mouth, would stray out of context. -- Cbf536 05:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The definition doesn't seem right. The bare expression "gift horse" is used as an ellipsis of or an allusion to the proverb. I found a quote: "You don't have to pay for them." / Well, a gift horse and all that. I took the sneakers.

Do you doubt that the expression is in use this way or are you just skeptical about the definition that appeared in the entry? DCDuring TALK 07:35, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you said, the definition seems inaccurate as if the creator misinterpreted the proverb. I marked this for RFV to find if the term is used with this meaning. -- Cbf536 08:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look. DCDuring TALK 09:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DILLIGAF

"Do I [or does it?] look like I give a fuck?" Many mentions but few uses. Apparently military slang. Equinox ◑ 19:15, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leftmostcat just told me (on IRC) that this word has failed rfv several times, which somehow I didn't notice. L☺g☺maniac chat? 19:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From a quick Google Books scan: here's this, though I'm not sure whether it's a mention or a usage. Also this. L☺g☺maniac chat? 19:21, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google Groups is probably a better place to look for this, since it's vulgar slang. Unfortunately my first quick glance found loads of irrelevant stuff. Might come back to it. Equinox ◑ 19:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly "Another thing Massry doesn't like, that accusations that he's ruining the town's family atmosphere, to which he says... Dilligaf."[58] Peptonized 19:52, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

out of the box

Rfv-sense: "Outside the box" example: "Berger, despite his concentrated seriousness, is quite capable of breaking out of the box, seeing things in unexpected new ways"

The example does not support the purported idiom. It should be read as break out of the box. It is obviously intended to evoke the "outside the box" cliche. I doubt that this is yet a variant of the idiom. DCDuring TALK 11:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clocked out DCDuring TALK 23:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now cited IMHO. I consider this variant erroneous, and would support something like {{perhaps|_|nonstandard}}, but it's very well attested. —Ruakh_TALK 01:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2009

British and Irish Isles

I have never heard of this term - surely they are just the British Isles. SemperBlotto 16:06, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems okay, might just need a {{rare}} or {{dated}} tag. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doubtless a correction of the term 'British Isles' by people with some sympathy for the Irish who lay claim to some of the land. Even if not verifiable now, it's probably worth watching. ("Bloody English," he mumbles, not quite knowing if he is referring to the language or the people.) Pingku 19:22, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I lived in Ireland until recently and have never heard this term. The Irish tend either not to worry about the term British Isle, or use the term Britain and Ireland when talking about it.--Dmol 09:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

brindled-gnu

Attestable in this form? Equinox ◑ 22:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 23:57, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

geloscopy

I see lots of mentions but a dearth of uses. But I haven't checked very carefully.—msh210℠ 18:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

revolution

Subject in revolution states:

5. The turning of an object around an axis.

In astronomy, this is called rotation. A revolution is the orbit around another object (year). A rotation is the period an object rotates on it's axis (day)

Hope this is the correct way to report a bug.

— This unsigned comment was added by Cosmospup (talk • contribs) at 1:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC).

You are correct, but so is the entry. Astronomers today do use the words as you describe, but as you can see from (for example) google books:"revolutions around its axis", plenty of people have used the word "revolution" to refer to what you would call "rotation". —Ruakh_TALK 02:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a usage note.—msh210℠ 16:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The turning of an object around an axis" doesn't only refer to astronomy. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:51, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Syktyvkar

Tagged in September by DCDuring. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the aspect that requires verification? There's no doubt about the existence of the city nor of this being a widely used transliteration of the Russian name of it. It is also a capital of a semi-autonomous region and we tend to include them. --Hekaheka 08:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is the transliteration actually used not mentioned in English running text? Do all capitals ipso facto get a free pass? Do they not have to meet attestation standards?

We still don't have a well thought-out approach to WikiGazetteer/WikiAtlas entries. (BTW, I have no search-and-destroy effort for these. I just tag the ones that show up on clean-up lists for bad formatting etc.) DCDuring TALK 15:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "What is the aspect that requires verification?": Attributive use, per the CFI: "A person or place name that is not used attributively (and that is not a word that otherwise should be included) should not be included. Lower Hampton, Sears Tower, and George Walker Bush thus should not be included." (See Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#What Wiktionary is not with respect to names.) —Ruakh_TALK 17:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:United_States_of_America and many other Wiktionary:Unresolved_issues/Place_names. We shouldn't have double standard policy on deletions. --Anatoli 01:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

differential diagnosis

Rfv-sense:

The process by which a physician produces a diagnosis that explains a patient's symptoms.

This definition roughly defines "diagnosis", not "differential diagnosis". The current first two definitions should be merged or replaced with a proper definition. The third definition seems okay.

I am not sure whether this belongs to rfv-sense or rfd-sense, and why. --Dan Polansky 10:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an example of an entry that needs to be upgraded to be fully worthy of a professional dictionary. I don't know what the canons of definition would say about the appropriate number of senses, the need to differentiate process from result, countable from uncountable, general from specific or multi-specific, and similar issues.

The fora seem to be WT:TR and the ones to be generated by {{attention}} for topical attention. Cites might help but are not the core of the problem. Cleanup seems to mostly suitable for lower-level issues. Perhaps we could use a new set of semi-diagnostic tags and a new page for "advanced" entry improvement. But I think we really need some more thought on the specific details of writing definitions as opposed to mere glosses or synonyms. DCDuring TALK 16:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

headless

"A computer program that runs without a user interface" (adjective). Seems to be real, but what is it exactly? Is it specific to a particular flavour of Unix? Where does the "head" come from? Citations would be handy, in any case. Equinox ◑ 22:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"head" refers to a console, ie. keyboard and screen; no it is not peculiar to a flavour of unix. 76.66.193.224 07:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PSDP

IP created entry that was nominated for speedy delete by Yair rand. I disagree with not just the speedy, but even a non-speedy delete, but assuming good faith, I brought it here after improving the entry as best I could. With close to 200,000 hits on Google for a search of PSDP Pakistan (of which 8 of the first 10 are clearly for this sense, this clearly meets CFI in my opinion. — Carolina wren discussió 01:45, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have a criteria for inclusion of initialisms? Certainly we include some fairly well known ones, but where is the line drawn? --Yair rand 02:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why the need to draw a line. Is Wiktionary running out of space or something ? Why this constant thinking about deleting stuff that other people have added in good faith, and that adds vlue to Wiktionary.--Richardb 06:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming these go by the same criteria as words, PSDP certainly seems to meet the CFI. My mistake. Keep. --Yair rand 02:21, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Send to RFV. Available citations seem sparse. Equinox ◑ 12:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I second that, any objections before I (or someone) does it? Mglovesfun (talk)

The preceding is from WT:RFD#PSPD. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kuban

A river in Russia. Doesn't meet CFI without attributive use. DCDuring TALK 10:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An attributive use example: the Kuban Cossacks. Let's vote for changing the CFI. It has been discussed so many times. It's a multi-language dictionary, the current rules will only allow to include place names known to English speakers. --Anatoli 11:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the examples of attributive use for proper nouns show at WT:CFI and its linked pages show, that case is irrelevant for CFI of Proper nouns that require attributive use. This is not a forum for voting in any event, until questions of the acceptability of the three attributive-use citations arises. Perhaps Kuban Cossacks merits an entry, like Irish Americans. DCDuring TALK 15:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 20:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added a citation, entry restored. --Anatoli 10:39, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., but we require multiple citations, and that they be of attributive use in a widely understood sense. —Ruakh_TALK 01:20, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are really discouraging me from staying here, Ruakh. I am not prepared to fight for every entry I create. I have some linguistic background, I don't have the skills for searching for citations.

"Kuban Cossacks" (attributive usage) is an ethnicity, if not for English speakers, it IS so so for Slavic language speakers. As ethnicity, Kuban Cossack songs, Kuban Cosack dance are further examples. I gave an example in Kuban talk page. I've seen many just proper name entries with just one citation, please tell me, are you picking on Russian proper names or on me, as an editor? The Kuban is not only the river but the region, colloquially used for Krasnodar krai. A Kubaner would be a person from that region.

I can't help but feel it's personal. The new vote on CFI is not complete yet, could you at least wait, when it's complete before you started deleting my entries? Please! --Anatoli 01:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

and all

Rfv-sense

(in the form "X and all") including X
He ate the whole fish, bones and all.
et cetera

Has been listed in requests since 2007 --Volants 16:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean this as an {{rfd-redundant}}? The three senses (the two above and the one, "Including every associated object, attribute, or process", not listed) seem combinable to me.—msh210℠ 17:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But sometimes it means "and absolutely everything", sometimes it is used to highlight the unexpected components of all, sometimes to leave unstated implications (as for politeness). I'm not sure that it means "etc." We may end up with redundancy, but first we should be inclusive. It may be that some of the nuances could go in a usage note, but first attestation confirming that the term is actually used in the manner suggested seems appropriate. This is not something that seems well covered by other dictionaries, so we have little authority to rely on. Perhaps, in the end, it will not meet CFI. DCDuring TALK 18:52, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "including X" (or, worded better imo, "including even X") sees clearly widespread use, then.—msh210℠ 18:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or even "To Say Nothing of the D". Pingku 19:24, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hydraulophone

I think it's a protologism. Equinox ◑ 23:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google Scholar search turns up a number of articles using the word hydraulophone dating since 2006, many of which seem to be cited in the Wikipedia article as well. The question is, are they actually in refereed journals and independent of each other? All of the articles appear to have the involvement of the "creator", Steve Mann, and the term is reportedly coined by the guy, which would seem to devalue the word in favor of being a protologism... But the device described appears to actually exist, and is referenced as such in a number of articles (blogs and news articles), generally dating back no earlier than September 20, 2006, when the installation in Toronto appears to have been set up. Outside of references to the Toronto installation, however, there appears to be one mention of one in Staten Island made by the same company. So the word appears to be in use to me. The real question in my mind is whether it is a name or a real word. --Pipian 06:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is certainly was a protologism, but could well now be a neologism. I've done a bit of cleaning up. SemperBlotto 08:05, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely sure the quotes back it up as being used for anything other than the Steve Mann invention - and, given that it is a new invention, it seems hardly surprising that there is not yet wide-spread use of the word - it'd be interesting to see if there's a plaque on the huge outdoor hydraulohpone thing - would make a good citation. Conrad.Irwin 17:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed, entry deleted. I looked at the Google Scholar hits, and none appears to be from a refereed academic journal, which would mean that only one use or mention is required, but rather, from conference proceedings, which means that three independent uses are required. I don't see three independent uses. If anyone else does, let me know, and I'll restore it so you can add citations. —Ruakh_TALK 23:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Correction: Cited by Conrad.Irwin. —Ruakh_TALK 23:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

enormously

Rfv-sense: In an enormous manner. I only think of this as a degree adverb. There's a sense that is something like "outrageously", "shockingly", related to "enormity". I fear many of the -ly adverbs are inadequately or even erroneously defined in this way. DCDuring TALK 02:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I see the difference. e.g. (Google Books) "would add enormously to the value of the remaining houses" (would add in an enormous manner; would add hugely, would be a great addition); "was enormously to the benefit of civilization" (was to the benefit in an enormous manner; gave a huge benefit, was an enormous benefit). What am I missing; what is the rule to tell them apart? Equinox ◑ 03:17, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT, the difference between manner and degree adverbs is that the second can modify adjectives and, if they are from an adjective "X" are readily defined as "to an X degree". The manner adverbs usually modify verbs. I don't know what "in an enormous manner" would mean apart from "to an enormous degree" (or "shockingly", though that usage is outside my remembered experience). In the second usage above "enormously" modifies the predicate "to the benefit of civilization", interpreted as an adjective. The "to an enormous degree" wording works for the first use also.

An adverb like "contentiously" is almost always a manner adverb. I think a sense like "to a contentious (or debatable or disputable) degree" would be rare, though they could occur: "The election results were contentiously close."

Perhaps "honestly" is even more rarely a degree adverb. What would "to an honest degree" mean? DCDuring TALK 03:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, then I suppose "in an enormous manner" would only work in a sentence like: "The unruly giant stomped enormously through the city". I haven't really recognised any such distinction to this point, so I am probably responsible for your "many ... inadequate ... adverbs". I remember an earlier spat about "in an X manner" vs. "in an X way", and to be honest I just shut off at that point because it didn't seem to deal with any difference I could comprehend. Equinox ◑ 04:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I myself hadn't been aware of the distinction until recently and don't have such a great understanding. Because many dictionaries give most "-ly" adverbs only the equivalent of a related-terms treatment, we don't have much to go on by way of models. Also, the manner definition is very often perfectly adequate and often difficult to beat as the adverb is so rarely used. I have just started an effort in this area and have populated a category with 87 degree adverbs (though I believe there are a few miscategorized or debatable), mostly adverbs not ending in "-ly". I am working through some grammar books lists of illustrations of degree adverbs to develop a sense of the pattern. Also there are synonyms that seem like easy cases. I doubt that this is something that could fruitfully employ many except to review what I am doing. Those that have determiner and phrase PoSs are the ones most likely to be wrong or debatable. If there are problems of any kind with the -ly adverbs It would be nice to know now before I start plowing through the main list of adverbs to locate more (in a few days to a week). DCDuring TALK 12:02, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rod from god

Probably bad caps; also seems hard to cite. Equinox ◑ 15:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very easy to cite, actually.

Popular Science article with a description and a big graphic with "Rods from God" plastered all over it.

"Heavenly Ambitions: America's Quest to Dominate Space" by Joan Johnson-Freese

or any of the 50-odd other sources listed at Google Books [59]

Though they all seem to use "rods from God" or "Rods from God"

76.66.197.2 11:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a boatload of Google News linked articles on it, [60]

Most of them use "rods from God" though. 76.66.193.224 07:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

tremendously

Rfv-sense: In a tremendous manner. The other (new) sense is more like "to a tremendous degree". DCDuring TALK 16:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was done by new-adverb template ("in a ___ manner"), fwiw.—msh210℠ 18:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't get the e-mail until now. (Thanks) I assume (hope, actually) that its use has run its course except for adverbs derived from new adjectives. OTOH, there are plenty where there has been hand attention and the problem remains. I think English adverbs are pretty far down on most folk's priorities. Also many adverbs don't even get their own entries in dictionaries, so there is a lack of good models for definitions. And the dismissal of adverbs as a residual class in some grammar and language books is no help. Not to mention that many English writing guides suggest that their use is somehow reprehensible. DCDuring TALK 23:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. That new-adverb. I don't know if it's worth changing, though it doesn't use en-adv either and most de-adjectival -ly adverbs presumptively have comparatives. I may just keep a watch on new additions to the category, which are not abundant. — This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talk • contribs) at 00:48, 24 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

melange

"(fiction) A fictional drug in Frank Herbert's science-fiction Dune series, used to lengthen life, flavor food, heighten awareness, probe the memories of one's ancestors, and induce prescience." --Yair rand 06:23, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WT:CFI#Fictional universes. It needs citing outside of Herbet's works. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from WT:RFD#melange --Yair rand 00:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All the uses I can find for that sense on a quick couple of b.g.c. searches are within the context of the Dune universe. The closest I found to an independent use is a book about David Lynch, but even that is doing a kind of literary analysis of the Dune books. It's also not listed in Oxford's dictionary of science fiction (either the print or on-line edition), which I know has a network of die-hard sci-fi fans constantly combing for additional citations. --EncycloPetey 02:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fails. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bumshove

Google Groups suggests it might actually be a rowing manoeuvre. Equinox ◑ 01:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

binky

"A high-flying hop of bunnies." Equinox ◑ 01:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The British Rabbit Council agrees in their 1981 book Rabbits‎:

Jumping: An acrobatic jump with a body twist or a leg kick shows that a rabbit is feeling happy and playful. This movement is called a binky.

But I'm uncertain whether this qualifies as a use, rather than a mention. --EncycloPetey 02:38, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fabulate

The only verb use I can find for this word is proposing it as a protologism. --EncycloPetey 00:25, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It can be found as a verb here and also in OED. AxelBoldt 01:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. —Ruakh_TALK 01:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agrinion

Attributive-use citations (or evidence of other reason to keep). DCDuring TALK 13:08, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "all words in all languages" SemperBlotto 16:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody cites it in attributive use, delete unless and until CFI is changed to permit place names under other criteria. Equinox ◑ 16:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

spur

Sense #5: "roots". Anything backing this up? It's not mentioned at dictionary.com... -- Jokes Free4Me 20:26, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

go to

Transferred from RfD discussion

I'm not sure that there are any current idiomatic senses of this. Of the four given, the three that bothered me most were the following:

(transitive) To move towards: Go to bed!
(intransitive) To advance, be positive or make a decision" Go to!
To attend an event or a sight.: We went to a concert for my birthday.

The second might just need an archaic tag.

I could understand giving verbs like "go", "have", "get", "take" and a few others some kind of special treatment, but this doesn't seem right to me. It seems misleading. DCDuring TALK 22:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see anything that this article offers right now that isn't go (verb) + to (preposition). Having said that, without an example, I don't know what #2 means. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first one needs to be deleted, but we could start a separate entry for "go to bed" which is an idiomatic expression for "put yourself to sleep". The second one needs an example, because I have never heard it used in that way. We could delete it until someone finds an example. The third sense should stay. It is idiomatic; not literal. The whole page could be delted, but I think it is useful because some languages, such as Arabic, make a distinction between "to go to" and "to go" (to go away, to travel). Gregcaletta 01:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only one that is dictionary material to me is the archaic imperative or interjection: "go to!" - it's totally opque to me whenever I run across it. All of the other senses require an entry exactly as much as go into, go beneath, go up etc etc. — hippietrail 02:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another example from Shakespeare (Romeo and Juliet this time): "Go to, go to; / You are a saucy boy: is't so, indeed?" Does that match the archaic definition that we give? Equinox ◑ 16:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to keep the second sense, then we need citations. --EncycloPetey 18:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

zonar

and alt spelling zonnar. "A belt or girdle which the Christians and Jews of the Levant were obliged to wear to distinguish them from Mohammedans." I can't find it in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 23:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 23:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2009

English English

Equinox ◑ 20:36, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a synonym for British English, atleast as far as I've encountered, for language at any rate (as opposed to non-language uses) 76.66.197.17 13:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move to RFD. This is definitely citeable — see [61], [62], and either [63] or [64] — but I'd consider it SOP. —Ruakh_TALK 01:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be sum-of-parts, meaning “English of England”, although there is a standard abbreviation, EngE.[65] It is pointedly not British English – every citation contrasts EngE with other British dialects. —Michael Z. 2010-03-22 03:28 z

Americancorpus.org has 1 citation (CNN Crossfire) where it means “white people of English descent” in a South African context, and another (Good Housekeeping) where it means native English in contrast to French-accented English, in France. Interesting, but both are still sum-of-parts in the respective contexts. —Michael Z. 2010-03-22 04:16 z

Move to RfD. But it seems more of a generic construction (aka snowclone?) to indicate contrast that works best when a true adjective has the same form as a noun (eg, "I don't want a blue green or a spring green. I want a green green."). I'm not sure it works as well with a noun in attributive use (eg, "I don't want a multi-function printer; I want a printer printer."). DCDuring TALK 12:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See w:Contrastive focus reduplication. —Ruakh_TALK 14:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reminding me about that. I read it this time. Maybe I'll remember the next time this comes up. DCDuring TALK 15:38, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

possibly

Rfv-sense: Four adverb senses, worded as adjectives. The non-gloss definitions are intended to supersede them. See also discussion at WT:RFC#possibly. Pingku 13:54, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

voidee

Apparently from Chaucer. The given example sentence is inappropriately modern. Equinox ◑ 19:23, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I (initially) deleted it because this meaning isn't attestable, but it does mean *something*. AFAICT it's a drink of some kind, but I can't get further than that. Seems to be from Middle English. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently from a medieval French court ceremony involving the drinking of spiced wine from a 'voidee cup', as a way of closing a meeting and dismissing - "clearing away" - the attendees. (From French (deprecated template usage) voider.)

1860, John Lingard, A history of England, Volume 5,

On the evening of the 20th of February [1437], after drinking the voidee, or parting cup, with his company, he [James I of Scotland] retired to his bed-chamber, ...

Also, perhaps later, a drink taken before going to bed.

Pingku 15:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not modern French. I suspect (deprecated template usage) vider comes from the Old French (deprecated template usage) voider. I'll add it if I can cite it. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, in the etymology-and-history section of the TLFi entry for vider you see such forms as "voider", "voidier", "vuider", and "vuidier". —Ruakh_TALK 16:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried "voider" on the French Wikisource, and it gets zero hits. Anyone able to actually find it in use? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found vuidier (not voider) in Old French. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kamboja

a total of 13 definitions in this page. Some of them are encyclopediaic, many look suspect. It will take lots of effort for researching all of these--Volants 13:58, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name of an ancient Indo-Iranian warrior clan of Indo-European family.
Name of ancient nation founded and ruled by Kambojas.
Prince of the Kambojas.
A descendent of the Kamboja Kshatriyas.
A horse raised and bred in Kamboja (also Kambojaka).
An elephant native to Kamboja (also Kambu).
Silver or gold native to Kamboja (also Kambu).
Name of conch or shell native to Kamboja (also Kambu).
Supari or Punnag (Rottleria tinctoria) native to Kamboja.
Somavalak or Karanj native to or coming from Kamboja.
Gold or silver bracelet, or bracelet in general (also Kambu).
Name of a mountain located in ancient Kamboja (Afghanistan) famous for its Kambu, Kambuka or Kambujika silver (or gold).
Name of an ancient Raaga/Raagini (musical mode) originated in ancient Kamboja (also called Kamboji, Kambhoji & Kambodi).

Keep. No reason given supports deletion. Move to cleanup. DCDuring TALK 10:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or even better, RFV the specific entries to look for attributive use. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to RFV. Equinox ◑ 20:00, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

39 citations in one article; that should be cool! Mglovesfun (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ankle

"(slang) Woman." Is this the Urban Dictionary sense referring to an unpleasant woman (because an ankle is "three feet lower than a c--t")? Is it attestable at all?

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 00:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

kiriban

All three senses. Equinox ◑ 01:55, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot comment on the English entry, but I can verify that all three senses given exist in Japanese. Several Japanese references: [66], [67], [68]. Bendono 02:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bastard

Rfv-sense: Expression of dismay. I've never heard anyone use this except as an expression of anger directed at a person. I hope the translations didn't rely on the definition. DCDuring TALK 14:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how attestable it is, but I and people I know use it. Like "I left my keys at home, bastard". Works in the same way as "fuck" or "shit". Any other North England (or anyone) back me up? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It ought to be attestable in fictional dialog. Actually, the sense I added of anger directed at a person would not merit a separate mention: many pejorative nouns could be used as an expression of anger directed at a person. The principal value of such a sense would be to prevent confusion such as I suffered. Having some real usage would be a help in the same way. Also regional context. DCDuring TALK 14:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd claim widespread use, but I wouldn't (personally) be bothered if it failed RFV as it's easy to guess what it means when used in context. Note, I speedy deleted the other interjection sense as vocative use of the noun (cf. wanker, cunt, idiot, dickhead). If someone adds it back (feel free to) I'll RFV it, but I'm backing my instincts here. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

absolument

Moved to WT:RFD#absolument

invariably

Rfv-sense: In an inevitable manner. Not familiar with this sense. Haven't found it in dictionaries. DCDuring TALK 01:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Googling a bit, I do find some uses of (deprecated template usage) invariably where I think (deprecated template usage) inevitably would have made more sense to me (e.g. http://books.google.com/books?id=bPt8cCJ02xgC&pg=PT91&dq=invariably), but I don't think I'm bold enough to conclude that people are actually using (deprecated template usage) invariably to mean “inevitably”. If we can determine that they are, then we should probably keep the sense, but rephrased (what is an "inevitable manner", anyway?), demoted to second billing, and tagged Template:nonstandard. And its translations table should be {{trans-see}}n. —Ruakh_TALK 02:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Failed.—msh210℠ (talk) 11:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

perpetually

Rfv-sense: In a perpetual manner. I thought just repeatedly, continuously, eternally. DCDuring TALK 16:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

narg

"[N]ot a real gentleman". Someone who talks shop outside of work. Sounds like nonsense to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One use in Google Books: [69] Equinox ◑ 18:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be Cambridge University slang, rather than general use. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

seasonally

Rfv-sense: in a seasonal manner. I thought "every season" and "only in season". DCDuring TALK 17:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the definition for seasonal, the two definitions above it already cover this. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I rethink, I may want to withdraw this. Consider: "The tree scheduled to be cut in the spring, reddened seasonally in September, not October." That is not really a primarily temporal sense as the others are. DCDuring TALK 22:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

negritude

Rfv-sense: An affirmation of the independence of Black culture, and its African heritage. I thought:

Consciousness of or pride in Black or Black African culture.
State of being black-skinned or of black African descent. DCDuring TALK 14:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 00:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rehab

"Something that has been rehabilitated." Equinox ◑ 21:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a bit vague. Besides the currently popular "addiction" rehabs, there are physical rehab (physical/occupational therapy), which fills sports pages, and housing rehab. I believe that housing units or buildings that have been rehabilitated are called rehabs. It is possible that people under care in a rehab facility (physical or addiction) are called rehabs, especially by those working there or responsible for funding the care. DCDuring TALK 23:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might be easier to call "rehab" an abbreviation of "rehabilitation" and "rehabilitated". DCDuring TALK 23:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

gopping

"Nasty or horrible". A very few uses on Google Groups. Equinox ◑ 11:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hunkey

"(US) All right; all square; in good order." Is it derived from (deprecated template usage) hunky-dory? If so, should it be (deprecated template usage) hunky (without the e)? Anyway, please cite if you're familiar with it. Equinox ◑ 14:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 00:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cybernate

Blend of "cyber-" and "hibernate". L☺g☺maniac ☃ 20:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Totally wrong. The verb exists, and means "to control something using machines" (or later, by computer). It is related to (deprecated template usage) cybernation. SemperBlotto 22:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted but leaving inflections alone. SemperBlotto, please add your sense if attestable. Equinox ◑ 23:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

yunino

I cannot find any attestation for this word in Ido. I therefore request verification for this word. Thanks, Razor flame 19:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it has three interwikis, all saying this word is Ido for woman. But don't know if Ido is used enough for the words to pass an RFV. It would be interesting to know how many Esperanto/Ido words haven't been used enough to pass RFV, but in practice I wouldn't want to lose those words. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you on this, but I just can't see why we should keep words that cannot be verified. I've also listed two Esperanto words further down on this page that you might want to check out. Cheers, Razor flame 05:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have no doubt it has been used enough to pass RFV. The problem is finding the citations, since Google Books doesn't show much on a language post-1923. It's used several times in the Ido Wikipedia, it's used repeatedly in websources, including primers, so I suspect even the most basic physical primer would give us a cite. I can't find scans of any Ido books on the web, though.

Esperanto is not on the same foot. While it's not as trivial as English or some of the other major language to find cites, there are tens of thousands of books out there, including transcriptions of a growing corpus, that makes all the basic vocabulary easily citable. I suspect in practice finding all the conjugations for some words may be hard, but that can be true in English, too.--Prosfilaes 14:49, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

solely

Rfv-sense: In a single, sole manner. I think it is just "exclusively". DCDuring TALK 04:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

volunteer

Obsolete sense tagged in 2007, never cleaned up. --Connel MacKenzie 18:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

economically

Rfv-sense: In an economic or profitable manner; as regards economics or economy.

I believe that:

"as regards economics or the economy" is included in "from the perspective of economics or the economy".
there is a sense "in an economical (thrifty, etc) manner.
"in an economic or profitable manner" is some kind of conflation of the two and may not have verifiable usage.

-- DCDuring TALK 18:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

fourings

Impressive piece of work from a new contributor, but the link doesn't seem to contain (visibly) the word fourings and the citation with no link or ISSN number is too recent. Given the effort put in, I hope it's citable. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:29, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A few books give it as (possibly Norfolk) dialect for an extra meal eaten around four p.m. during harvest time. Equinox ◑ 14:23, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added direct links to definitions from two sources. I hope that this clears up the issue. Rayrayraynor 09:00, 22 December 2009

The issues are WT:CFI#Attestation. The definition is only part of it. Where is it used (geography)? When? In what register? Do people say/write both "fourings is" and "fourings are"? Both "fourings are" and "fouringses are"? Do the references cover all of that reliably? DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 15:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

make a meal of

Rfv-sense: To spend more time than it is worth on. I have never heard or read this idiom. Where is it used? Is it widespread somewhere? DCDuring TALK 17:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hear it all the time, it must be in other dictionaries. I will cite it though. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

abbr. vs. abbr

Is it necessary to have two pages abbr. and abbr? They are essentally the same word, but the content differs. A redirect maybe? Altenmann 17:30, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lemmatised as (deprecated template usage) abbr.. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr ﴿ 02:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WT:AEN#Abbreviations, acronyms and initialisms would suggest the period-less form should be the lemma. That recommendation predates my edits to that content, though, and I'm not sure if there was a discussion earlier. If the status-quo is for the period form, then maybe the policy should be updated. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 04:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The New Penguin Dictionary of Abbreviations lists only (deprecated template usage) abbr. (on page 5). A convention of which I was aware is that periods are included for truncated forms (like (deprecated template usage) Prof. from (deprecated template usage) professor), whereas they are omitted for contracted forms (like ~~(deprecated template usage) Dr.~~(deprecated template usage) Dr from (deprecated template usage) doctor). † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr ﴿ 07:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC) [edited] † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr ﴿ 23:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I'll update WT:AEN. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 22:48, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

US "authorities": Garner's (2009) prefers periods but mentions that periods generally are on the decline. AP Stylebook (2002) seemed to often prefer them but deferred to WNW on specific cases it didn't cover. Chicago MoS (1993) advocated the move away from "fussy punctuation", including periods in abbreviations, but didn't seem to think the revolution had already occurred. Moreover, all of the examples showed periods, specifically, abbr.. DCDuring TALK 00:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

make the welkin ring

RfV for the third sense of “By extension of (1), to experience the noise of asteroids, comets or meteors coming through the upper atmosphere. (sonic boom)”; sense 1 is “To make a loud noise.” The derivation would seem intuitive (though would still be dubitable) were sense 1 “To experience a loud noise.” or were sense 3 “(of a comet, asteroid, or meteor) Cause a sonic boom by entering the upper atmosphere.”, but that’s not how they’re written at the moment. Cites or GTFO, I say. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr ﴿ 02:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

alternatively

Rfv-sense: In an alternative way. I think this is just a conjunctive adverb. DCDuring TALK 02:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exists in the context of alternative lifestyles, e.g. "Most people living alternatively have strong pro-environmental values". Equinox ◑ 14:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should have thought of that. Probably readily citable. Is it "widepread"? DCDuring TALK 14:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC

I'm going to have to consult the usage mavens, too, who discuss "alternatively" and "alternately", whose supposedly (once ?) distinct meanings seem to run together. DCDuring TALK 16:12, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

happy day

Really? Seems to have been used (in quotes) in a single book. SemperBlotto 10:21, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is it being used with this sense in Dracula[70]?—msh210℠ 02:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think so; I think that there it just means that they passed the day happily. —Ruakh_TALK 01:08, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ankle-biter

Rfv-sense: Basic sense: a small child. The issue is whether there is evidence that this more specifically refers to "pesky" children or "ankle-high" (ie, small) children. DCDuring TALK 15:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this AU/NZ slang? Looks ok to me, anyone want to confirm that? --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which of the two meanings? Or neither? That's what I am seeking verification of? DCDuring TALK 15:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite common slang for a child in Australia, but I too would question the pesky bit. I've heard people refer to their own kids this way without implying they are pesky.--Dmol 02:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In Canada this is used a slang term for annoying children.Tydoni 19:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

isonym

The only sense that b.g.c. is clear about is a taxonomic sense, along the lines of “a name given to a species that has already been named”. We don't have that sense. —Ruakh_TALK 19:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Auschwitz

"(by extension) The Holocaust during the Second World War." Equinox ◑ 01:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirming collocations are found in "Google Books": "perpetrated Auschwitz" (5 cases), "carried out auschwitz"(1 case)

I wonder if it is not already covered in the first definition, a symbol of Nazi evil. --Dmol 02:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Me too. Regarding “perpetrated Auschwitz,” at least one of the quotations is a literal reference to that camp. Just from looking at those results I get the impression that perpetrated Auschwitz is a chliché taken up by a few writers. I'd like to see the term itself attested in some different constructions, but I don't doubt that that is possible. —Michael Z. 2010-03-21 23:20 z

RFV failed, sense removed. —Ruakh_TALK 11:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

catty

Rfv-sense: Both Chinese measures, allegedly transliterations rather than 'words'. See also three items below. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's trivial; b.g.c turns up quite a selection when searching for "catty weight", dating back to 1699.--Prosfilaes 18:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fan

Rfv-sense: Hong Kong sense, same as above and below. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears in Hong Kong legislation, and is referenced in the entry. 76.66.193.224 07:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

literally

Rfv-sense. Without hyperbole or slang. What does this even mean? Mglovesfun (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get the intent of "slang", but "without exaggeration" is an Encarta definition. My preference, if you agree and no one objects before it is done, would be to split the sense and rfv both or just the "without slang" sense. DCDuring TALK 20:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't "without exaggeration" the same as the "downtoner" sense? Pingku 07:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had never before seen or heard the redlinked term downtoner, a state that I am sure I share with 99+% of normal potential users, who would not find the term in any OneLook reference either, nor find the works using it at a bookstore near them. Accordingly, it is difficult for me to know whether it is the same or not. I gather it is the semantic opposite of an intensifier, (deprecated template usage) just being another example. It is difficult to assess the quality of the definitions without citations or references.

As I review this term, it makes me wonder about the wisdom of relying on the context tag "literally" to reach native English speakers. DCDuring TALK 11:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I still don't know what it means. I've never heard of a modal adverb either, just a modal verb. Again, hard to find supporting quotes for something I don't understand. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Modal adverbs are apparently English's way of achieving the full range of modality that human discourse needs without using conjugation or auxiliary/modal verbs. I agree with you about the long-term viability of the adverb subtype context tags. They are as bad as the WT:ELE-licensed semantic L4/5 headers like "meronyms". Even in the interim, they should be blue linked to an entry in a glossary. They are useful now only to someone trying to define hard-to-define terms. At least, I find them helpful. DCDuring TALK 11:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the most straightforward way of simplifying this entry is to simply acknowledge that the word is often used to mean its long-time (one-time?) antonym, (deprecated template usage) figuratively. I have added the sense, to which the Dyer quote provides support, end added the term to Category:Contranyms. Some of the other contortionistic definitions seem to try to capture transitional uses. DCDuring TALK 11:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sense 6 should be under sense 2 (replacing the poor example there), but I agree that the whole entry needs simplification. Dbfirs 09:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

feminism

"A belief in the superiority of women." (simplified from a rather more prolix recent addition) Equinox ◑ 12:08, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tough one. Here in the U.S., it's obvious that many people treat the word "feminism" as a dirty one, whereas no one seems to have anything against "gender equality"; but when you try to pin down what exactly the "feminism"-haters think "feminism" means, you don't get anything easily translated into a dictionary definition. (See e.g. http://quietube.com/v.php/http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pdbnzFUsXI.) Maybe our sense #2 should just be Used pejoratively.? Also, we might want to split the "social theory" and the "political movement" into two separate defs. —Ruakh_TALK 14:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As you say. I had started to look at bgc, but was overwhelmed by the women's studies literature. It just occurred to me that the right search might be for "man-hating | man-hater" and "feminism" to try to get evidence to infer a pejorative definition. It isn't really good form to build a definition solely around a tag like "pejorative" or, worse, "ironic", is it? DCDuring TALK 15:53, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A typical mention(?) confirming the existence of the sense:

Lua error in Module:quote at line 2659: Parameter "indent2" is not used by this template.

— This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talk • contribs) at 16:02–4, 20 December 2009 (UTC).

Feminism has been supportive of writers such as Valerie Solanas with titles such as SCUM Society for Cutting Up Men — This unsigned comment was added by 85.226.4.185 (talk) at 01:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The question at hand is this: what does the word (deprecated template usage) feminism mean? In other words, when people use the word (deprecated template usage) feminism, what are they referring to? Your statement seems to be a statement about feminism, i.e. about the feminist movement, rather than about the word (deprecated template usage) feminism itself. That is, you seem to be presupposing that, regardless of our individual opinions about the movement, we all mean the same thing by the word itself. (By comparison: suppose that you think Cleveland sucks, whereas I think it rocks. We still mean the same thing by the place-name (deprecated template usage) Cleveland, we just have different opinions about the place we're both referring to.) —Ruakh_TALK 18:35, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The word sounds familiar to me, I know I've heard it. Not that that makes it meet cfi or anything .....L☺g☺maniac ☃ 02:11, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Better written as: 'the belief that only women are human beings, while all men are animals' — This unsigned comment was added by 122.160.231.174 (talk) at 13:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Prove it. —Ruakh_TALK 14:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 23:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

little man

"The little finger". Really? Also is the plural little mans like the article says. As said in the article's history, isn't this dialectal, assuming it does exist. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed the plural. "Little man" does mean finger (not any particular finger) in some children's finger-counting rhymes, e.g. "Ten little men all in a row; Ten little men to market go." I don't think it's a general usage any more than "this little piggy" for the toes. Equinox ◑ 18:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MRDA

Protologism? Nothing that I can see on Google books, very few in groups or blogs. SemperBlotto 16:37, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly Protologism, It has been around for at least 20 years. If you are going to use US based references then you will not find MRDA. It is uniquely British and widely used amongst UK Journalists. On-line references (including The Guardian and PC Pro) as follows:

http://www.anenglishmanscastle.com/archives/001478.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2005/jun/20/linuxisterrib

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/realworld/72627/keep-it-simple-stupid

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2007/may/03/pcworldeditor

— This unsigned comment was added by Nobby fuzzy (talk • contribs) at 17:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Not one of those references uses the term (deprecated template usage) MRDA - they just define what it is. SemperBlotto 17:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not so. I quote:

"In the UK, we say MRDA,"

— This unsigned comment was added by Nobby fuzzy (talk • contribs) at 17:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Yeah, that's a mention, not a use. See Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Conveying meaning and w:Use–mention distinction. Unlike Wikipedia, we're not a tertiary source that presents what other sources say about something; rather, we go directly to the actual uses of the term. If there aren't any — that is, if it's a term that people claim exists, but that no one ever actually uses — then it has no place here. —Ruakh_TALK 18:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

harsh one's mellow

Rfv-senses X 4. Was not resolved at RfD. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 02:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See harsh#Verb. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 18:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

bring it

Rfv-sense: To perform admirably or forcefully. I thought this referred to effort not result. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 18:33, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia

Rfv-sense: transitive. The quotes provided are only for the intransitive sense. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 19:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hem

"Someone who is afraid of change to the point of total inaction. (From a book by Spencer Johnson, M.D., Who moved my cheese, about a character who was always against change.)" See [71] Equinox ◑ 23:56, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 23:50, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

anapodotons

See google books:"anapodotons". The plural is (deprecated template usage) anapodota. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr ﴿ 15:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right. Isn't it usually or, at least, sometimes used uncountably? DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 15:48, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Usually, yes. I’ve revised the entry to reflect this. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr ﴿ 16:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 00:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

chiliasm

Rfv-sense: "A thousand-year period of peace and prosperity". I can find plenty of quotes to support the doctrinal sense, but not the event. --EncycloPetey 22:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never seen it used this way. Ƿidsiþ 13:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note the initial gloss uses (deprecated template usage) belief in rather than the more accurate, if I understand correctly, (deprecated template usage) doctrine of. "Belief in" seems to suggest a personal belief in the reality of chiliasm, which I think would be uncountable.

Also, I note the usage:
At the end of time, when the circle of chiliasms shall be exhausted, will come the final paradise. — 1866, Ernest Renan, The Life of Jesus.

Pingku 14:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed, sense removed. —Ruakh_TALK 16:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Igwe

Purportedly English, but with only one reference (which does not use the term). --EncycloPetey 22:51, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Igwe means Coming from Royalty,A King Depending on the pronounciation as well,it is also used with to reference to Heaven , Iron or Bicycle — This comment was unsigned.

IGWE in Ibo language ,stands for Royalty ,A king, Furthermore,depending on the pronounciation of this same word,it is widely used when we refer to the Heavens , A Piece Of Iron Or A Bicycle www.myspace/rasobi www.myspace/soulofanbessarecords — This comment was unsigned.

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 16:38, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fuckload

"The semen resulting from an ejaculation." 86.161.153.122 00:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Four matches for his fuckload on Groups; none in Books. Equinox ◑ 13:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 00:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

artfull

Rfv-sense: Common misspelling of artful. How common is it? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

abbreviater

Common misspelling of abbreviator. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. google books:"abbreviater". † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr ﴿ 04:50, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are three usable cites there. The archaic spelling is more common than the misspelling, and some of these are for German and Latin. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

yuk it up

Rfv-sense: To laugh; to chortle; to have fun. These aren't synonyms. I thought this is more like "clown around", "fool around", "goof off". DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 15:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed, sense removed. —Ruakh_TALK 23:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

whistle Dixie

Rfv-sense: To engage in pointless activity. The idiom is about pointless conversation AFAIK. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 18:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've got at least one citation that does not require speaking, but I'm not sure it truly supports an additional sense:

2008, Thomas F. Schaller, Whistling Past Dixie: How Democrats Can Win Without the South‎, page 1
[A]nyone who believes Democrats can consistently win the White House without puncturing the Republican dominance across the South is just whistling Dixie. —Los Angeles Times columnist Ronald Brownstein

--EncycloPetey 01:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wage war

Rfv-sense: wage#Verb (only non-obsolete sense) + its most common collocation. What could be more clearly non-idiomatic? If this is deemed a keeper, we may not have yet reached rock bottom, but it is clearly discernible. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 23:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. It obviously used to be unidiomatic, but nowadays ‘war’ is about the only thing ever waged, so the phrase seems to be a single item in some way. Ƿidsiþ 23:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On COCA about 72% of the usage of "wage(as verb) [noun]" has "war" as the noun. Leading other nouns are attributive nouns modifying "war" (eg, guerrilla), meronyms and hyponyms for war (jihad, battle, campaign), metaphorical use of such words words (ad campaigns), and "peace". Does this make "wage ware" an idiom? It is clearly not a "set phrase" in any useful sense. There seems to be a semantic justification for calling it an idiom. I think it needs a usage note to show how it generalizes to the kinds of words I mention above. DCDuring TALK 00:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to RFD. This is in clearly widespread use. The question seems to be whether the currently claimed sense is an idiom, which I think is really outside the domain of RFV. Citations help clarify a sense, and can therefore support a non-SOP sense, but they can't really decide for us whether a sense is SOP. —Ruakh_TALK 23:26, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wait for the ball to drop

To expect that something is going to go wrong.

AFAICT, there are three main uses: sports, viscosity testing, and New Year's Eve in a big city like New York. I found no evidence for the definition in the entry. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 23:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like how I use (deprecated template usage) wait for the other shoe to drop. google books:"just waiting for the ball to drop" pulls up four hits, and while it's hard to be sure, two seem to be using it this way (though one of those is positively riddled with incompetent English — stuff like “cut threw the chase”, which appears to result from a blend of “cut to the chase” and “cut through the [any of various terms for excrement]”, plus a misspelling of through as threw). The other two seem to be using it as a more general “to wait for something to actually happen” or “to be in a state of anticipation”. —Ruakh_TALK 01:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The mistake-ridden one would be a funny one to have, but the others make more sense. The waiting-for-something-to-happen sense seems more likely to include any possible New Year's Eve allusions that might be lurking and is more general than the one-shoe-then-the-other sense. I has on such a roll through highly questionable entries among Category:English verbs (the subset now also in Category:English predicates) that I lost sympathy with the marginal ones. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 02:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine by me. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 02:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the def with one like you suggest, and removed the tag. Please take a look. —Ruakh_TALK 01:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It really deserves a "rare" tag in this sense too. Almost all the usage is literal in either a sports or New Years context. DCDuring TALK 03:00, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Striking. I've added the "rare" tag. —Ruakh_TALK 23:10, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

vent one's spleen

Rfv-sense: "To state clearly, and often angrily, a complaint that one has been keeping quiet about."

As I understand the expression, "clarity" is not essential to the def.; anger is. Also, the target of one's spleen may not be the cause of the anger or even connected to it. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 03:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it anyway. It seems to be redundant to the first definition, but not as well written. Anyone want to contest by decision? Do so. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Striking as RFV failed, since although it's not obvious from Mglovesfun's comment, he removed the sense with the edit summary "2nd def fails RFV", more than a month after it was listed here. —Ruakh_TALK 23:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cancerate

Rfv-sense: “To cause cancer.” Other sources define this as more like “to become cancerous”. The predominant usage seems to be as a participial adjective (deprecated template usage) cancerated, which apparently means “having become cancerous”, but that doesn't tell us much one way or the other (contrast (deprecated template usage) retired and (deprecated template usage) escaped with (deprecated template usage) wounded and (deprecated template usage) accused). —Ruakh_TALK 21:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

donkey punch

This seems to be citeable in some form or another. —Ruakh_TALK 01:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: there is a discussion already underway in the Tea Room. --EncycloPetey 01:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that's why I restored the entry and brought it here. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 03:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but other people wishing to contribute might not know that. ;) --EncycloPetey 03:19, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, thanks. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 14:33, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

spigger

By-analogy-with-(deprecated template usage) wigger sense. It seems plausible, but I don't see much evidence for it. —Ruakh_TALK 03:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed, sense and corresponding etymology removed. —Ruakh_TALK 17:43, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cyuns

Supposed plural form of (deprecated template usage) cyun, an obsolete spelling of (deprecated template usage) scion. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr ﴿ 21:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 17:27, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

masculinism

RfV-sense for “A belief in the superiority of men or the masculine.”; tagged but not listed. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr ﴿ 21:35, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the dominant use of the term, as is easily seen from even a cursory glance at b.g.c. Note that the RFV tag was added by an anon pushing an anti-feminist and pro-masculinist POV. (And for completeness' sake, I've now tagged the other sense as well, though I'm pretty sure it does meet CFI.) —Ruakh_TALK 21:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added three cites that more closely match sense 1 than sense 2; but my instinct is to replace both with something like this:

An ideology of masculinity; especially, an ideology opposed to, or opposed by, feminism.

Any objections to my doing that and striking this?

—Ruakh_TALK 17:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nephalism

Does this exist? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OED has is marked as obsolete. SemperBlotto 11:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cited by Visviva. —Ruakh_TALK 17:20, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sad sack

"(informal) An incompetent or inept person. Originally a well-meaning but inept soldier. From "You're a sad sack of shit." Chambers has only the second sense. Equinox ◑ 18:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sense is what MWOnline shows. Partridge and Cassell's show "sad sack of shit" as being the full form. Cartoonist Sgt. George Baker copyrighted the name in 1943 which he said he took from a "longer phrase, of a derogatory nature". He used the phrase to name a cartoon character in a cartoon strip that was popular from its first publication in May 1942(?) in Yank, a US Army weekly magazine. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 22:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

real job

Three supposedly separate senses, none cited yet. Equinox ◑ 20:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've often heard the expression used in senses 1 and 2, but I've always thought of it as a sum of parts, with the extra meaning derived from the context. There is a dialectal sense also that I thought was going to be queried, but it is also sum-of-parts, and probably not common enough to be worth an entry. Dbfirs 23:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

shall

"(archaic) Used to indicate destiny or certainty. 'Goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life.'" I think this is the same as the primary sense ("I shall sing in the choir tomorrow"). Equinox ◑ 21:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd favor {{rfd-redundant}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mglovesfun. bd2412 T 23:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Striking: Mglovesfun replaced the {{rfv-sense}} tag with {{rfd-redundant}} on 3 February and opened an RFD discussion, though he did not comment here about it. (He removed the sense on 26 April after no one commented in the RFD discussion. He or someone else later removed the RFD discussion without archiving.) —Ruakh_TALK 14:38, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

turn on

Rfv-sense: To enter a road. Turn on and accelerate quickly. From WT:TR#turn on. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 11:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard it. Ƿidsiþ 14:01, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a badly worded sum of parts entry. Turn onto 5th Avenue and […] so turn + on, that's if I'm right. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never heard it in the UK, except in the sense of "turn around on", and one hopes that the driver would avoid accelerating quickly in performing this manoeuvre. Dbfirs 22:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

tahash

The following is from Wiktionary:requests for deletion Not in the OED. Wikipedia article is for (deprecated template usage) tachash (also not in the OED). SemperBlotto 22:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to RFV. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should remain. I noticed some time ago in the Wikipedia article "Tachash" that "badger" had been replaced by the bracketed (linked) word "Tahash", which contextually made no sense ("the Tahash is excluded...": how could it be excluded when Tahash skin is to be used for the covering?). My own attempt to access the substituted word "Tahash" was unsuccessful. Later, I found several edits and additions which allowed the added "Tahash" to remain ("the Tahash as 'badger' is excluded..."), but still no link to another article. I was already aware that this word was an alternative transliteration of "Tachash" (along with "Takhash"), and expected that someone with the requisite expertise would eventually provide for this lack of an explanation. Some years ago when I first read the word "tahash" in the New American Bible, in the text, and in a footnote to Exodus 25:5, I was able from my other studies to understand somewhat the rendering of "Heth/Cheyth/Khayth" as "h" by the editors (instead of "ch" or "kh"): it is legitimate. I recently reread that text and the footnote re: "tahash" during a study of the Mishkan (the Tabernacle) and, curious, attempted (first time!) to obtain a reliable definition of "Tahash" from Wiktionary less extensive than what was available in the Wikipedia article "Tachash", in the expectation that a brief definition accessible to both the beginning student and the curious reader of the Tanakh/Old Testament translation of the text and the footnote in the NAB existed. It did not. Until a few hours ago. "Tahash" and "Tachash" may not have been submitted to the O.E.D. editors, but both forms of the word and both definitions are found to be fully attested over several decades in material accessible to the ordinary student of world literature and of scripture, and to the ordinary reader, once they know of these sources; but they are not solely found in special studies. The link to the Wikipedia article provides ample evidence of this. It appears that this is the sole reason for the link. The link to the Wikipedia article "Tachash" and the ready link from that article to a solidly based, reasonably terse definition of its alternate form "Tahash" in the Wiktionary has the appearance of solidly based research. The ordinary person can readily find it. I render my opinion that it meets the criteria for inclusion. I find no reason to delete either the Wiktionary entry "tahash" or the Wikipedia article "tachash", precisely because of their utility to the ordinary person reading the Bible, other dictionaries, and other encyclopedias, and the internet, who, seeing the word, will ask what it means. Hermitstudy 07:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to RFV (where I suspect it'll fail).—msh210℠ 23:49, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears in the New American Bible’s translation of Exodus 25:5. Is that a well-known work? (That's probably not the only translation that includes it, but it's the first one I found online that does. None of the really famous Christian Bibles — KJV, NIV, etc. — uses it so far as I can tell. I'll check Artscroll when I get home.) —Ruakh_TALK 22:00, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To follow up, my Artscroll uses tachash and my Jerusalem Bible uses tahash (the h being underlined), so neither counts for [[tahash]]. But FWIW, neither one uses italics or gives a footnote or other otherwise suggests that it's anything but a normal English word. In the case of the Jerusalem Bible, that's not so meaningful (it also uses "Moshe" instead of "Moses", "Yisra'el" instead of "Israel", etc.), but Artscroll's use of tachash is more notable IMHO. Those are my only Bibles at home, but I'll be at my parents' house next week, and will comment back if any of their Bibles are relevant (assuming I don't forget). —Ruakh_TALK 23:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a well-known work within the scope of the whole broad Christian community: probably not as well-known to the Evangelical and Fundamentalist fellowships within the Christian community. (see the Wikipedia articles "New American Bible," and "Tachash: "Other Bible Translations" and the links provided with the titles in that list to articles about them.) Hermitstudy 13:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A side-by-side statistical sales comparison chart year-by-year 1970-Present should attest the public reputations of the various translations listed in the Wikipedia article tachash. Hermitstudy 11:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up response to your query "Is that a well-known work?": See Wikipedia article "English translations of the Bible: Popularity of English Translations"(second paragraph): "Amazon lists the top ten in current sales in the USA (as of 8/17/2009) to be the NAB, NRSV, NIV, KJV, Message, NASB, NLT, RSV, Amplified, and the Orthodox Study Bible." (highlighting of "top ten" and "NAB" mine) Hermitstudy 19:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our past discussions of "well-known work" have indicated that that refers not to current bestsellers, but to things like, oh, the works of Shakespeare.—msh210℠ 19:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Results of a word search of "tahash" yielded the following attestations of use relevant to this debate:

results of search

(Search-page [1])

Amazon.com: "tahash skin": Key Phrase page

Key Phrase page for tahash skin: Books containing the phrase tahash skin

www.amazon.com/phrase/tahash-skin

(page 1)

Featured Books for "tahash skin"

Numbers (Collegeville Bible Commentary Old Testament 5) (Vol 5) by Helen Kenik Mainelli

Excerpt-on page 26: "...the screening curtain and cover the ark of the commandments with it. 6Over these they shall put a cover of tahash skin, and on top of this spread an all-violet cloth. They shall then put the poles in place. ..."

Rites of the Catholic Church (Rites of the Catholic Church, Vol. 2) by Liturgical Press

Excerpt-on page 136: "... Over these they shall put a cover of tahash skin, and on top of this spread an all-vio- let cloth. They shall then put the poles in place. On the..."

Book of Blessings: Approved for Use in the Dioceses of the United States of America by the National Council of Catholic Bishops and Confirmed by the Apostolic See (Roman Ritual) by Catholic Church

Excerpt-on page 703: "... curtain and cover the ark of the commandments with it. Over these they shall put a cover of tahash skin, and on top of this spread an all-violet cloth. ..."

The Catholic Bible, Personal Study Edition: New American Bible by Jean Marie Heisberger

(no Excerpt)

(scroll down to Search Amazon.com Books for "tahash skin")

2. The Particulars of Rapture: Reflections on Exodus by Avivah Gottlieb Zornberg (Paperback - Nov 19, 2002)

Excerpt-page 316: "...blue, purple, and crimson yarns, fine linen, goats' hair, rams' skins dyed red, tahash skins, and acacia wood; oil for lighting, spices for the...

5. Collegeville Bible Commentary: Based on the New American Bible With Revised New Testament by Diane Bergant and Robert J. Harris (Hardcover - Oct 1988)

Excerpt-page 72: "...left hanging down on both sides (vv. 7-13). Finally, ram skins dyed red cover the whole building, and tahash skins (light leather hides), cover the ram skins (v. 14). ..."

10. The Book of Exodus: A Critical, Theological Commentary by Brevard S. Childs (Hardcover - Jun 1974)

Excerpt-page 523: "...probable. Driver, 'dugong'; NJPS 'dolphin'; NEB 'porpoise', margin 'sea cow'; NAB ' tahash skins '. The RSV's 'goat skins ' apparently tries to interpret thf as..."

11. Fireside Catholic Youth Bible by The Bible (Hardcover - Nov 15, 2004)'

Excerpt-page 21: "...the tent itself you shall make a covering of rams' skins dyed red, and above that, a covering of tahash skins. The Wooden Walls. 15 "You shall make boards of..."

(page 2)

13. Lifecycles: Jewish Women on Biblical Themes in Contemporary Life (Lifecycles, Vol 2) by Debra Orenskin and Jane Rachel Litman (Paperback - Nov 1988)

Excerpt-page 134: "...muscles wet and bright, Tans and smoothes the tahash skins; Leather-lunged, he croons an unending song..."

16. The Targum of Canticles: Translated, With a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes (Aramaic Bible) by Philip S. Alexander (Hardcover - April 2003)

Excerpt-page 176: "...other mss. omit. JKLMN omit "of badger-skin." The meaning of ssgwn' is in some doubt. It is the standard Onq. transla- tion for tahash, the skin used to form the covering of the Tabernacle..."

19. The Burnt Book by Marc-Alain Ouaknin and Llewellyn Brown (Paperback - May ll, 1998)

Excerpt-page 248: "...object to be covered by the Parokhet, then by a tahash skin cover, then a violet cloth. ..."

23. Hours with the Bible: From Moses to the Judges; or, The Scriptures In The Light of Modern Discovery and Knowledge by Cunningham Geikie (Paperback - Feb 14, 2006)

Excerpt-page 292: "...leather, dyed red, and, over this, the fourth, of the skin of the dugong, a kind of seal, found still on the Red Sea, and known to the Hebrews as the "tahash."

(page 3)

26. Sacred geography, and antiquities ...By Rev. E.P. Barrows, D.D. by Michigan Historical Reprint Series (Paperback - Dec 21, 2005)

Excerpt-page 576: "...Fourthly : Overall was a covering of tahash skins, rendered in our version badgers' skins, but thought by many..."

30. Peake's Commentary on the Bible by Matthew Black and H. H. Rowley (Paperback - Aug 1, 2001)

Excerpt-page 233: "...or treat leather'. 'This would suggest that the mysterious tahash skins were actually an imported (?) specially finished leather'. Acacia..."

NETBible: Tahash

(Search-page [2])

USCCB-NAB-Exodus 25

1[5] Tahash: perhaps the name of a marine animal, such as the dugong or porpoise. The Greek and Latin versions took it for the color hyacinth.

Shabbat 24a - 30b - OU.ORG

In describing the Tahash, the Gemara first says that it was similar to a "Tla Ilan," but was different in that Tla Ilan is not kosher, while the Tahash was a ...

(Search-page [6])

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Animals in the Bible

The skin of the ta'ha'sh is repeatedly spoken of as used for the outer cover of the tabernacle and the several pieces of its furniture. The old translations, and the D.V. after them...

(Search-page [8])

Tabernacle Definition | Definition of Tabernacle at Dictionary.com

The third covering was of ram's skins dyed red, and the fourth was of badgers' skins (Heb. tahash, i.e. the dugong, a species of seal), Ex. 25:5; 26:14; 35:7,23; 36:19; 39:34

dictionary.reference.com/browse/Tabernacle

(Search-page [9])

Chapter 1: The Creation of the World (This one was the most entertaining!)

A similar fate overtook the tahash, which had been created only that its skin might be used for the Tabernacle. Once the Tabernacle was completed, the tahash disappeared.

www.sacred-texts.com/jud/loj/loj103.htm

(scroll down to "THE SIXTH DAY", then down to the seventh paragraph of that section, which begins, "The shamir was made at twilight..."--see the twelfth sentence: "A similar fate..."

(Search-page [10])

The Clouds and Darkness

and the 3rd is speculated on the term tahash leather (KJV "badger's skins," NIV "hides of sea cows") which is connected etymologically with the early Egyptian word tj-h-s, used as...

www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterFour/TheCloudsAndDarkness.htm

(scroll down to "Is the Ten Sefiroth connected to the Ten Curtains of the Tabernacle?", then down to the bottom of that page to the paragraph/segment, which begins, "The wooden framework...")

(Search-page [12])

Exodus - T'rumah

rams' skins dyed red, and tahash skins, and acacia wood, Tahash: an animal of uncertain identity. Some believe it was a badger, others a porpoise or dolphin.

(Search-page [13])

Sandals - Easton's Bible Dictionary - Bible Dictionary

Sandals were also made of seal-skin (Ezekiel 16:10; lit. tahash, "leather;" A.V., "badger's skin;" R.V., "sealskin," or marg. "porpoise-skin").

Jewish Messiah, Moshiach/Mashiach - Perceptions of the Shamir in Three... (dimensions)

Correspondingly, the tahash, which had been created so its skin could be used for the Tabernacle, disappeared after the Tabernacle was completed.

(Search-page [14])

JFB Commentary on Exodus 39

It was probably red morocco leather and "badgers' skins," rather "the skins of the ' tahash,' supposed to be the dugong, or dolphin of the Red Sea, the skin of which is still used...

Living Space >> Archive >> Tuesday of week 17 of Ordinary Time

' Tahash ' may be the name of a marine animal, such as the dugong or the porpoise. The Greek and Latin translations of the Old Testament understood it as indicating the colour hyacinth. (scroll down to the tenth paragraph)

(Search-page [19])

Chapter 7

The name Tahash means "burrowing," "diving," "ram." Tahash symbolizes an increase of life activity in the organism but an activity more of the animal than the spiritual kind.

("Chapter VII"---scroll down to "Page 187", and down to fifth paragraph/segment of that page.)

(Search-page [20])

Bereshit, the Beginning The Most Mysterious of Times

koshertorah.com/PDF/bereshit.pdf

(scroll down to end of page 4, beginning of page 5, "Unicorns are considered...")

(Search-page [25])

Catastrophism: Man, Myth and Mayhem in Ancient History and the...

...It's easy to verify: The skins stretched over the desert tabernacles are called 'oroth 'taHashim (that is, "taHash skins," where taHash is a Biblical animal) and 'oroth eilim (that is, "ram skins")--...

www.catastrophism.com/intro/search.cgi?zoom_query=tradition

(scroll down to 8. Return to the Paelo-Saturnian Ssystem (Forum) [Aeon Journal$])

(Search-page [27])

The Sixth Day

Once the Tabernacle was completed, the tahash disappeared. It had a horn on its forehead, was gaily colored like the turkey-cock, and belonged to the class of clean animals. 166...

(scroll down to seventh paragraph, end of line 165, beginning of line 166: "A similar fate...")

(Search-page [28])

Does Genesis hold up under critic's scrutiny?

The Hebrew word, tahash (tav-heh-shin), is used 14 times in the Old Testament, in reference to the outer covering for the Tabernacle (Exodus 25:5, 26:14, 35:7,23, 36:19, 39:34...

(Search-page [40])

Chapter III

God created the animal Tahash exclusively for the needs of the Tabernacle, for it was so enormous that out of one skin could be made a curtain, thirty cubits long.

www.pseudepigrapha.com/LegendsOfTheJews/loj305.htm

(scroll down to "THE ALTAR", then down to the fifth paragraph, which begins, "The materials employed...")

(Search-page [41])

Living in Truth by Charles N. Pope -- Chapter 11: "All My Will" (The...

Tahash/Thahash means "a (clean) animal with fur," probably a species of antelope; --badger; prob. of foreign derivation. This nickname reflects the character of Ahmose.

www.domainofman.com/book/chap-11.html

(scroll down to bottom of page, Note 4:)

(Search-page [47])

www.encyclopaediajudaica.com

Some hold that it is the tahash mentioned in the Bible and some the zemer of Deut. 14:5. The okapi belongs to the same family as the giraffe and has the same characteristics

- www.encyclopaediajudaica.com/sample-articles/article_view.php?sid=dietary-laws&p=7

This is a representative sampling of attested usages of the word "Tahash" from a variety of sources. An exhaustive listing would be exhausting. The footnotes and linkages provided in the Wikipedia article "Tachash" exhibit further examples attesting the contemporary and historical English usages of this word. Hermitstudy 03:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italicized-as-foreign and italicized-as-quoted words don't count as English use.—msh210℠ 19:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

re: observation that "italicized-as-foreign and italicized-as-quoted words don't count as English use": that is not always a valid point. It does not exclude the items cited in attestations of use, which do not use italics.

Encyclopaedia Judaica, Second Edition, Volume 19: SOM--TN, c. 2007, Keter Publishing House Ltd., page 453, has the entry Tahash spelled without italicization and without the "c" (the work does not have an entry for "Tachash"). Tahash consistently appears in many sources as an ordinary English word: the Hebrew term T-H-S / t-h-s / t'h'sh / t'khsh / t-ch-s / t'H's / t'csh appears both in boldface and in italics as Roman letter character transliterations of the Hebrew term. Classical Hebrew has no vowels, English words do. The context of a discussion reveals the intent of italicization of "tahash" as either an emphasis on the term being discussed or on the fact that it was originally derived from a foreign language (transliteration or actual foreign characters often provided at that place in the text) showing that it has come into the English language as a translated term. The titles of English books (e.g. The Collected Works of William Shakespeare) are frequently italicized, per even the guidelines of Wiktionary entries and Wikipedia articles, and they count as English use. The Wikipedia today is a well-known work, and a work in progress. Yet I have met one or two people who have never heard of it. The word "Bible" is italicized in many places, itself derived from a foreign language (biblion, Byblos), solely to emphasize its dignity or importance. The precise meaning of tahash is debated in articles which do not italicize it, but treat it as an ordinary English word. Frequently, English translation editions of the Talmud have technical and Hebraic terms in the text which are not normally italicized or transliterated but are spelled as ordinary English equivalent terms (both dynamic and formal equivalents). The King James Version of the Bible (KJV), also called the Authorized Version (A.V.) has many places with italicized ordinary English words. Consulting at random any number of Wikipedia articles or other encyclopedic and dictionary sources covering any number of other subjects (e.g. animals, plants) will demonstrate the italicization of ordinary English terms. Hermitstudy 05:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

update--last night I reviewed the listing above: attestations of use. (I thought enough time had passed to allow more comments from other contributors to be posted before I continued.) Some of the sites referenced there have since been removed from the search engine (reasons and motivations are never given, it can change day-by-day!) I obtained complete titles of the sources I was able to access and joined them to other information I obtained from my own city's public library. I put them into chronological sequence and entered them as durably archived citations of use 1897-2007. Hermitstudy 16:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to point out that most of the names of animals and plants in American and British English use are rooted in another language:

dugong from Malay, for example, camel from Arabic, raccoon from Algonquian, chimpanzee from Tshiluba;

hyacinth from Greek, tulip from Latin, from Turkish, from Persian, indigo from Greek;

unicorn from Latin, griffin from Old French, from Latin, from Greek,

basilisk from Middle English, from Old French, from Latin, from Greek,

sphinx from Middle English, from Latin, from Greek,

chimera from Ancient Greek, etcetera (etc.)

From this and from the citations of use above it should not seem strange or foreign that the English word tahash is a calque from Hebrew. With this I rest my case. Hermitstudy 16:43, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed, entry deleted, for the very unfortunate reason that I can't even tell whether Hermitstudy has demonstrated that this word meets our criteria for inclusion. Hopefully, if it does, someone will come by at some point and demonstrate it in a more intelligible way. —Ruakh_TALK 14:30, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010

470

Rfv-sense:a monohull dinghy (deprecated template usage) dot dot dot.

Does this sense really exist in "Translingual"? 50 Xylophone Players talk 22:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we trust Wikipedia article titles, then it's used in a whole bunch of languages. (Even if we don't, quick Google searches find at least French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, German, Dutch, and Hebrew, though most Hebrew pages seem to prefer "סירת 470", ~"a 470 boat", which probably doesn't count.) So the question is, what makes a common noun "translingual"? —Ruakh_TALK 21:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

	Input needed
	This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

zoöchemy

Can't find it or its plural in use. Equinox ◑ 19:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will that do? (Google Book Search sucks at picking up diacritics.) AFAICT, this noun is uncountable. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr ﴿ 16:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bare-balls

"by extension, stark naked"? I doubt the first sense is worth keeping either; seems like sum of parts (and hardly common or idiomatic). Was added by Fastifex as part of his quest to fill Wiktionary with bad erotic fiction. Equinox ◑ 20:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try "bare balls" + swim in google books. Polarpanda 20:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

throw away

Rfv-sense: (transitive) To place a son or daughter for adoption. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 22:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we just delete this sense? I'm not doubting that the expression has been used in this context, but surely no-one would ever think that it means "place for adoption" any more than "get rid of" or "give away" would mean this without detailed context. Dbfirs 22:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are most likely right. I have come to dislike the delete-by-vote system and still more the delete-based-on-one-personal-opinion system (even when that opinion is mine). In due course it will probably be deleted. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 22:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have to agree because I've been caught out myself when my opinion has been shown to be simply wrong. I suppose the flag in the entry warns users that the meaning might not be genuine, and this system gives supporters a chance to prove their case. Dbfirs 22:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sonichima

videogames-related coinage. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 13:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now it makes sense, but it still doesn't look attestable. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 17:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arse Inflicted Death Sentence

Seems far from meeting CFI: two Google Web matches. Equinox ◑ 22:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not-uncommon in blackly humorous speech; I guess it hasn’t made many inroads into writing yet, however. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr ﴿ 22:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess, my help was not good enough, since being reverted. --Knoblauch 22:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I accidentally deleted in in an edit conflict. Here it is again:

What I could find was, Analy Inflicted Death Sentence - A.I.D.S. Analy Inflicted Death Sentence --Knoblauch 22:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr ﴿ 22:47, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Knoblauch; it looks like (deprecated template usage) anally inflicted death sentence is perfectly attestable. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr ﴿ 23:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Arse Injected Death Sentence seems to get more hits. I found 6 on books, and have seen it in another not listed.--Dmol 06:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Halfrican

Plausible, is it in use? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article gives some examples of use. I haven't looked into them, but on the face of it they seem O.K. —Ruakh_TALK 18:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a relatively old one:

1994, Myra Goldberg, Whistling and Other Stories‎, p. 177.

My son who calls himself a Halfrican-American flattens his hair by pressing the top of his head against the wall in our hallway.

Cheers! bd2412 T 03:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

status candidate

Template:US An acceptable candidate because they are a current or former federal employee. Possibly some kind of misreading or possibly real US govt jargon. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 22:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

plus

Rfv-sense: French masculine plural past participle of pleuvoir. Pleuvoir is theoretically always intransitive, so this shouldn't be in use. But maybe it is. Mglovesfun (talk) 06:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, pleuvoir may be transitive (il pleuvait des injures). But, as it is impersonal, its past participle is theoretically invariable. That's only theory, of course, but it might be very difficult to find examples of uses of plus, plue or plues in the transitive sense of pleuvoir. Lmaltier 21:30, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per above, it's that a compliment rather than a true direct object? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

loudness war

Rfv-sense: I have understood that "loudness war" refers to the competition between producers of music records in producing ever louder versions of music pieces. The current definition says: The public backlash against mastering albums to such an extent that it distorts their sound quality. Is the war producer-against-producer or producers-against-customers? The latter makes little sense. If a producer wants to sell something that the buyers don't want to buy, the result should not be a war, but a fading business. --Hekaheka 11:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote that definition. The reason I worded it thus was because a) I didn't want to quote directly from Wikipedia's definition and b) I don't think the "wars" are necessarily "wars" in the traditional sense of the word. Rather, what is significant is what the process involves and that the backlash is publicised. Tooironic 19:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ridonkulous

Slang for ridiculous. How common is this? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I happen to use it all the time. But I've been known for being weird like that. We also say diriculous. Tooironic 08:35, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it might be in "widespread use". What does Google think? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:50, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

930 Google Hits (in English, including repeats) and 9 Google Book hits. So it's not in "widespread use". Mglovesfun (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard its use here in New Zealand, albeit very colloquial. It also seems to me that the user of this word often tries to invoke humour as well as expressing the absurdity of the topic in question. Jamesjiao 02:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google suggests did you mean redonkulous. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. Appears to have entered circulation early in the Big Zeroes, but have become much more common in the last couple of years. I'm not sure if I had heard it before this memorable bit from Jon Stewart. -- Visviva 10:02, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Webster's Quotations says "Redonkulous is a pop culture term originating from an episode of Comedy Central's Crank Yankers and first widely used in the Washington [area]". Note that WQ takes content from all kinds of dodgy Internet sources so this might really be from Wikipedia etc. Equinox ◑ 17:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

schrod

Verb: "(New England) Past perfect and future pluperfect tense of to screw. (to have been schrod, will have been schrod)". Equinox ◑ 21:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are three results at http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22been%7Cbe%7Cwas%7Cwere%7Cbeing+schrod%22, but they're all by the same pair of authors, and all in the same column of the same newspaper, so they don't count as independent citations.—msh210℠ 19:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An old joke. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 19:58, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Groups has many hits for "been scrod" in this sense (non-standard part participle of screw), but only one for "schrod". Also a couple of references at bgc for "scrod". I've added it at scrod#Verb. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 20:21, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 19:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

kinder-

RE: the quoted etymology. Dutch does not descend from Old High German but via Middle Dutch and Old Dutch and Old low west Franconian from West Germanic. Certainly Middle Dutch already had the word kind with a plural kinder, later kinderen. The form kinder- is therefore simply the old single plural on -er (instead of the double plural kinderen.) Kind, kinder- kinderen are imho simply part of the vocabulary inherited from West-Germanic. Jcwf 13:44, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jcwf, you could well be right. I sourced the etymology based on the German cognate, Kinder. The source seems to have skipped one step and gone straight from Old High German to Indo-European without mentioning West Germanic. It's your call. I am all ears! Jamesjiao 01:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jcwf, as I haven't received feedback from the othe Wiktionarians, I will for the time being remove the Etymology section and put in a rfe tag in its place. Jamesjiao → ^T ^◊ ^C 03:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wet kiss

Given as "a kiss using wet lips and tongues". Really? Specifically with tongues? (And if not, then it's SoP.)—msh210℠ 19:37, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[72] at least indicates it's more generic, and also seems to treat it as SoP ("how wet should a kiss be").—msh210℠ 19:39, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting case to test how little constructive cognitive capability and prior knowledge we believe our target user of such an entry has. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 19:53, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our definition leaves something to be desired for our posited dumb user. Some questions: Are people involved? How many? Whose lips and tongues? How are they used? DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 19:56, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, it is just a wet kiss, more watery than an average kiss, but that's what "wet" means. As much dictionary material as a wet anything. --Hekaheka 11:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aka sloppy kiss. S(l)oP. Pingku 15:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even a dog can give a wet kiss. Lips, tongue, or nose, who knows?[73] The entry is SOP. —Michael Z. 2010-03-09 23:09 z

herre

Supposed common misspelling of here. DCDuring TALK * Holiday Greetings! 23:05, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I personally have never seen this particularly variety of spelling anywhere. The use of the word in Nelly's Hot in Herre is most likely intentional given the nature of the song. I propose Delete. Jamesjiao 02:37, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see it anywhere, with this meaning. However, it does exist as an obsolete spelling of both (deprecated template usage) hair and (deprecated template usage) higher. Ƿidsiþ 14:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vietraq

"The Iraq War, suggesting it is similar to the Vietnam War." --Yair rand 01:57, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's this, looks like it *might* be citable. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. Equinox ◑ 19:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

mauvaise honte

Ignoring the fact that I've never heard of it, the source at the bottom of the page lists this as English, not French. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:58, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's English, but all the quotations in the OED have it in italics as if it were borrowed from the French. (Their definition is "False shame or modesty. Also: extreme or unreasonable diffidence; painful shyness", and the etymology is given as French). SemperBlotto 08:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's also French, and worth keeping... Lmaltier 17:50, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

??? I beg your pardon, Lmaltier. And what would be the meaning of that expression? --Actarus ^{(Prince d'Euphor)} 07:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I could not define it precisely, and I don't use this word. But I know it's common, I knew it. Try to google it, you'll find many examples (and a dictionary definition in the 1st page). Lmaltier 22:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

krotoscope

I see only mentions, not uses. Is it a trademark? Equinox ◑ 19:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 00:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hop it

"(offensive) fuck off", as distinct from first sense? Equinox ◑ 18:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They should be merged without much debate (is any needed). The RFV for me should be whether this is just a verb, and hop it is the imperative, hence should be deleted and merged into the verb section. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the verb, hoping I can cite it (or someone can cite it) in the next month. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fresh

Rfv-sense: without salt. A freshwater fish comes from water without salt (granted) but I don't think fresh means "without salt" on its own, does it? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The adjective is freshwater or fresh-water, but the noun is fresh water. —Michael Z. 2010-03-09 23:04 z

Also, the first defn "not from storage" is clearly imprecise, but I can't think of a good way to word it. I might tag that one with {{rfc-sense}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

“recently made or prepared?” —Michael Z. 2010-03-09 23:04 z

In Spanish, we talk about "fresh water" generally meaning water suitable for human consumption, may be also implying that's untreated, such as spring water. So this would not exclude just seawater, but also every kind of polluted water, such as algae-rich water.— This unsigned comment was added by Earnz (talk • contribs) at 18:05, 25 June 2010.

grilled cheese

"A sandwich with cheese in between two slices of bread typically toasted or fried in butter." Can anyone find usage that isn't followed by "sandwich"? (Oddly, the example sentence itself says "grilled cheese sandwich".) --Yair rand 23:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would claim "widespread use" colloquially. I don't know the full geographic scope of use, but I expect it is all US, probably Canada, possibly Oz. DCDuring TALK 01:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I don't think I've ever heard someone refer to "a grilled cheese"... --Yair rand 01:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uncountable. "I'm having gilled cheese" means a sandwich of cheese melted in, never the cheese alone (sans bread). I'd also say widespread use with that definition, but it should be citable. (But I haven't the time now.)—msh210℠ 01:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also countable: "If I never have another grilled cheese, it will be too soon." DCDuring TALK 02:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OED cites grilled cheese sandwich from 1929 and grilled cheese from 1931. —Michael Z. 2010-03-09 22:57 z

Awesome, I just added a quote from Family Guy... then came here and saw that one without sandwich was wanted. Nifty. — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 19:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

sex

Rfv-sense English noun #4: "the sex. Women; womankind. Also, the fair sex, the fairer sex, the whimsical sex."

Added long ago with [74]. The two citations do not seem to support the idea that "the sex" refers to womankind. Rather, both are used in contexts where it is clear that the phrase refers to women because of the context provided by the previous text. For example, the Doyle quote: "...he had a remarkable gentleness and courtesy in his dealings with women. He disliked and distrusted the sex..." Such quotes could be used just as easily for any similar noun (e.g., "Men produce more testosterone. The sex is characterized by greater average height and weight."), so this is probably covered by the first sense, or needs better citation. Dominic·t 01:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In English, I don't know. But the definition provided, and associated comments (dated, with the article...), perfectly apply to sexe in French.It would have to be kept (for French). Other phrases worth keeping, in French, are: le beau sexe, le sexe faible. Lmaltier 07:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We wouldn't keep a misleading English definition just because there is a foreign-language definition. Instead, we would just add that sense to sexe, translating it as "womankind" on its entry, and not need the sense at the English sex at all. Dominic·t 08:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. "The sex" never refers to men. This collocation was extremely common in the 18th and 19th centuries. Ƿidsiþ 11:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chambers has it: "the sex, archaic: the female sex, women". Equinox ◑ 18:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am perfectly willing to believe that it exists, but it needs good, demonstrable quotations. I don't think the current ones there even support the given definition, even if such a sense exists. Dominic·t 07:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The citations do support the definition. You are claiming that context provides the meaning, but if you do some research you will see that your made-up sentence about men does not occur in the real world, where "the sex" can only ever refer to women. Ƿidsiþ 07:35, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would claim that it is impossible to say whether the citations support the definition without reading preceding paragraphs, and even then it is probably a matter of opinion. In some cases, there might be some very limited evidence for a female-only sense, but what about this quote from "The Lancet": The errors of education in women, the excesses in drinking in men, are not causes inherent to the sex ... ? We can only say that "the sex" refers back to the last-mentioned gender(s) and would only refer specifically to the female if that is the gender under discussion ( which it often is!). Dbfirs 00:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the cites provided seem to make it unambiguous that the reference is to females. I wonder if the term is not now "obsolete" rather than "archaic". I don't know how many of the citations merit being in principal namespace as they don't seem valuable for attestation and provide little useful usage guidance if the term is obsolete. DCDuring TALK 21:26, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greek

Rfv-sense: Nonsense talk or writing; gibberish. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Like as in it's all Greek to me? L☺g☺maniac ☃ 22:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether it has figurative use outside of that term, which it seems to. DCDuring TALK 22:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

mediametrics

Protologism? Plenty of Google book hits for "media metrics". "MediaMetrics" seems to be a commercial organization. This entry needs severe pruning to remove encyclopaedic material if it is OK. SemperBlotto 17:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's been around for a while, but almost exclusively as a commercial proper name. It might just barely be attestable in lower case. More promising is mediametric#Adjective, which seems citable on Scholar. DCDuring TALK 17:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

whencever

Rfv-sense: preposition. OED? DCDuring TALK 00:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

whencesoever

Rfv-sense: preposition, synonymous with above. DCDuring TALK 00:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The OED has them both as adverbs-cum-conjunctions. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr ﴿ 00:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That's what I thought. They still get 30 days, though. DCDuring TALK 01:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both have clocked out. DCDuring TALK 15:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

chomper

I think this is always used in the plural.

Did you mean rfv-sense? This is in widespread use AFAICT. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

	Input needed
	This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

zetland

Tagged but not listed. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

spax

Most of the contents of the soon-to-be former category:Portmanteaus look like possible protologisms. RFV noun and verb. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 16:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

snuba

Possibly a brand name? Also it's a Wikipedia transwiki, which is quite weird as its quite encyclopedic. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The system is patented, and the word is claimed as a trademark. I've added references to verify the information at the snuba entry, but someone more experienced than I will need to ascertain if the word is worthy of inclusion here. --RexxS 22:53, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

spaminate

spaminator

spamination

As above, is this a trademark? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

intelligent system

Really? Or is it spam for "Intelligent Systems Corporation". SemperBlotto 22:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Intelligent Systems" is a term widely used by the Computational Intelligence community and should not be mixed with "Intelligent Systems Corporation", who should not highjack the scholarly entry "Intelligent Systems". — This comment was unsigned.

Please provide citations for use in the sense given. Usually, the wordier the definition the harder it is to find citations and show that the citations actually support all the elements of the definition. The definition given is not one I would want to have to provide citations for. DCDuring TALK 22:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Had to change the def, sorry, but it was rubbish. Also I'm doubtful of the definition of "computational intelligence" - Wikipedia says it is an "offshoot" of AI, differentiating it from GOFAI, but not from AI. If it means to include the study of types of intelligence (or problem solving) not inspired by emulating human thought, it is still not separate from AI. Pingku 18:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are "SC techniques" and how does that establish that AI techniques are involved? What basis is there for the "particularly" clause. DCDuring TALK 20:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I'm going with "Simulation and Control", from the book title (whence also NDS). (It appears to be real - see, e.g., [75].) It's not obvious from the grammar, but what they're ~~describing~~ implying is searching the "solution space" of potential models to find the optimal model. Searching solution spaces, and the various techniques for doing so, pretty much sums up what classical AI is about. (Reading it this way, I don't think it really matters what "SC" means.)

(2) What I want to encompass is that a system: (a) may have a design/purpose that requires AI techniques to work well or perhaps at all; or (b) may use AI techniques throughout but not in a way that is critical to its purpose. For example, the design of an advanced German tutor might require a model of how each student responds to different teaching methods and how advanced he/she is, and a decision process about how then to proceed. A game program might use AI techniques in many places to improve efficiency or to make the game more interesting, but still be much the same game without them. I suggest that the German tutor has the better claim to being called an "intelligent system", but both might be so called.

Cheers, Pingku 12:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The overall approach you are taking seems prescriptive/normative. I know it is more work to inductively extract meaning-in-use from a variety of usage instances, but users expect us to have done something like that. Including a reference to AI may serve users interested in the history of such matters, but introduces encyclopedic elements into the definition and makes it harder to cite, it seems to me.

Also a citation that has elements that even the contributor doesn't understand ("SC") seems a poor choice to appear even on the citations page, let alone in principal namespace. Could SC refer to, for example, Statistical Classification, which is not really an AI technique? I wonder whether a definition as narrow as you are suggesting and attempting to cite won't require a narrow context, like "artificial intelligence". DCDuring TALK 16:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. It seems SC refers to Soft Computing (fuzzy logic, neural networks, genetic algorithms and such), which from the early 90's has been part of AI research. SC provides "new" ways to search the "solution space", ways that can be faster but also may produce non-optimal solutions. Ugh! More encyclopaedic stuff. Pingku 19:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sociology of academe? The old-line AI folks (MIT, Stanford, CMU, et al} vs newer schools of thought? "Soft Computing" might have enough adherents publishing books and articles to warrant an entry. Does SC have its own associations, conferences etc? Or is it just someone's umbrella for various techniques somewhat distinct from the older AI paradigms? DCDuring TALK 23:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are numerous books on the topic, including the book series "Advances in Intelligent and Soft Computing" (originally "Advances in Soft Computing") and "Studies in Fuzziness and Soft Computing". The International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Soft Computing will be held in Poland this year, and has been going at least since 2002. There is also a journal (Journal of Multiple-Valued Logic and Soft Computing), which appears to be long-standing (volume 9 was published through 2003, according to the website). Pingku 17:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

miminar

A plural of word that we don't have a definition of, in a language that we do not have a definition of. Capitalized? SemperBlotto 08:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've now added the singular (woman) and a definition of the language. The capitalising was in error but I've yet to discover how to change this. --Roisterer 00:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved it and changed the title of this section from Minimar to minimar.—msh210℠ 22:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ndash

Tagged since 2007 (!) but not listed. Equinox ◑ 17:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 12:03, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

mysterizingness

Seems to appear only in one work, and not a very well-known one. Equinox ◑ 18:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nature strip

Rfv-sense (Australian slang) A woman's manicured pubis.— This unsigned comment was added by Msh210 (talk • contribs).

Added by an IP, I've seen landing strip for a Brazilian wax once. But that's irrelevant here. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nature strip, that's how we refer to the woman's furry koala in OZ. Bloody oath.— This unsigned comment was added by 76.226.116.117 (talk) at 04:11, 14 January 2010.

Ayrton Senna

(After cleanup) (Cockney rhyming slang) tenner (ten pound note). Mglovesfun (talk) 22:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added one bad citation: it's mention rather than usage. I can't find any others that meet CFI, though there are some on the Web (which we can't use). Equinox ◑ 19:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

romantic friendship

Moved from WT:RFD#romantic friendship

A friendship of a romantic nature? Note that the current definition and the previous one contradict each other. The former ones described it as a friendship with benefits, and this one describes it as 'asexual'. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So? Polysemy. It's merely a matter of facts. Move to RfV for one or both senses. DCDuring TALK 15:06, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a question of whether the definition is correct, and idiomatic. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

laughter

Slang for a decidedly one-sided sports contest. Equinox ◑ 22:53, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 00:48, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pabulatory

Appears to be a dictionary word only. No non-dictionary hits on b.g.c., nothing on Scholar or News Archive, 29 spammish wordlist postings on Usenet. -- Visviva 13:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 23:57, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

polypiparous

Appears to have been used only by one Dr. Thomas Strethill Wright, in a couple of different versions of a paper he delivered on hydractinians in the late 1850s. -- Visviva 14:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 23:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

got it going on

Says it's an interjection, but is defined as an adjective. Any ideas? SemperBlotto 19:39, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it is a colloquial version of AAVE predicate to have it going on, which I have just added, which has, I think, a more general sense. "He really got it going on" ~ "He really has it going on" ~ "He really has got it going on". See have got for our inadequate coverage of an important component of the expression. Almost any form you can think of is probably citable. I don't know of scope outside AAVE (US). I would expect some use among US youths generally. DCDuring TALK 20:58, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

gobby

Rfv-sense: obese.—msh210℠ 18:52, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just so we're all clear here, I added the definition based upon the following: [76] [77] [78] . Above user reverted my removal based upon the context in which he saw it used in a google search, providing this as example [79] in which it's even shown to mean fat a few times so I don't know why any verification for this definition is necessary when I've even provided the above definitions on the term's talkpage. I do however think it's necessary for verification on the term as meaning loud and critical, as according to his reversion here[80]. From the examples the user provided in his google search, only one seemed to imply obnoxious in speech at best. The rest of the examples were just unclear and didn't directly imply that in my view and neither did any of the dictionary definitions. 65.31.103.28 19:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where among those Google hits it's "shown to mean fat a few times", or once. All those whose meaning is clear (to me) mean "talkative", or possibly "talkative and critical". Here's one hit possibly (unclearly (to me)) in the rfv'ed sense, though: [81].—msh210℠ 19:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, based on [82], [83], [84], inter alia, I'm adding a sense "full of gobs".—msh210℠ 19:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Example one relates to food and eating; example two seems to imply to a sharp retort; example three seems to imply a willingness to tell the truth; example four implies to an inability to keep a secret; example five it says is not suffering fools gladly (which means not tolerating stupidity in others) which I suppose could imply the critical portion of your definition if you make a bit of a stretch; example six implies competitiveness, mentioning two people having to get somewhere first; example seven implies offensive in speech without specifying much else; example eight speaks on fatness and roundness.

Again, I'm not sure why obese needs to be verified. If anything, frequently being loudly critical ought to be verified as these examples don't seem to be consistent enough to support that definition. Just my opinion! 65.31.103.28 20:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to comment on "example one", which, assuming you see the same Google hits I do, is [85]: This uses the word (in quotation marks indicating that the writer knows its not a proper word) to mean "full of gobs", the sense I've recently added (as noted above). Nothing to do with obesity. "Obese" needs to be verified per the "attestation" requirement of WT:CFI, q.v. The definition "frequently and loudly criticising other people" may need fixing, yes, though gobby certainly means something like that: I think "talking overly much" might be a better definition, per the citations.—msh210℠ 20:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and re the eighth example, which you say "speaks on fatness and roundness": If your eighth is my eighth, it's one of the ones I can't see more than a snippet of, and that snippet reads only "beer every once in a while, every couple of weeks or so. Sankey is very gobby.¶[Due to an argument at Christmas, two weeks before the incident] every time I saw him he would just stare at me, blank me out or play" (brackets in original). I have no idea what it means there. Can you (or anyone) see more of it?—msh210℠ 20:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Msh210, I'm a little unsure of why you added a second definition to gobby of "marked by the presence of gobs" (as shown here [86]) The 2 definitions you've added are based on weak evidence. As I've highlighted above, this Google search result you provided are using the word in a whole different assortment of ways all across the board. As for Example 8, it speaks of drinking beer and then goes into gobby. That hardly connotes talkative. Example 9 speaks of fatness and roundness while speaking about gobby. That hardly connotes talkative. All dictionaries suggest obese and nothing about full of gobs or talkative. Besides, your reversion of my edit removal of frequently and loudly criticising other people is not supported by your arguments for talkative as the definition of gobby. [87] [88] 65.31.103.28 08:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re "unsure of why you added a second definition to gobby of 'marked by the presence of gobs'", please see what I wrote above. While you're correct that "talkative" may be a better definition than "frequently and loudly criticising other people", there is certainly some sense like that, so I reverted your unilateral removal thereof. As always, cites rule, and I see you've {{rfv-sense}}d the remaining senses, so I suppose cites will rule for those, too. I suggest you get cracking on the "obese" sense if you have any interest in its remaining (which you seem to), as you now have ~4 weeks to cite it. :-) —msh210℠ 16:30, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and btw, re "[t]he 2 definitions [I]'ve added", actually, I only added the "presence of gobs" one. The loquacity one was added by Paul G when he created the entry.—msh210℠ 17:50, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the noun sense ("blowjob") I found this on the Steam Community forums: "if i was friends with crucial irl i would give him a gobby." (Crucial is someone's user name.) But I don't believe it is attestable. Equinox ◑ 17:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another one from the Web: "Hey Pinto, yeah I saw that sthlut^[sic] at Motel. She gave me a gobby in the car park." Equinox ◑ 17:45, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As according to this slang dictionary http://www.peevish.co.uk/slang/g.htm the term can apply to offensively outspoken/shooting one's mouth off as a slang usage in the UK; however, in the USA it connotes obesity and fatness. I'm guessing because it was foreign slang used in another country it wasn't coming up. I thought this was the English Wiktionary as opposed to the Slang/UK Wiktionary. I suppose both terms can be added as long as they state the location in which they're both used. As for this other nonsense about blowjobs and lumps, Msh210 clearly went a little nuts with these definitions. They look like blatant vandalism. 65.31.103.28 17:37, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism? Hardly. Just because you never heard of the term used in this way doesn't mean other English speaking regions don't use it. Gobby in the sense of fellatio is heard among the less 'educated' individuals in Australia. It's definitely not uncommon. It's probably a diminutive form of the slang word 'gobble' meaning 'mouth'. Thanks Jamesjiao → ^T ^◊ ^C 12:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The blowjob definition was added only once I found three citations for it. See citations:gobby. It's now been {{rfv-sense}}d (unnecessarily, due to those cites).—msh210℠ 16:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous, I've found two citations (see citations:gobby) for a sense meaning "obese" or possibly "overeating": it's hard to tell which. (That is, the citations seem to be using the word to mean "overeating", but "obese" is a reasonable alternative explanation, and since you say other dictionaries define it that way, that may well be what the sources mean by the word.) So if spend effort on finding one more citation instead of on getting all gobby about the fact that the sense was {{rfv}}ed in the first place, and you find one, the sense will remain, and you'll have nothing to complain about. (Assuming, of course, that it doesn't actually bother you that other senses remain also. That may be a bad assumption, of course.)—msh210℠ 16:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and can someone help with splitting up the speech-related senses appropriately, please? See citations:gobby.—msh210℠ 16:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can attest to the usage of "gobby" in the sense of fellatio(blowjob) by many Australian teenagers, and thus I believe it is in fairly common usage. If you go to http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gobby I think you will find a large consensus on the meaning of the term. --Anthonzi 05:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And when can we get rid of the RV tags for this sense? I think IP:65.31.103.28 had already been thoroughly debunked before I came on the scene.--Anthonzi 06:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

	Input needed
	This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!

I've detagged the "criticizing" definition, added a "talkative" one, and detagged the fellatio defintion, all per cites. I'm still not happy with the split in the talking-related senses: it still needs attention (please!). I've for now not removed the "obese" definition, as it has two cites, but perhaps it should go.—msh210℠ 16:58, 24 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

bestio

Rfv-sense: Esperanto: "beast". An IP has disputed the existence of this word. It could be just a misspelling of besto. --Yair rand 19:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sub fremdaj ĉieloj by E. de Kock (2007) has "Imagoj pri bestio rabiinta, / homŝire, preskaŭ mil kaj kvincent jarojn" on page 41. A spelling error, perhaps, but if the meaning fits, then it's one in the wild.--Prosfilaes 23:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

complex systems

Rfv-sense X 2. From Category:Systems theory, which may have more worth review. DCDuring TALK 00:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, there is no doubt that the collocation exists. The issue is whether each of the longish definitions given is supported by three citations in every detail. The definitions given arguably have half a dozen features each. As is common in such cases, what we have seems to amount to two prescriptive definitions of related concepts each used by one author or possibly a group of authors probably as paraphrases interpreted by our contributor(s). Whether attestable definitions are not SoP is an open question. It could only be seen once they were attested. There might well be a good shorter attestable non-SoP definition to be added, possibly more than one. DCDuring TALK 10:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also the singular is questionable: "complex system: specific kind of system, which a certain complexity". --Hekaheka 12:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

jv

The (only) sense of "The ISO 639-1 official language code of Javanese". --Bequw → ¢ • τ 22:18, 24 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can look this up at the SIL website, where it is listed. --EncycloPetey 01:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide any that use the term rather than just mention the term? --Bequw → ¢ • τ 01:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well it's not a word so you can't use it in a sentence any more than enm or ang, can you? What am I missing here? Mglovesfun (talk) 01:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary:Votes/2009-12/Proposed inclusion of words and abbreviations with meanings established by recognized international bodies and formally adopted by multiple national governments failed, so this needs to be deleted. -- Prince Kassad 01:38, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err hang on, it can still pass in other ways can't it? Thinking about translingual, a lot of our translingual terms aren't words but rather symbols or codes or whatever. I think we need some policy on this, or propose enm#Translingual alongside it. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've nominated all the alpha-3 ISO codes. -- Prince Kassad 02:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm really saying that if these don't meet CFI, they should be at RFD. Otherwise, what does use vs. mention even mean for a symbol like this? I don't know what to look for. Mglovesfun (talk) 04:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Usenet cite of someone saying, "Yeah, I'm pretty fluent in jv, but less so in ang" should do IMO. Or maybe even a book saying "if you set your browser's accept-language header to include "jv" then you'll see that Web page in Javanese, because it...". (That's a use, not a mention, right? Not sure....) Other uses are possible, too.—msh210℠ 16:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're second quote is still a mention as what is significant is the identifier ("jv") rather than what it stands for (Javanese). The actual definition part of the sense line is just "Javanese". The whole "ISO 639-1 official language code" part is really etymological and usage note material. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 04:34, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right: I don't know what I was thinking.—msh210℠ 17:13, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Funnily enough, WT:AMUL lists these as being automatically valid, but under what authority, I don't know. If it did come down to an RFD I'd say keep as people will search for these after seeing them in articles. Mglovesfun (talk) 05:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WT:AMUL says that if the term is included in multiple languages with the same definition, it can have a Translingual section. It does not supersede the CFI for inclusion in those individual languages, so there's no contradiction. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 17:44, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No but it says that ISO 639 codes are acceptable as translingual entries. Again, I don't know what is a "use" vs. a "mention" in this case. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See w:Use–mention distinction. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 14:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[[Category:Translingual symbols]] contains well over 1000 entries. Symbols are (I think) always mentioned rather than used, so all 1079 should be on this page. For example, for = and + what would you accept as translingual 'uses' rather than mentions. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How about 1 + 1 = 2? -- Prince Kassad 16:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 19:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to RFD: Yair Rand has objected to the above closure, but no one has presented any citations (even dubious ones). —Ruakh_TALK 21:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

aar

Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh_TALK 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

abk

Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh_TALK 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

afr

Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh_TALK 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

aka

Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh_TALK 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

amh

Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh_TALK 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ara

Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh_TALK 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

arg

Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh_TALK 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

arz

Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh_TALK 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

asm

Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh_TALK 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ava

Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh_TALK 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ave

Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh_TALK 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

aym

Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh_TALK 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

aze

Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh_TALK 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cad

Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh_TALK 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cat

Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh_TALK 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

eng

Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh_TALK 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

enm

Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh_TALK 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fro

Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh_TALK 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

jbo

Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh_TALK 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

law

Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh_TALK 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

rhg

Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh_TALK 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

swa

Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh_TALK 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

swe

Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh_TALK 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

syr

Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh_TALK 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

szw

All ISO codes with no citations or anything proving their use. -- Prince Kassad 02:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They're in the Appendix space now at Appendix:ISO 639-3. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 19:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to RFD (under "jv"). —Ruakh_TALK 21:06, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

definition by pointing

Doesn't seem like a set phrase: In most use "pointing" coordinates with other nouns, -ing forms or is part of a phrasal verb). Other uses are mentions or term is used to define (deprecated template usage) ostensive definition, as if it does not need defining itself (being self-evident). DCDuring TALK 02:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added one more quotation to "definition by pointing", but I cannot find any other one.

Most phrases found by google books:"definition by pointing" find the phrase "definition by pointing" used not as a term for a class of things: the "by pointing" part modifies not the definition but the action or operation done to the definition, as some examples show:

"Railway promoters did their best to avoid the full force of this definition by pointing out potential benefits ..."
"Wender (1975) has elaborated this definition by pointing to two major areas of dysfunction found in MBD children: ..."
"It is possible to criticize this definition by pointing out that it would include a trained parrot in the ranks of man, ..."

I am afraid this entry has to be deleted.

OTOH, definition by example should be restored, as the contradistinction between "ostensive definition" and "definition by example" should be made clear and cannot be securely infered from merely looking at the term "definition by example". At least, "definition by example" should have a fair RFD or RFV trial. --Dan Polansky 10:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a good search term:

Google books: "definition by pointing" -"definition by pointing out" -"definition by pointing to"

I have added some quotations found by that search to the "definition by pointing" entry, and to its citations namespace.

Admittedly, many of the authors in the search who by "definition by pointing" mean certain kind of definition seem to take it for granted that the term is sum-of-parts, understandable without further explanation. This is witnessed by repeated quotations of the sort of "ostensive definition = definition by pointing", without it being further explained what "definition by pointing" is supposed to be.

I have created "definition by pointing" from Wikipedia as synonymous to "ostensive definition", and defined "ostensive definition" based on Wikipedia as "A process of binding the meaning to the defined term by pointing out examples and counterexamples." However, this definition is ambiguous and imperfect, waiting for improvement. When I draw a sketchy picture of a hammer and utter "hammer" without pointing my finger to the picture, is it a definition by pointing? When I utter "whistle" followed by my whistling, is it a definition by pointing? My tentative answers to the questions are yes and yes, and this, it seems to me, makes "definition by pointing" not a sum of parts but rather a term whose scope should be clarified by a definition. I admit that "A process of binding the meaning to the defined term by pointing out examples and counterexamples" does a poor job at that clarification. --Dan Polansky 11:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to your questions: hammer: yes; whistle: yes. "Pointing" includes the sense of "drawing attention to" by unspecified means, exactly the sense required for this term. Ergo, SoP, IMHO. DCDuring TALK 12:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Now consider the following quotation given in the entry: 'Closely related to definition by pointing is definition by examples. Using this method to define "suspension bridge," one might mention the Brooklyn Bridge, ...'. When I define "suspension bridge" as that class of bridges which is exemplified by the Brooklyn Bridge, I am also pointing to the Brooklyn Bridge in the sense of "directing the attention to". But such a definition is a "definition by example", not a "definition by pointing"; it rests on the assumption that the receiver of the definition already knows what "Brooklyn Bridge" is like or is able to find out later on. But when I say that "apple" is "the thing on the desk" assuming there is only one physical object on the desk, then that is, I suppose, a definition by pointing. If it turns out that I am wrong and that "definition by pointing" includes "A suspension bridge is a kind of bridge exemplified by the Brooklyn Bridge", then this is a finding that I need to have documented somewhere; it tells me something nontrivial about the scope of the term "definition by pointing". --Dan Polansky 09:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFV passed. DCDuring — or anyone else — if you're still not convinced that it's an idiom, please list it at RFD. —Ruakh_TALK 19:11, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wagon

Rfv-sense: French, an "old slapper". Aded by an IP, I think it was Verbo. PS if this is common, I'll withdraw the RFV. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

meep

Oh really? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's listed as the interjection, yes. Lots of hits at Google "meep meep" (Books • Groups • Scholar). The verb I haven't the time to look for now, but I wouldn't be surprised.—msh210℠ 16:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

aa

Moved to RFD. —Ruakh_TALK 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ab

Moved to RFD. —Ruakh_TALK 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ae

Moved to RFD. —Ruakh_TALK 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

af

Moved to RFD. —Ruakh_TALK 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ak

Moved to RFD. —Ruakh_TALK 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

am

Moved to RFD. —Ruakh_TALK 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

an

Moved to RFD. —Ruakh_TALK 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ar

Moved to RFD. —Ruakh_TALK 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

as

Moved to RFD. —Ruakh_TALK 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

av

Moved to RFD. —Ruakh_TALK 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ay

Moved to RFD. —Ruakh_TALK 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

az

Moved to RFD. —Ruakh_TALK 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

be

Moved to RFD. —Ruakh_TALK 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bm

Moved to RFD. —Ruakh_TALK 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ca

Moved to RFD. —Ruakh_TALK 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

cr

Moved to RFD. —Ruakh_TALK 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

dv

Moved to RFD. —Ruakh_TALK 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

en

Moved to RFD. —Ruakh_TALK 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fj

Moved to RFD. —Ruakh_TALK 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fr

Moved to RFD. —Ruakh_TALK 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ga

Moved to RFD. —Ruakh_TALK 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

gn

Moved to RFD. —Ruakh_TALK 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

gv

Moved to RFD. —Ruakh_TALK 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ii

Moved to RFD. —Ruakh_TALK 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

nl

Moved to RFD. —Ruakh_TALK 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

pl

Moved to RFD. —Ruakh_TALK 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

qu

Moved to RFD. —Ruakh_TALK 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ve

Following PK's lead with the ISO 639-3 codes, here's the rest of the ISO 639-1 codes (of which 'jv' was the one rfv'ed above). Just in case someone's worried they will be "lost", see Appendix:ISO 639-1. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 18:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is your concern with these entries? Do you believe they are not really in existence? --EncycloPetey 03:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I better hope they exist, I did create that appendix:) I think that including non-lexical material in the main part of Wiktionary is dubious If we do, it should be with good reason and voted on (maybe you'd like to vote on amending the CFI?). We are a dictionary, not a hodge-podge compilation of code books. Why are we "defining" things that aren't even used in natural languages? --Bequw → ¢ • τ 04:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, these will all pass, it would be a waste of time to find these in use. You're saying we may not find three durable citations or 'en' to mean the English language? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not denying that these exist, but that they are not dictionary material, that is an RFD issue, not an RFV one. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They will pass if cites are found in which case they are dictionary material. If you can find three appropriate usages (not mentions which is the hard part) please offer them up. I do not presuppose that such cites are nonexistant. They could be, and that would be great. --Bequw → ¢ • τ 14:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Start a discussion in the BP if you think that ISO codes should be removed. --Yair rand 21:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@YR & MG: This is not RFD where we're debating "keep" vs "delete" (there's not even any citations that we can debate over). I don't "think that ISO codes should be removed". I think attestation is necessary for their inclusion (just like every other term). If you would like to start a discussion to change the CFI to allow the inclusion of these terms regardless of attestation, you may. But that burden falls on one who wants such a change and that is not me. --Bequw → τ 13:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But these are not terms, and they are generally assumed to be exempt from requiring any attestation further than their being listed in ISO. We all know that these codes are correct, so this is really not an RFV issue. --Yair rand 03:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First, why are they not "terms"? We have no problem calling FR (an ISO 3166 geographic code) and + (another L3 symbol) "terms"? An entity is not liberated from the CFI by proclaiming it is not a "term", worse it removes any possible justification for keeping it. Second, where was consensus reached on these terms being exempt from the CFI (you and one or two others may have said this but I find no real discussion on the topic)? In the absence of such a consensus these terms must pass the CFI (they can't just be "correct") so this is indeed an RFV issue. Again, start a vote if you would like to change the CFI. --Bequw → τ 14:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ISO codes are, like many other things, an unresolved issue, and are widely believed to be exempt from CFI, although this is not an official policy. To deal with this, start a BP discussion to set it one way or another, but RFV is to find verification, which we obviously can't get in this situation even though we all know that these are correct. Likewise, starting an RFV of the entire Category:WMF jargon (another unresolved issue that doesn't pass CFI), would be an inappropriate response. --Yair rand 18:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please cite a discussion where the issue of ISO language codes was debated and left unresolved (or did you mean "undebated"?). Please cite a discussion supporting that they are "exempt from CFI" (or was this on IRC?). Absent these, normal procedures are followed. Classes of words are constantly RFV'ed, either directly or by association, (eg the Chinglish and unattested SI Unit entries) so this is appropriate. Again, you are welcome to bring up changing the CFI in the BP, as was done for the SI Units. As for WMF jargon, it was RFV'd and it was left unresolved because there were differing interpretations of WT:CFI#Independence. To my knowledge there are no interpretational differences here. --Bequw → τ 19:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And WT:BP#ISO codes comes and goes with no consensus. Anyone want to add a section to WT:UNRESOLVED? --Yair rand 23:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to tell since the discussion was so thin. No one really replied in the BP after I posted that since, in addition to not being attestable these terms are (a) free from linguistic information, and (b) covered better by wikipedia. Most of the discussion here was about the distinction between "usage" and "mention". It appears to me that the half-hearted support for their inclusion simply whithered. If anyone really complains I'll start a vote, but I'm leaning towards RFVFailing all these terms. --Bequw → τ 23:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to start a vote, go ahead, though I don't think it will pass (especially since it won't have been as a result of extensive BP discussion). Closing the issue by failed RFV would set a really bad precedent. I'm all for leaving this on the "unresolved" pile for the moment. --Yair rand 00:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They definitely fail RFV. The debatable part is whether that should result in their deletion. Though uncommon, the entries could be moved to RFD. But since it's a class, I'll set up a vote. --Bequw → τ 03:52, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this is absurd (and doesn't belong on RFV). The examples of "use" that have been suggested are specifically language-bound; supposing I actually could find three examples of "I speak fluent ve", that would show only that this was used as a word in English, and wouldn't even address the Translingual section. -- Visviva 19:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... on the other hand, software that has been published in physical form, or mirrored at multiple locations, would have to be considered "durably archived", wouldn't it? -- Visviva 20:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If only English usage is verified, then we should only list them as English. If they are verified to have identical meanings in several languages then we can debate whether they merit a single Translingual section, or separate ones. Translingual terms need to be verified just like others (we just don't often because usually, unlike here, it's trivial). The problem here is that no language usage has been shown. As for software, natural language elements would be usable (eg comments), but code is prohibited per WT:CFI#Constructed languages. --Bequw → τ 20:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to RFD. —Ruakh_TALK 21:14, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

zorched

Template:slang intoxicated on alcohol.

— This comment was unsigned.

The hits I see for this are Google snippets, so it's hard to tell precise meaning, and hard to get a good quotation for inclusion into the entry, but there seem to be three hits at bgc for a sense meaning "intoxicated, stoned" (not necessarily on alcohol, though). There are other senses, too, especially on Usenet, where the most common meaning seems to be something like "failed, died" (of a machine).—msh210℠ 15:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

deepity

Apparently a recent coinage, but possibly in a way worth keeping, if supporting citations can be found. --EncycloPetey 03:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 01:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

green mile

Really? All I can see is the name of a prison film. SemperBlotto 08:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The book on which the film was based started coming out in 1996, so I tried searching for books from before then. The first 250 (sic) hits on that search did not yield any relevant results whose snippets were visible on the search-result page, nor, indeed, any obviously non-SoP results at all. So if this exists, I guess it's only in recent use, based on the book and film, but this search yields AFAICT no relevant results among the first 100.—msh210℠ 16:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"mile" or possibly "last mile" would be a more general version; from what I remember of the film, their death row just happened to have a green floor. Interplanet Janet 12:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the Batman game, the green mile (in lower case) refers to the area of the penitentiary for prisoners waiting to be executed. I agree that this is a recent development. It will probably see more frequent use in the near future. Jamesjiao → ^T ^◊ ^C 09:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 01:19, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

firangi

The creator seemed unsure about the plural and the capitalization. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

whipster

Verify def 2 - a spoiled brat? Jamesjiao → ^T ^◊ ^C 12:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-omics

Rfv-sense: economics sense, derived from -nomics. I haven't seen an attestable example of a formation that is not actually from -nomics, including the sole example given Reaganomics. Only if one does not allow a deletion operation in suffixation is that a good example. Are there morphological authorities who would not allow deletion of this type in suffixation. DCDuring TALK 15:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe (deprecated template usage) Bushomics meets CFI as an alternative form of (deprecated template usage) Bushonomics, though not with much room to spare: [89] [90] [91] [92]. Likewise (deprecated template usage) Carteromics for (deprecated template usage) Carternomics: [93] [94] [95] [96] [97]. Neither one is exactly "common". —Ruakh_TALK 19:17, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Groups only? Why wouldn't they be rare misspellings? (Seriously.) They would seem to be considered misspellings in edited works. That would seem to make them less desirable to use in almost all registers in writing. DCDuring TALK 20:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I further note that Bushnomics and Carternomics would both seem to be attestable alternative spellings from edited works. DCDuring TALK 20:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

expontaneous

This certainly seems to be a medical word. But the definition seems totally wrong. Not in the OED. Any ideas? SemperBlotto 08:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the usages that I can find seem to be mis-spellings of spontaneous, but "expontaneous" seems too common to be just a random error. I can't quite believe that it is a word, but I can't explain why it keeps occurring. Dbfirs 13:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

armeoisto

Cannot verify this to be a correct form of the word. All sources that I have found point to armeisto. No results in Google Books for either armeoisto. Razor flame 23:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

resentful

Rfv-sense: Anon added elaborate wording to sense which seems to exclude much usage without adding other sense to include other usage. If another sense were added, it would almost certainly seem redundant. The issue is probably resolvable by finding citations for the more particularized sense. The original, less elaborate sense appears without challenge. DCDuring TALK 15:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a legitimate poker term used extensively on the West coast of North America. There are several such poker terms that arise from popular culture based on actual players and events.

If this is deleted I will not bother adding the others. — This unsigned comment was added at 20 April 2010.

That's odd, as the meaning has nothing to do with poker, even by its own definition. Removed, not cited and I think it's just redundant, would seem to have merited immediate deletion anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:55, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

? Has nothing to do with poker? IT IS the term used to describe a specific play of cards in the game of poker which came to be as a result of a particular person and a particular play. Why are you so difficult? The beauty of the English language is that it evolved, you must be French.

I think you want #Roubini above. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

resent

Rfv-sense: same anon, same issue. DCDuring TALK 16:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fails, see above or Talk:resentful if it's been archived. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:04, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you are an ass then, I fear that this vehicle is useless and will self-destruct with arrogance like yours

Again, you want #Roubini above. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:45, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ventresca

Supposed to be English. I think it's Spanish/Italian. Needs cleanup anyway. SemperBlotto 22:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

anti-paste

Cut or copy (a file) on Windows Vista? Equinox ◑ 22:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 00:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

binzer

Computing: binary zero, or (verb) set to binary zero. One or two people on Google Groups are asking what it is; can't find any significant usage. Equinox ◑ 23:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 16:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

off the ground

Rfv-sense: Successful. I don't think so. It means having a good start. Also the usage examples show it only as part of get off the ground. DCDuring TALK 23:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose one could ask "Is this project off the ground?", though it would be more usual to ask if it had got off the ground. I agree that it doesn't mean successful. Dbfirs 18:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience it has a meaning that is almost "successful", but rather more "started on the path toward eventually becoming successful". It is conceivable that the meaning has evolved because we imagine that getting started toward a goal is tantamount to achieving it, ie, once you've started you don't have to work at it: "well begun is half done" => "well begun is almost done" => "well begun is as good as done". DCDuring TALK 18:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, well begun is nearly done would be attestable, though not in enough use to be a proverb by my lights. DCDuring TALK 17:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps one might extend the "start" meaning to "running smoothly", but not as far as successful. I suggest that we amalgamate the two senses shown, deleting "successful". Dbfirs 19:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar with that sense either, though it seems plausible. DCDuring TALK 19:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was the impression I got from one or two examples I found, but I'd struggle to quote unambiguous cites, so perhaps we should just stick with the basic meaning and let people read more into the context if they wish. Dbfirs 16:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mean to discourage any extension of the definition. I think our wording should reflect that "we've gotten started" means a bit less than "we've gotten off the ground". DCDuring TALK 17:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

... so if we combine the senses to give: "having reached an adequate level of stability or self-sufficiency; having made a good start"? Dbfirs 00:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

left-hand man

"a poor-quality assistant". --Yair rand 06:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like creative invention to me. I would probably have just deleted it. SemperBlotto 08:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks genuine. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr ﴿ 15:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

suppress

Vaaaaaague definition. Can someone reword it in much clearer language? I would do it but I don't quite understand the word myself! Thanks. Tooironic 08:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This should be at WT:RFC: doesn't look like a request for verification.—msh210℠ 17:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've extended the definition slightly, and added a topical example. I think the US legal sense is just a particular use of the ordinary sense, but there are other shades of meaning that we should possibly show separately. Dbfirs 17:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IP

Rfv-sense: "A specific instance of intellectual property, such as a particular design."—msh210℠ 16:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ai

Rfv-sense: expression of pity, pain, etc. "Onomatopoeia from Portuguese ..." DCDuring TALK 18:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

tied

Rfv-sense: 2 senses. The examples shown seem to be of the past participle used in the passive. This should be verified as meeting the tests for being an adjective in the senses RfVed. See Wiktionary:English adjectives. DCDuring TALK 18:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there seem to be true adjective senses missing, such as the use in the UK expression "tied house". DCDuring TALK 18:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

jobber

Rfv-sense: One who engages in w:Job production. Claimed source of other senses. DCDuring TALK 11:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

job

Rfv-sense: To work. I think the translators have been seriously misled by this def. DCDuring TALK 11:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it doesn't mean to work in general and can't be translated into French as travailler. Should we have "job" as an alternative spelling of jab? Dbfirs 17:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

handeln

Rfv-sense: really? -- Prince Kassad 18:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re the sense "(handeln von): to be about" - I assume that refers to the use as found in "Das Buch handelt von einem Krokodil", synonymous to English "to treat". The sense in German Wiktionary: "[3] von etwas erzählen, sich um etwas drehen". Prepositions: von, um. These may be two senses, actually: (a) von etwas handeln - non-reflexive, (b) sich um etwas handel - reflexive. I am a non-native, though. --Dan Polansky 21:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

swamper

This is also on WT:RFC. Another user suggested a verificiation. The definitions are:

Template:British One who swamps or overwhelms, as by superior numbers. (Orig: late 19th century)
Template:Australian a person who travels by foot but has his belongings on a wagon.
Template:North American A person who clears a road for lumberers in a forest or swamp.
Template:North American A general employee in a liquor saloon; a cook's assistant.
Template:North American A truck driver's assistant; an assistant to a driver of horses, mules or bullocks.
Template:North American A person who lives in a swampy area.
Template:North American A handyman.

--Volants 14:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've cited almost all the senses. They're all in my OED and other dicts, so I think it's basically fine -- although more cites would always be nice. Ƿidsiþ 15:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:123abc's entries

As requested, I've painstakingly changed all of these entries to RfV. Believe it or not, this is the short list:

Basically, most or if not all these are Chinglish and/or sum of parts. All are incorrectly formatted. And, no, Googling is not an adequate way to see if they are attested as that will only tell you how prevalent Chinglish is on the Internet. Adding entries for even the most common Mandarin vocabulary on Wiktionary is a huge task, but if we are supposed to add almost any possible combination of English and Mandarin this magnifies it beyond belief.

The way I see it, User:123abc should probably be banned, as even after multiple communications with the user by myself and other contributors, s/he continues to add these useless and messy entries. This creates a huge amount of clean-up work for myself and the bare four or five other Mandarin contributors here. Tooironic 05:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak the language, but Alzheimer病 cannot be sum of part. So, it must be what you call Chinglish (but the definition in Chinglish does not cover this sense)? If these words are used in Chinese texts (and they clearly are, even in books), why should they be deleted? My feeling is that you don't like them, but it's an opinion, and we must keep neutral. Usual criteria should apply. Lmaltier 06:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what criteria are you using? I implore you to find just one dictionary that translates Alzheimer's disease as Alzheimer病. And where are these books you speak of? You'll also find plenty of Google hits for "Chairman毛", "Bei京" and "kung夫" but that doesn't make them words. Tooironic 10:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria don't include the presence in another dictionary, the important thing is that words have to be used. I don't know about the other examples you give, but Alzheimer病 is used, even in books (you can find many examples in Google books), and its only possible use is as a word meaning Alzheimer's disease. Lmaltier 12:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the three least attestable ones. 牛肉pie only gets about 150 Google hits, so that's also likely to fail. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why your Google hits are different to my Google hits? My Google hits are 352. (123abc 02:22, Feb 7, 2010)

Being rare is not a reason to be deleted. 150 hits is not a proof, but a serious clue that the word does exist. Lmaltier 23:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except... they're not Chinese words. They're Chinglish. Tooironic 01:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that the standard is that if a word is regularly used in Chinese context, it's a Chinese word. (Look at WT:RFD#Ivrit.) --Yair rand 02:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is the only possible criterion for creating a section for some language (try to find a better one!) Lmaltier 08:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is Chinglish? Are they Chinglish books? (123abc 01:57, Feb 7, 2010)

Then I stand corrected for ~~Email地址~~ ~~E-mail地址~~ e-mail地址. Good to see some evidence actually coming forward. How about the rest of them? Tooironic 09:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat what I've said on RFD. This isn't vandalism, if they are used, people may search for them, therefore we should keep them. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Words with English abbreviations are legitimate (CD-+...), the rest are Chinglish. Although, they are used and can be found in Google, standard Mandarin doesn't work that way. Words with mixed scripts, where English names are spelled using Roman letters are often used by people who don't know how to write those names in standard Chinese, especially overseas born Chinese like "Alzheimer病". Google will give a lot of hits but it doesn't mean that it is a correct spelling.

Chinglish: Alzheimer病 (this should be avoided as a dictionary entry). delete
Standard Mandarin:
阿茲海默病 / 阿兹海默病 (Āzīhǎimò-bìng) or

阿耳茨海默癥 / 阿耳茨海默症 (Ā'ěrcíhǎimò-zhèng) --Anatoli 02:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those of these terms that are unidiomatic (SOP), ought to be deleted (obv.), whilst those that are not ought to be kept iff 123abc or whoever can find the requisite three citations spanning at least a year in durably-archived media each. We should be strict about the time allowed for verification (i.e., they should only remain here without attestation until the 6^th of March, at the latest). Those that are verified per the CFI ought to be reformatted thus:

Alzheimer病 = {{form of|Non-standard form|阿茲海默病|lang=zh}}

unless some convincing evidence can be provided for why they ought to be regarded as standard. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr ﴿ 12:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the idiomatic ones should be kept if there are three citations, that if used in Chinese they're Chinese. I also think that RFVing a bunch of entries without checking for citations, or which the nominator knows there are citations, and hoping no one does the work to cite them, is acting in bad faith. I'm tempted to say "keep all" for that reason, even if they are uncited, and though this is not a vote page. I would cite them myself, but don't know enough Chinese (I known none, actually) to know when they are being used and when mentioned, etc.—msh210℠ 17:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To decide on this, people should know how Chinese works and what is acceptable and what is not in standard Mandarin. You may find a lot of citation of English words in Roman letters within Chinese text, these words don't become Chinese. In Einstein相对论, only 相对论 is Chinese, Einstein is not. --Anatoli 19:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

biological evolution

Probably sum of parts. Tooironic 09:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just like financial crisis/economic crisis? If it is SoP, how will attestation help? Move to Rfd. DCDuring TALK 11:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the definition isn't quite right, it's essentially evolution of a biological nature. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A sum-of-parts suspicion is for RFD rather than for RFV, I have been recently told. --Dan Polansky 12:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

-_- I'll never get the difference between the two... Tooironic 19:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW it depends if the definition is correct or not. I think the definition is one aspect of biological evolution, not a true definition of it. However, if it were correct, it could be considered idiomatic. So I think the RFV is still valid. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of Google Book hits for this, so actually citing this given definition might be very very difficult. Ergo, it might fail anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

fetii

Common misspelling of fetuses. Is it really all that common? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure looks like it: [98]. Might even be a correct alternate plural. --Yair rand 03:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come the f**k on! No one is going to take this resource seriously if we start calling an incorrect formation of an incorrect plural “a correct alternative”! † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr ﴿ 12:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a hypercorrect plural, it's not really a misspelling either, it's just wrong, and seemingly unused or used very little. I'm dreading trying to find a third cite, as I imagine there is one. But it is as pointed out below, extremely rare. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It’s exactly that. (I didn’t actually say or think that it was a misspelling, in case that’s what you thought.) There’s no harm in having the entry, as long as in keeping it, we also proscribe it. My only criticism was of the suggestion that we should in any way call it “correct”. The (deprecated template usage) -us → (deprecated template usage) -i brain-o is totally understandable; why it becomes so frequently *(deprecated template usage) -ii is a little less transparent. It’s probably because of words like (deprecated template usage) radii and (deprecated template usage) gladii, where the first (deprecated template usage) i (which is part of the stem, not the case ending) is misinterpreted as part of the plural-marking. Clearly, it’s not just a spelling-based error — *(deprecated template usage) fetii shows that a second (deprecated template usage) i can be added where there wasn’t one before, and *(deprecated template usage) penii shows that *(deprecated template usage) -ii is the spelt plural of an —əs ending. I’ll go add a usage note. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr ﴿ 13:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The majority of those hits seem to be scannos (scannioi?). —Ruakh_TALK 04:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I never know whether to RFV or RFD misspellings. I count two usable Google Book hits that use it in English. So It'd have to be "(very rare) Lua error in Module:parameters at line 95: Parameter 1 should be a valid language code; the value "fetuses" is not valid. See WT:LOL." which is just silly. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked Google Groups Search. This term would pass with no problem. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr ﴿ 23:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

escopateur

Surely this has to be Modern or Middle French. fr:escopateur gives a citation from 1888, hence Modern French, not even archaic to be honest. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the language to be used, but the citation you mention seems to be more a mention than an actual use. Lmaltier 22:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well the (deprecated template usage) -eur ending is really too modern, see for example (deprecated template usage) menteor (Modern French (deprecated template usage) menteur). The source at the bottom of the page in French doesn't seem to include the word. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be attestable, but very very rare! Given the era in which Godefroy wrote, I'd suggest that escopateur was his translation into Modern French. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Martin! Look at the french entry, there is a reliable attestation ;) Moreover, there is a lot of word in -eur in Old French (40 on fr.wikt according to the darkdadaah tools). Cdlt, VIGNERON 13:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well 1880 is well into the Modern French period, and the dictionary given as a source doesn't (yet) include the word as it's not yet uploaded. So that leaves us with a good old zero attestations. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, did they have bin men as early as 1400? Probably, I suppose. Yes, I've come across (deprecated template usage) seigneur in Yvain ou le Chevalier au Lion although -or and -our are more common. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:28, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The example is modern but not the word (I’m looking for a better example, I’m sure the word is used in some documents on Rennes archives). ~~The word seems missing in the Godefroy on fr.ws~~He is here on fr.ws : s:fr:Page:Godefroy - Lexique (3).djvu/47 and you can chek here : [99].~~~~

-eur is not the most common but it’s not uncommon too.

escopateur is very rare in french but was common in Rennes (old books talking about old Rennes speak about the escopateur).

Cdlt, VIGNERON 13:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's much better. Irritatingly it doesn't give even one example of the word in use, which is what we usually want. However, these texts probably don't exist (yet) on the Internet. What would other editors think about a 'good faith' RFV pass? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Godefroy is an old dictionary and there is some lacks… But it still a good reference.

According to Henri Carré, the world could be found on [100]. I will read the 121 pages to find it, but it will took some times ;)

The world utilization is restricted to the old city of Rennes, it’s hard to find attestation (old documents are not allways easy to find and/or to read).

Cdlt, VIGNERON 14:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "What would other editors think about a 'good faith' RFV pass?": In some cases, when the editor who listed the word here seems to have had their doubts satisfied, and it seems plain that the term does meet the CFI, I've closed a discussion as "kept" — basically refusing to delete the entry or remove the sense or whatever, but not actually marking it "passed", and making clear that future editors should feel free to re-RFV it if they're not satisfied. (My opinion is that we shouldn't count a word as "passed" unless there are three cites in the entry itself or on its citations-page. There are so often problems with cites — they turn out to be mentions, they turn out to be in the wrong sense, whathaveyou — that I really think they need to be in the entry, preferably with links to greater context, so people can judge for themselves.) —Ruakh_TALK 14:26, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm ambivalent on the matter. I suspect that Godefroy hasn't made the word up, but since it seems to be unfindable on the Net, it's hard to imagine anyone looking it up. FWIW given the rareness of Old French literature compared with living languages, I'd settle for one citation, but we don't have one, we have zero! Mglovesfun (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~edress~~
~~I'm not seeing any google book hits for "edress" except perhaps this but it's not really conveying meaning. Polarpanda 22:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Lots of Usenet hits.—msh210℠ 16:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~e-dress~~
~~This is the page the tag was added to, actually. But it, too, has sufficiently many hits.—msh210℠ 19:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Latinhua~~
~~Doesn't look promising. See [101] and [102]. Tooironic 07:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Google Books gets some Mandarin hits, but it gets more hits for it in English and German! Mglovesfun (talk) 11:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Same problem happened in Darwin主义 Google hits: "Darwin主义". So, Darwin主义 should not be deleted, and Darwin主义 is not "sum of parts" as well. Therefore, Darwin主义 should be recovered.

References
Google hits: Latinhua Results 1 - 10 of about 498 for Latinhua. (0.15 seconds)

Google Books: Latinhua Books 1 - 10 of 114 on Latinhua. (0.04 seconds) — This unsigned comment was added by 123abc (talk • contribs) at 9 Feb 2010.

You could consider adding the citations yourself. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References have already added to Latinhua.

This RFV is made on a Mandarin entry Latinhua rather than on English. Either Mandarin quotations are provided in the entry or its citations namespace as required by the RFV process, or the entry gets deleted. The alleged references are Google searches that find above all English and German hits. --Dan Polansky 14:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~decriable~~
~~I have found 1 hit in Google books. --Dan Polansky 22:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Most examples of it on google seem to be veritable. Jamesjiao → ^T ^◊ ^C 02:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~dag~~
Lumps of sheep faeces attached to wool is standard usage:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dag http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/dag_1
— This unsigned comment was added by 71.139.41.236 (talk).
Standard (slang) usage:
http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/dag_2
— This unsigned comment was added by 71.139.41.236 (talk).
Who tagged this by the way? It's in my Oxford dictionary, but it might be a bugger to cite just because it only has three letters and exists in at least a dozen other languages. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we'd settled this about 3 years ago. Details in the talk pages.--Dmol 12:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found some citations for the "person who dresses unfashionably" sense. The 2004 usage might fit better with "socially conservative", although the reporter seems to be straining to use the word "unfashionably". Maybe the definition needs a tweak. Pingku 13:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~identicus~~
Language: Latin.
I am sending the entry I have created for verification, as neither I nor EncycloPetey are able to find Latin quotations for attestation. Maybe someone else is able to attest this.
The term is found in an etymology in Century 1911 and also in an etymology in M-W online, but not in Lewis and Short. --Dan Polansky 07:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about this? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Finally this. So it only seems to appear in Latin after 1800. I'll keep looking. Do we accept any Latin citation, despite the date? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A single one before 1600. In case you haven't realised, I can't read Latin therefore I can't cite it myself. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:10, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great job anyway!

An additional find:[103], --Dan Polansky 13:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have entered three citations into the Citations namespace, to satisfy the letter of the requirement.

A good search strategy that finds many more citations is to search in Google books only in the full-view. --Dan Polansky 19:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Passes. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~disambig~~
~~WMF jargon: shortened form of disambiguation. I don't know if this is in 'widespread use'. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:57, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Deleted. Equinox ◑ 16:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~full tilt boogie~~
~~Rfv-senses X 2:~~
intensely, fast paced

in an extremely focused manner
The citations originally offered in support of these seemed to fit at least as well under the other definition ("at full capacity"). Another sense was of a noun, now split needing a definition. I don't see "focus" (or lack thereof) as part of this at all. It would seem difficult to distinguish challenged sense 1 from the sense not challenged, but citations might make it possible. DCDuring TALK 17:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~ludophilia~~
~~"The love of games or puzzles." A look at google books:"ludophilia" says maybe. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr ﴿ 18:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
The two definitions might need merging, not that they're exactly the same either. But yes, I'm sure there's a third cite somewhere if we just know where to look. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~This is the basis of the definition at ludophile, if that's helpful. B7T 08:55, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~wrength~~
Supposedly, "the state or quality of being wrong; wrongness". The first three hits yielded by google books:"wrength" are scannos for (deprecated template usage) strength. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr ﴿
~~Nonsense. Deleted. Equinox ◑ 00:56, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~nanofarm~~
~~See google books:"nanofarm"; looks unattestable. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr ﴿ 19:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
The only instance of nanofarm I've seen is from a computer game I played. It refers to a farm that produces nanonites - a power source for the in-game fictional universe. Other than that, I can't find any reference to this definition on google. Jamesjiao → ^T ^◊ ^C 01:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~lexicomane~~
~~Google books gives mainly French results. Couldn't find any usage in English. Nadando 00:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Note that this was created as a 'no language' and converted to English by SemperBlotto who was obviously just trying to clean it up. The original IP may have meant French. I suspect it's a noun and an adjective (un homme lexicomane). Mglovesfun (talk) 23:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~tallywack~~
~~Please verify usage - especially the phrase tallywack and tandem and clean up the entry Jamesjiao → ^T ^◊ ^C 01:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~wrengthen~~
~~As per #wrength above, seems unattested and publications are, for the most part, spelling or text-recognition errors. 203.214.92.81 02:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Deleted. Equinox ◑ 00:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Snowmageddon~~
~~Supposedly a proper noun, but defined as a common noun. Exactly one hit yielded by google books:"Snowmageddon". † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr ﴿ 23:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
I changed it to a proper noun, because most of the sources (recent newspapers) seem to be using it that way. I think they are quoting Barack Obama. Spanning a year per CFI could be tough. But there are many hundreds of matches on Google Groups, which we can use. Equinox ◑ 00:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Yeah, and that book on bgc is from 2008. † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr ﴿ 00:36, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
It should really be a common noun, based on it's usage (it's being used to describe blizzards hitting Canada, the UK, and most recently DC, which is why Pres. Obama used the term, prompting the creation of the Wikipedia article and then this entry). Take a look at Wikipedia:Snowmageddon (a page which will likely be moved sometime soon, by the way), for more on the etymology of the word, and similar words which are more recent. I'm not terribly familiar with the content guidelines or deletion guidelines here, but if something changes with this entry I'd appreciate it if someone could follow up by either letting me know on my Wikipedia talk page or changing the interwiki link on the Wikipedia Snowmageddon page yourself. Thanks! Ohms law 00:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Thanks for the Google books ref. I didn't even think to use a Google books search, myself! :) Ohms law 00:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~queeb~~
~~Vaginal flatus, we are unreliably informed. It's something, whatever it is... † ﴾^(u):Raifʻhār ^(t):Doremítzwr ﴿ 00:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~I've only heard of (deprecated template usage) queef for this. Equinox ◑ 00:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Noun cited; verb RFV failed, removed. But we seem to be missing some real senses; if nothing else, it seems to see some use as a generic term of abuse. —Ruakh_TALK 02:19, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~— This unsigned comment was added by Equinox (talk • contribs) at 01:00, 7 July 2010.~~
~~macaron~~
~~is there a more precise English word for the meaning of buns?--Diligent 08:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
(deprecated template usage) earmuffs, possibly. Equinox ◑ 12:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closing. Apparently not an RFV request; entry is untagged. Equinox ◑ 16:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~novum~~
Rfv-sense: "The feature of a fictional work's setting, especially in science fiction, that distinguishes it from the real world."
In general this just means "A new feature". I don't doubt that this word is used in the context of sci-fi literary criticism. I am just not sure that the def. above really defines is properly. DCDuring TALK 19:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~birth~~
~~Rfv-ety: an anon changed this ety to say that it came from OE. —Ruakh_TALK 21:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
My OED: Middle English, from Old Norse (deprecated template usage) byrth. It doesn't mention Old English at all, so it doesn't really support either, as one says from Old English and the other says displacing Old English. Couldn't it equally be via Old English? Not sure how many Old Norse words entered Middle English without being present in Old English first. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest etymological dictionary I could find gave this exact same etym. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Not happy, Jan!~~
~~Enough mentions, any usage? Conrad.Irwin 01:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Sure. [104] | [105] | [106] | [107] | [108]. Tooironic 04:18, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Hogwarts~~
I think this needs better citations. The current crop are just mentioning the specific fictional place, not using it in any common/generic sense (except possibly "There isn't a real-life Hogwarts"). Equinox ◑ 20:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it needs better citations if we take CFI seriously (but who does?). I have added three that might fit the bill. Please let me know what you think of them. There may be more, but the yield of good ones is a very small percentage of the total. DCDuring TALK 02:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the two that call something "very Hogwarts" are definitely promising. Equinox ◑ 02:35, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are more google news archive hits for "very Hogwarts". Polarpanda 15:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look for cites, "a Hogwarts of intellectual capital" and "a Hogwarts for financial wizards" seem like generic uses. Polarpanda 16:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~crypto-~~
~~RfV for the sense of this prefix denoting "crypt". Tagged but not listed. ※ Raifʻhār Doremítzwr   〰 ⓤ · ⓣ · ⓒ  〰 00:45, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Voldemort~~
Like (deprecated template usage) Hogwarts above, this needs proper citations meeting CFI. The fact that a particular fictional villain has been mentioned in other texts does not make it dictionary-worthy. We don't have Sherlock Holmes' nemesis (deprecated template usage) Moriarty, for example, and we shouldn't — unless there is a demonstrable generic sense. Equinox ◑ 01:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Equinox ◑ 16:20, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~liberticide~~
Two of three senses: "The act of destroying liberty."; "A war that results in the destruction of liberty." Equinox ◑ 02:19, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also request verification of the adjectival sense "causing the destruction of liberty; oppressive, liberticidal"; I'd interpret the use in the 1847 cite provided in support of it as an attributive use of the nominal sense "one who causes the destruction of liberty". The correct adjective would be, as the definition notes, (deprecated template usage) liberticidal. ※ Raifʻhār Doremítzwr   〰 ⓤ · ⓣ · ⓒ  〰 03:38, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the adjective: I really think that it's really an adjective in the cite. It's a translation from French, and liberticide is the correct French adjective, it was probably used in the original text. Another example (not translated from French!) : Dear Sir, I had begun sketching out for publication a concluding letter on the liberticide laws — and what belongs to them. (The Correspondence of Jeremy Bentham: July 1820 to December 1821‎) Lmaltier 18:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In "the liberticide laws", it's attributive usage of a noun. "Tractor" isn't an adjective just because we can have "tractor parts". Equinox ◑ 16:29, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course. But does an attributive usage really make sense in this sentence? I have not looked at the context, but it seems very surprising. Lmaltier 17:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted still-uncited sense: "A war that results in the destruction of liberty." Other challenged senses remain. Equinox ◑ 16:31, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~sexuo-~~
I've never seen this prefix before. Do three verifiable terms coined with this prefix exist? ※ Raifʻhār Doremítzwr   〰 ⓤ · ⓣ · ⓒ  〰 03:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We already have sexuoerotic. Lmaltier 18:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(deprecated template usage) sexuo-economic is very attestable, also attestable are (deprecated template usage) sexuo-maternal and some that I've forgotten. I'd definitely keep this with a "rare" tag, maybe another tag. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:43, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~video-~~
At the moment, I'm guessing that this isn't a real prefix; however, it's difficult to tell without exemplifying terms. Are there three out there that use this? ※ Raifʻhār Doremítzwr   〰 ⓤ · ⓣ · ⓒ  〰 04:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't confirmed that coinage was in English (vs French or Middle English) but consider: videocassette, videodisc/k, videotape, videogame, videophone, videoconference, videocam/(era), videoscreen, videoclip, videophile, videomail, videogenic, videolab, videographic, videoscopic, videotext, videoanalysis. All of these have three or more hits on COCA. I have excluded the capitalized words which are probably proper nouns/trade names. Perhaps they haven't gotten to the UK yet. DCDuring TALK 13:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(deprecated template usage) videogram is a good one, because it can't stand as two separate words. Equinox ◑ 16:26, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. That one should be a conversation stopper. But my intuition of most of these terms' derivations is not that they came from a noun sense by compounding or suffixation, but rather by productive prefixation. It certainly can't be from the countable senses which seem like back-formations from {videoclips, videocassettes, etc.) The original meaning of video seems to have been "portion of a signal carrying visual content". I don't know when it came to refer to recorded visual content. It is believed to have been formed to be in parallel to (deprecated template usage) audio/(deprecated template usage) audio-. OnlineEtyD reports audio- as preceding audio by nearly 20 years.

If we take terms like "videophone" and "videoconference", it seems clear that the implicit sense of "video-" is not very close to any common sense of "video". I am not clear as to how to get specific confirmation of my intuitions, nor of the value of deleting (or keeping) video-. I would think we would need to start with a complete set of the attestable senses of "video", some idea of when the term assumed each sense, and when the usage passed from specialized to general use. We would have to do something similar for each term beginning in "video". DCDuring TALK 17:36, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~neuter (noun)~~
~~Rfv-sense: an intransitive verb. Ƿidsiþ 07:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
There are lots of Books hits for "is a neuter or intransitive verb" and such phrases, which are ambiguous. I've so far found and will now add one unambiguous citation.—msh210℠ 17:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OED says a neuter verb is “neither active nor passive; middle, reflexive, or intransitive.” The adj. is labelled “now rare,” and the noun “Obs..” There is also an obsolete sense of neuter passive verb, or a semi-deponent, apparently from the grammar of Latin and French. —Michael Z. 2010-03-09 22:28 z
~~bethonance~~
~~No results whatsoever even with a Google Web search, but the entry claims to be citing Joseph Heller. Equinox ◑ 20:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
w:Closing Time (novel) is the novel cited, I can probably find it in the University of Leeds, but since it doesn't give a page reference, it's basically useless. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Suspect a hoax. Equinox ◑ 01:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~frichen~~
~~The example suggests it's Bavarian, rather than Standard German. In any case, I'd like to see citations. -- Prince Kassad 10:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
I even doubt it is "common" in Bavaria ... most of the google hits belong to anglophone websites in which people try to figure out what this word means. --WissensDürster 10:49, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~spathic~~
~~"Having attractive cleavage of the breasts." Equinox ◑ 17:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Bad joke? Polarpanda 12:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. ~~"Good cleavage" doesn't sound right for a scientific term.~~ Also, we appear to be missing the German Spath (see spar#Etymology 3). Pingku 13:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it is a joke, it might be an attestable joke. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, a small amount of research would have obviated the need to RFV this. It's attested: [109], [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], and probably [116].—msh210℠ 17:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~powder monkey~~
Rfv-sense, a child below the age of 10 that is learning how to ski or snowboard. I couldn't find this sense, but there seems to be some usage regarding a ski newbie.--Dmol 06:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably just merge them. I don't think anyone would revert such a change. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed it to a skiing newbie, as there was no evidence of it being restricted to any certain age. --Dmol 05:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the usage I have understood on the ski hills of VT, around here it means an avid powder skier, one who seeks out the powder. usage here and here corroborate that without being useful as citations. I have never heard or seen it used to mean someone new to skiing. - [The]DaveRoss 06:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~second~~
~~Rfv-sense. French, alternate. I don't get it. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
second often expresses this idea (sense 3 of alternate), but it's does not deserve a separate definition. Lmaltier 17:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If your first option fails, you use an alternative one, the "second" one. But I agree, this seems like confusion. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~conserver un suivi~~
~~I'm not saying that this isn't right, just that I've never heard of it, and the French Wiktionary doesn't have it either. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Unless it's sum of parts (keep + a + follow). Mglovesfun (talk) 17:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~I've never heard it either. The normal word is, simply, suivre (or assurer le suivi). Lmaltier 17:30, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
I don't remember now where I read this, but I can see that it's listed here. There are some clear uses here, although it does seem pretty rare. Wish I could remember where I saw it in the first place, but it was probably in a news script at work. Ƿidsiþ 17:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's correct, but not idiomatic, nor a set phrase. The first link you provide defines conserver, not conserver un suivi. Lmaltier 18:08, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you scroll down you'll see the phrase is at the bottom. I'm not sure it's sum of parts...a suivi is usually not quite the same thing, surely. Ƿidsiþ 19:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
conserver à l'esprit is worth a mention, but why mentioning conserver des livres? and conserver un suivi de? Is this reference site very reliable? The Wiktionnaire defines the noun fr:suivi as Mise en observation du progrès, de l’évolution d’un sujet ou d’un objet., and this is the only sense of this noun. Lmaltier 20:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, normally (deprecated template usage) suivi means monitoring or a follow-up of some sort. I suppose it could be seen as SOP. It seems like a difficult one to translate intuitively to me. Ƿidsiþ 20:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There might have been a confusion in the reference, because conserver une trace de does exist as a set phrase. Lmaltier 07:06, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~supercaffeine~~
~~Is it attestable? Equinox ◑ 12:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~There are now three citations, and I've glossed it as very rare. Dunno why we accept Google Groups though; maybe to have more informal language. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Because they're durably archived. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 11:55, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Cited. Equinox ◑ 01:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Owl~~
~~Fictional character from Winnie the Pooh. Unlike (deprecated template usage) Eeyore, no generic use. Equinox ◑ 00:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Piglet~~
~~Fictional character from Winnie the Pooh. Unlike (deprecated template usage) Eeyore, no generic use. Equinox ◑ 00:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Deleted. Equinox ◑ 01:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Christopher Robin~~
~~Fictional character from Winnie the Pooh. Unlike (deprecated template usage) Eeyore, no generic use. Equinox ◑ 00:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
This, along with the two above it, have been in RFV since August: see #Winnie the Pooh. --Yair rand 00:19, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found a quote, but the real reason to keep this along with Piglet etc are the translations. The CFI should read: "any name with unexpected translations meets the CFI".--Makaokalani 16:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it shouldn't. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, where the name is from some fictional universe. That's outside the remit of a dictionary. Equinox ◑ 18:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, the translation of a name can vary between translations. It's a fairly arbitrary decision on the part of the translator, just as the name itself is a fairly arbitrary invention of the author. Equinox ◑ 16:18, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~un peu~~
~~Rfv-sense. Adjective. This can't qualify a noun, can it? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Oh, I think it means un peu de, so either we move it or put (used with "de") in the glosses. Any opinions on that? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Rìběnyǔ~~
日本語/日本语 is used in Chinese as "Nihongo" is used in English, the proper Chinese word for the Japanese language is 日語/日语 (Rìyǔ). 日本語 (Nihongo) is the Japanese word for it. --Anatoli 01:03, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The user 123abc has kindly provided Google hits after I flagged it. However, the language of the search must be selected "Chinese". Even with this selection it shows mostly Japanese text or names of internet cafes, which may use foreign names. Also teaches Chinese people the Japanese word. The form Rìběnyǔ is also mistakenly used by some foreigners on language forums instead of Rìyǔ. My Chinese teacher confirmed that 日本语 is wrong in the Chinese context. I am happy to remove rfv tag if I am proven wrong, though. --Anatoli 01:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Baidu encyclopedia says 日本语 is the full form of 日语 [117] Polarpanda 01:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Try a google scholar search for 日本语 Polarpanda 01:47, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Not sure what you mean by scholar search but Baidu link is sufficient, thank you! I removed the tag and reverted my Synonyms edit in Rìyǔ. --Anatoli 01:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
A Chinese person commented to my question about "日本語 is ok only if you are talking to a Japanese, or to people who have learnt or are learning Japanese". --Anatoli 02:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Although Wenlin (the sum-of-parts-inclusive, gold standard for Chinese->English dictionaries) doesn't list 日本语, I'm getting plenty of Chinese hits for it on Google books [118]. Tooironic 01:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect it's a loan term from Japanese. Due to the fact that both languages use Chinese characters, it's readily accepted by Chinese speakers. It only seems to be used when talking about Japanese learning - Japanese textbooks, Japanese proficiency tests, Japanese language reasearch and so on and so forth (on Google books with Chinese selected as the default language). The first sentence in Baidu, quoted here: 全称日本语，是日本国的官方语言。 clearly states that 日本语 is the expanded form of 日语, nowhere in the article does it mention, it's the official form. Further down the article it mentions this: 　“日本语”是汉字。“日本语”就是“日语”的意思了，但它的发音却不是中文发音。, which further supports the idea of the word being a borrowed term from Japanse. Jamesjiao → ^T ^◊ ^C 12:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~OK, I have now added new entries and usage notes for 日语, 日本, 日本语 and Nihongo to reflect this new research. Tooironic 23:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~M-Learning~~
~~Probably a neologism for mobile learning. Is it real? Spacing? Capitalization? DCDuring TALK 18:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Wikipedia has w:MLearning. Equinox ◑ 18:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 18:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Luomahua~~
~~Cannot find any real Mandarin usages for it anywhere on Google. Tooironic 03:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
See the zh wiki article: w:zh:罗马化 Jamesjiao → ^T ^◊ ^C 11:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They don't use "Luomahua" anywhere on that page. Tooironic 23:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On second thoughts, I think this is keepable as lowercase. (Note we currently redirect uppercase Romanize, Romanization, etc). Moving to luomahua. ---> Tooironic 00:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Pericles~~
~~Attributive use needed. DCDuring TALK 11:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Three citations from Google books added. I'm sure that you could have found them yourself. SemperBlotto 08:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Thanks for the vote of confidence. I haven't had as much time for en.wikt lately. DCDuring TALK 09:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The citations are not attributive use. DCDuring TALK 09:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See also WT:RFV#Washington, September 2009. --Dan Polansky 12:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those look attributive to me, see (deprecated template usage) attributive. In fairness, we have no definition of attributive or durably archived when it comes to citing things. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The definition at attributive#Adjective explicitly refers to attributive#Noun which is "A word or phrase, such as an adjective or noun, that modifies a noun and is part of the noun's noun phrase; contrasted with predicative." In none of the 3 citations is that true. I rest your case. DCDuring TALK 16:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1950, Hardin Craig, A history of English literature, Page 269,
He revised a Pericles play, whose authorship cannot be determined—very drastically in the fourth and fifth acts, less so in the third act, and very slightly in the first and second—in order to purify the part of Lysimachus and ennoble the story.

1973, William Shakespeare, Hardin Craig and David M. Bevington (editors), The complete works of Shakespeare‎,
Beyond doubt, Wilkins' prose account is based in part on a Pericles play; Wilkins acknowledges in his Argument that this same story has been recently presented "by the Kings Majesties Players."

1995, Jerry Combee and Kurt A. Grussendorf, History of the world in Christian perspective‎, Page 77,
~~In a Pericles modern representative democracy, the people elect a few men who represent them in the government.~~

Pingku 18:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, the first two refer directly to Pericles and do not count as good exemplars of the sort of attributive use WT:CFI requires. DCDuring TALK 18:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On inspection the ungrammaticality of the third is attributable to it being a scanno. (deprecated template usage) Pericles appears as the caption of an interlineated image of some kind. DCDuring TALK 19:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Umm. Thanks for finding that. Pingku 20:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
How about:

1988, William Shakespeare, Ernest Schanzer, Richard Hosley, Clifford Leech (editors) Pericles, Prince of Tyre: Cymbeline: The Two Noble Kinsmen (with John Fletcher)‎, Page 208 footnote,
Phyllis Gorfain, "Puzzle and Artifice: The Riddle as Metapoetry in 'Pericles,'" Shakespeare Survey 29 (1976):11-20 shows how the Pericles riddle, because unanswerable, confounds the ordinary structural and culutral functions of riddles.
The typo is in the original.

Pingku 15:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
w:Pericles (play) the play is just as encyclopedic as w:Pericles the Greek. The Gorfain cite refers to a riddle in the play probably using the to specify it in contrast to some other riddle discussed. The point of the attributive use rule is to exclude encyclopedic-type entries. I am a little surprised that Pericles apparently isn't citable in attributive use, at least from older texts. Perhaps widespread use of Proper nouns attributively (Mickey Mouse, White House) doesn't go back very far. DCDuring TALK 16:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it matters - because the first line of CFI still says "all words in all languages", and (deprecated template usage) Pericles is a word. SemperBlotto 16:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If the consensus has been that slogan a slogan were enough, why would we even have WT:CFI, RfD, and even patrolling? If "Workers of the world unite" had been sufficient, why did the Soviet Union bother with a constitution and laws? DCDuring TALK 22:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a slogan, it is our mission statement, and sets us apart from all other dictionaries. We have CFI to handle all (deprecated template usage) terms that are not (deprecated template usage) words (in my opinion). SemperBlotto 22:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have specific provisions for proper nouns in WT:CFI, just as we have specific provisions for brand names and fictional universe words (not just multi-word terms). If you would like to simplify WT:CFI to read "All words in all languages", we would just have to make sure that we understood what each of "all", "words", "in", "all", and "languages" actually meant in this context. I don't think that any of these exactly correspond to the most obvious everyday meaning or that they could do so without destroying en.wikt. DCDuring TALK 23:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose deletion, doing so outside the current CFI. The entry is one of a space-free word "Pericles" referring in most or all of its occurrences to the particular ancient Greek politician. The entry is useful for translations. The question "how do I render 'Pericles' in Polish" is a lexicographical question, to be addressed by a lexicographical reference work. So is the question "How do English speakers pronounce 'Pericles'?". The entry has an etymology[119]. Several dictionaries do have this kind of entries; check “Pericles”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. --Dan Polansky 11:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I note that OneLook does not offer "translations" or transcriptions of Pericles. All proper nouns have some kind of etymology and pronunciation. This clearly requires a coherent proposal and vote. If no one is even willing or able to organize a successful vote in favor of such entries, advocates are merely imposing the burden of supporting such entries on others who are clearly less than willing to support such entries. The basic question as to which ones are to be included is the first step. DCDuring TALK 11:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find it meaningful to discuss individual cases even outside of CFI, and to consider making exceptions to CFI on individual basis. If I am the only one who supports the keeping of "Pericles" outside CFI, then "Pericles" gets deleted.

In any case, is there a vote the result of which is a consensus that the kind of entries like Pericles should be deleted? --Dan Polansky 12:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more note: I for one find the definition of "New York" much less useful for the definition of "New York delicatessen" than the definition of "Pericles" for the definition of "Periclean" (google books:"Periclean", google books:"Periclean Athens", google books:"Periclean democracy"). I could enquire ages into the location or character of the particular "New York", and yet find almost nothing about the specific meaning of "New York delicatessen", while the definition of "Pericles" tells me what "Periclean" means given I recognize the suffix group "-ian" and "-ean". --Dan Polansky 15:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could only invite you to New York so you could experience an ostensive definition. I suppose it must mean a deli with menu items and service typical of New York in the 1940s-1960s (possibly earlier to 1920s), especially with Jewish-American menu items of central and eastern European origin. That is the best this native New Yorker can do. We don't refer to them as New York delis here. I have never been impressed with the authenticity of "New York deli" establishments or menu items elsewhere. There might be a w:Damon Runyon story that covers this. Also, see w:Carnegie Deli. DCDuring TALK 15:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "We don't refer to them as New York delis here. I have never been impressed with the authenticity of 'New York deli' establishments or menu items elsewhere": in that case, it seems that New York is precisely the wrong place to learn what the term (deprecated template usage) New York deli means. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 16:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is an accurate definition of "New York deli" "an establishment hoping to profit by leading customers to hope that they will enjoy food of a type typically found in New York"? DCDuring TALK 13:13, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless appropriate attributive use is demonstrated. None of the CFI seem to bar our having an entry for the name (deprecated template usage) Pericles, with pronunciation and etymology and translations, and even perhaps a usage note mentioning that most uses of the term are referring to this specific man. What the CFI do bar, unless there's appropriate "attributive use" (as defined by whoever happens to close an affected RFV discussion), is the entry that we currently have, which attempts wrongheadedly to define the man Pericles rather than the name (deprecated template usage) Pericles. —Ruakh_TALK 13:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have found what seem attributive uses of "Pericles", in the pattern of "the Pericles of $1":[120][121][122][123][124]. Is my understanding correct that these are considered attributive uses? --Dan Polansky 17:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep, because it's a word. CFI should be changed to accept all words, including proper nouns if and only if they are words (sometimes including spaces), and therefore can be addressed lexicographically here: OK for Churchill, Pericles ou ([New York]], but not Winston Churchill (=2 words). The attributive use condition was designed for English words only and it should go. CFI should focus on what's a word? (the answer may be different depending on languages) and when is a word considered as used in a language, and therefore as deserving a page here? I agree with Ruakh on the principle he describes but, as the word applies to a single man, the definition provided is quite normal. This is the meaning. Lmaltier 08:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added some of the citations that I have found to the citations namespace: Citations:Pericles. I admit that they are not attributive use in the sense of "such that it modifies a noun and is part of the noun's noun phrase".

I have done some digging on the origin of the requirement for attributive use in CFI. From what I have found, the requirement has never successfully passed a vote, and it does not enjoy a majority community support, let alone consensus. I don't see how such an unsupported requirement can be applied so strictly. --Dan Polansky 09:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not RfD. It is a RfV-sense for the sole sense given.

We have been acting as if WT:CFI is the law of the land. Irregularities in the consensus/vote process do not invalidate our practice, though they provide ammunition for damaging rhetorical attacks and may help undermine support for this aspect of WT:CFI and CFI in general.

I dispute the consensus point. I would need to see some facts on each of the points that you raise. If it is not a consensus anymore because of the departure of some or for other reasons then there should be no problem is make a proposal to formalize the consensus, including any limits on the inclusion of proper names or proper nouns, and put such a material change in our practice to a vote.

There is nothing that says that we do not have one-word proper nouns as words. In this case, the issue is with the sense. Our consensus practice has been to put specifics about coinage etc and any etymologically meaningful connection to an encyclopedic subject or name-holder in etymology. I fail to see any reason for us to waste time on becoming a short-attention-span Wikipedia when Wikipedia is not a rival, but a mother/sister project and our FL coverage is so weak and our English-language definition quality is so poor. DCDuring TALK 12:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody proposes to include encyclopedic information. We include only linguistic information (etymology, pronunciation, etc.), and definitions/images/examples, only to be able to clearly understand what the word means and how it's used (nothing more should be added). In this case, the definition is correct, this is what this word means. We cannot invent another sense. For first names and for surnames (shared by nature), it's very different, and I would remove such definitions from their pages (I consider them as encyclopedic, and they should be replaced by links to Wikipedia). Lmaltier 15:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pericles (n. “A Greek personal name”) is a proper noun. If it's an English given name, then it clearly meets the criteria allowing inclusion in Wiktionary.
Pericles (n. “Athenian statesman c. 495–429 BC”) is a proper name, not an English word. CFI doesn't allow its inclusion. (Of course, the person should be mentioned in the etymology of Periclean [adj.].)
Pericles (n. attrib. “Of or relating to Pericles c. 495–429 BC”) is an attributive use of the proper name, but it fails the (unclearly written) “widely understood meaning” part of the criterion. English can use any name attributively, specifically, as “a Pericles play,” or figuratively, as “a bad-ass Pericles attitude,” etc. If this were includable, then we may as well just put every living, dead, and fictional person, place, and pet into the dictionary. But things and people belong in the encyclopedia, not the dictionary. And we do have the perfectly serviceable word Periclean.
Pericles (adj. [having some independent meaning of its own]) is the kind of word that the specific-entities rule could support, but doesn't seem to be attestable. Perhaps that's because the language already has Periclean.
Why are we expending all this energy trying to add a person to the dictionary, when our guideline doesn't allow it, and when there is a red link to a real dictionary word here? Can we fix the stupid guideline already? —Michael Z. 2010-03-09 18:04 z
~~Hear, hear! —Ruakh_TALK 18:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Mzajac, have you invented new terminology of "proper noun" and "proper name"? What is your source for this kind of terminology, applied in this particular way?

Re "Pericles (n. “Athenian statesman c. 495–429 BC”) is a proper name, not an English word. CFI doesn't allow its inclusion."; where exactly does it say in CFI that this sense is excluded, other than implicitly in the attributive-use rule? But the attributive use rule does not even speak of senses or sense-lines, only of names. So again, where in CFI does it say that the sense of "Pericles, an Athenian statesman" should be excluded, given that CFI does not even speak of sense lines or senses? --Dan Polansky 09:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re "Why are we expending all this energy trying to add a person to the dictionary": We are not expending energy to add a particular individual at all; I am expending my and your energy on keeping the person in the dictionary. Adding the person to the dictionary is quick and cheap; what is expensive is arguing with non-encyclopedic purists and exclusionists who are reading some unvoted-on rules of CFI in their particular way. I would be happy not to have to monitor RFV and RFD to prevent deletion of useful already created entries. --Dan Polansky 10:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no voted support for the attributive-use rule, and there is not even a clear interpretation of what "attributive" means in that rule, some reading it in a grammatical sense, others as if "attributive" were a synonym for "figurative", which includes "metaphorical" and "metonymic".
From Xenophanes and Talk:Xenophanes; it seems that Xenophanes has passed RFV in November 2009 with the quotations "the Xenophanes of Roman culture", "No Xenophanes arose amongst the Jews", "Euthyphro is no Xenophanes but as a religious and thinking man ", the sort of which have been provided for "Pericles". The def reads "A Greek given name; most often used in reference to the pre-Socratic philosopher Xenophanes of Colophon. By extension, a profound or transformative religious thinker." If someone wants to define "Pericles" on the model of that def, let them go ahead.
If DCDuring or Mzajac want to create a votable proposal for the change of the CFI, good luck with that :p. --Dan Polansky 09:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I draw your attention to the following text from WT:NOT, which has appeared in this wording since May 2005 and in concept since 2002:
Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia, a genealogy database, or an atlas; that is, it is not an in-depth collection of factual information, or of data about places and people. Encyclopedic information should be placed in our sister project, Wikipedia. Wiktionary entries are about words. A Wiktionary entry should focus on matters of language and wordsmithing: spelling, pronunciation, etymology, translation, concept, usage, quotations, and links to related words.

Whatever confusions may have occurred in attempting to apply common-law WT:CFI, whatever irregularities might have accompanied its establishment as a policy, for some three years since its imposition as policy and for some time before that, it helped define what en.wikt should be. We have been striving to make en.wikt somewhat consistent with that and with the similar WT:ELE. Undermining the legitimacy of the few policies we have is good politics to achieve short-term particularist goals, but not to maintain the consistency of en.wikt in the minds of users and contributors. — This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talk • contribs).

WT:NOT is not a policy. WT:NOT, and the quoted text in particular, has not been voted upon, unlike some parts of CFI. Your reading of "... it is not an in-depth collection of factual information, or of data about places and people" is consistent with what you wish Wiktionary to become, but not with what has a consensual community support, and not with what the actual common practice has been, the actual practice documented for individual people by me at Wiktionary_talk:Votes/pl-2010-03/Including_particular_individuals#Particular_individuals?. It is also clear that the actual practice has been to include dedicated sense-lines for many particular places, as there is not a community consensus for getting these deleted.

I oppose the idea that unvoted-on regulatory policies inconsistent with the common practice and community consensus should have any binding power.

If you think that WT:NOT should be made policy, you are free to start a vote. I am going to oppose. --Dan Polansky 18:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I fully agree with what WT:NOT states. But including the word Pericles with its meaning (i.e. who Pericles is), pronunciation, etymology, etc. is fully consistent with what WT:NOT explains. What would not be consistent would be to include details not useful to understand the word (e.g. birthplace, biography, etc.) Lmaltier 18:40, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Birthplace is a traditional way to distinguish between different people with the same name; Zeno of Elea, Zeno of Citium, and four others are listed on w:Zeno.--Prosfilaes 05:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, everything required to understand the sense(s) of the word should be included. Lmaltier 07:58, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your telegraphic comment. How many of WP's proper noun senses should we include? I am sure that we can find cases where Zeno is used tout court to refer to several of the referents in the WP dab page.
Are we to have different presentations of proper nouns according to whether one (vs. many) individual is the only notable holder of the name in our learned opinion (ie Pericles vs Zeno)?

Are we to have different presentations of persons according to whether they are known in history by a one-part name {eg, (deprecated template usage) Hitler, (deprecated template usage) Jesus, (deprecated template usage) Pericles) or a multi-part name (eg (deprecated template usage) Queen Victoria, ((term|Alexander the Great}}?
A name, when a word, may mean a person (e.g. Pericles) (one sense), or happen to be common to a few person (e.g. Zeno) (several senses), or be the name of a family (e.g. Churchill) (one sense, as a surname, not as a person). The important thing is not the absence of space, but: Is it a word or not? It seems clear to me that Churchill, La Fayette are words (surnames, names of families), that Pericles is a word (it means a specific person). Alexander the Great may also be considered as a word: it's not sum of parts, unlike Winston Churchill, which means any person with the first name Winston and the surname Churchill) or Queen Victoria (sum of parts meaning a queen named Victoria). Lmaltier 14:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of Pericles, it strikes me as extremely implausible that there is only one person who went by the name of Pericles.
Are we to have the name qua name as one sense and a separate sense for each notable individual holder of the name?

You seem to have an unstated (and probably unstatable) notability criterion that has misled you to believing that the encyclopedic definition referring to a specific bearer of the name is appropriate.

I am fascinated that Winston Churchill is SoP, but possibly not Alexander the Great. I am unclear what you mean by "word". I take it that you mean "term", in line with the mass renaming of categories that had the apparently misleading word "word" in their names. I am confused by the subsequent distinction between words often used as components of proper names ("Winston", "Churchill") and those only sometimes so used ("the", "great").
Is "sum of parts" now to be read "some of certain types of parts"?

What types would that be?

Is Alexander the Great a stalking horse for Karl der Grosse?

-- DCDuring TALK 16:09, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For clarifying: I use word in its linguistic sense (see w:Word), not the sense used by typographers. Yes, Karl der Grosse is exactly the same case as Alexander the Great, they are names of specific persons, not of families. Winston Churchill has no specific meaning, from a linguistic point of view, it's simply a person with this first name and this surname. Alexander the Great has a specific meaning, and this meaning should be mentioned. The fact that great is an adjective is not my point, my point is that this name is a real proper noun (it's proper to a person) and that linguistic info about this proper noun can be provided (why the Great?). Linguistic info about Winston Churchill belongs to Winston and Churchill, there cannot be any linguistic data specific to Winston Churchill, any data would be encyclopedic. And no, I have no notability criterion, the fact that a particular individual may have to be mentioned in the definition is only because it's the actual meaning, just the same as cat deserves to be defined more precisely than an animal. Defining Pericles with the actual meaning of the word is no more encyclopedic. Lmaltier 18:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Proper nouns and proper names~~
~~A review of the important difference between proper nouns and proper names. From the OED, (s.v. “proper”):~~
proper noun [. . .] a noun that designates an individual person, place, organization, animal, ship, etc., [. . .]

proper name [. . .] a name, consisting of a proper noun or noun phrase including a proper noun, that designates an individual, [etc.] A proper name may receive a connotation from the qualities of a person or thing named, and thus may be used as a common noun, as a Hercules, a Calvary, etc.
~~Compare, s.v. “common”:~~
Gram. and Logic a. common noun, substantive, name, term: a name applicable to each of the individuals or species which make up a glass or genus.
A proper noun is a term, includable in Wiktionary by the CFI, e.g., Pericles (a Greek name), Carolina (name of a North American colony after Charles II). A proper name is only includable by the vague attributive-use criterion, e.g., Pericles (the Greek statesman); many proper names are not includable as sum-of-parts phrases, e.g., North Carolina (the US state) = north + Carolina.
It's further complicated because, unlike any other dictionary, we use “noun” and “proper noun” POS headings incorrectly, as if properness were a fixed property of a term. Being a proper noun varies by grammar and context. Proper nouns are used in common-noun senses (e.g., through antonomasia), and vice versa (e.g., through apostrophe).
Winston Churchill, [. . .] means any person with the first name Winston and the surname Churchill – really? Let's see three durably-archived citations demonstrating the proper-noun sense of Winston Churchill as a person other than “Winston Churchill (1874–1965).” (There is also the common-noun sense of a Winston Churchill or the Winston Churchill of the Middle East) —Michael Z. 2010-03-14 17:17 z
As I understand it, both Pericles and Winston Churchill are proper names, but only Pericles is a proper noun, Winston Churchill not being a noun (not being a word). But a proper noun means an individual person, place,etc, we must state which one in its definition. And Winston Churchill is the name of anybody with this first name and this surname, yes (I'm not sure there is more than one Winston Churchill, but it's quite possible). About antonomasia, we already had this discussion on fr.wikt, and I think that using a proper noun in a common-noun sense does not make it a common noun, it's only a general possible use of all proper nouns (and proper names), just as using a noun atributively does not make it an adjective. Lmaltier 17:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the proper noun Churchill doesn't “mean” a specific individual person, it means “a surname,” which tells us it has been used to name, individually, any number of specific persons, including Winston Churchill. We define both proper nouns Winston and Churchill, but we don't list any of these people as “senses” of the noun. (Likewise, Paris is a proper noun referring to many cities, but it's Wikipedia's job to list the cities and write about them.)
Yeah, a proper noun is a word used mainly as a proper noun, but also as a common noun (and vice versa). And there are grey areas. Per the Oxford Companion to the English Language (1992:813), “Nationality nouns (Americans, a New Zealander, the Japanese) lie on the borderline between proper and common nouns.” Maybe that's why dictionaries don't specify. —Michael Z. 2010-03-14 19:39 z
I agree with you, except that Paris just happens to designate several cities (i.e. several senses), while Churchill is a surname (one sense) used by many people, by its very nature of surname. These cases are very diffeent. For information, in French, Americain, Parisien, etc. are considered as common nouns, despite the capital. Lmaltier 19:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Different how? Paris is a toponym referring to some places. Churchill is a surname referring to some people. (In fact, both of these and Winston are toponyms, which the OED charmingly defines as a “place-name; a name given to a person or thing marking its place of origin.”)
Your formula equates “cities” with “senses,” which is wrong. A sense is a subdivision of the meaning of a term; an abstract concept residing in the minds of beings that have language. A city, or a person, is a concrete thing you can touch; a term's referent. —Michael Z. 2010-03-15 05:06 z
No, Churchill applies to one family, this family including many people, of course, just as the word chair is applied to one category of objects, and is applied to all individual chairs. On the other hand, the nature of placenames such as Paris is not to be shared by many cities, even if this sometimes happens. Lmaltier 22:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is the name Churchill different because all Churchills are genetically related? (Are they really?) Is it different because there have been more Churchills than Parises? How is any of this of any lexical significance? Please explain your logic. You seem to be talking about the nature of people and places. What, exactly, about the nature of place names is different?
If anything, etymologically, every other other Paris probably inherits its name from the French original. But any claim that all Churchills, Smiths, Chekhovs, Chandras, Lees, or whatever, are related either by genetics, or that any of their names are all descended from one individual, would probably be bunk. —Michael Z. 2010-03-15 23:17 z
Winston Churchill b.g.c. is a well-known American author; Winston S. Churchill (1874–1965) is at best a very minor author. There's also two other British politicians by the name of Winston Churchill.--Prosfilaes 18:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've already explained it: Churchill is the name of a "family" of people, just as Felis is the name of a category of animals, while each place has its own, proper, name. It's not a question of genetics, but the fact that, for surnames, the same word is shared because of legal linguistic rules, the same word is used by people with the name, it's the nature of surnames to be shared, and it's the nature of scientific names such as Felis to be shared. For places, they may be etymologically related, but each one deserve a definition as much as all senses of a common noun deserve a definition, even when the etymology is the same. Lmaltier 06:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mzajac, so you are using the terms "proper noun" and "proper name" in the OED senses. Now, according to these definitions, "OED:proper noun" is a hyponym "OED:proper name", right? Each OED:proper noun is by definition also a OED:proper name, right? Do we agree on that? --Dan Polansky 10:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think so: “Some grammarians distinguish the proper noun (a single noun like London; the and a single noun: the Pennines) from the proper name, a wider category which includes these and also such word groups as the United States (of America), the Houses of Parliament, the Royal Navy, A Tale of Two Cities, The Concise Oxford Dictionary.” (Oxford Companion to the English Language 1992:813)
But proper nouns are “a category of noun distinguished on grammatical and semantic grounds,” and their “reference is said to be unique in context and definite,” so their identity seems to depend on usage. The Companion entry gives examples of proper nouns used as common nouns, and vice versa, and says “There is, however, no clear demarcation between proper and common nouns, [...] People can speak of Churchills, who could be members of the Churchill family, people with that surname, or people figuratively compared to Winston Churchill,” &c.
I see what you mean by a family name, but how is it lexically significant? (“Legal linguistic rules?”) Felis is a genus, but the East End Churchills may have no real relationship with the Southern Alberta Churchills. Certainly countless Smith families share a name of countless unremembered horse-shoers, having no more in common than all of the Williams and Stephanies. Would you consider the Carolinas, the Aleutians, or the Alps to be like surnames? What about Lake Winnipeg, the Winnipeg River, Winnipeg, Winnipeg Beach which inherited their names from geographic association, rather than commemoratively? —Michael Z. 2010-03-16 17:23 z
You are right, there may be several different, unrelated, "families" with the same surname (e.g. Smith) and, theoretically, it might make sense to distinguish them. However, it would be almost impossible 1. to determine the list 2. to provide a different definition for each of them (and, anyway, it would be quite useless). This is useful only when etymologies (or pronunciation, etc.) are different. For places, it's easy and it's useful to readers. Lmaltier 18:30, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the etymologies of 15 or 20 Parises are the same (“after the city in France”). Are you saying that we should list every referent when it's easy and useful? By your logic, the dictionary should duplicate Wikipedia's disambiguation pages w:Rockport, w:Smith, w:James, etc. Right? —Michael Z. 2010-03-17 15:01 z
Then we can clarify your statements on Pericles in relation to "proper noun" and "proper name". "Pericles" is a proper noun and thus also a proper name. One of its extensional meanings, those that you call "reference", is "Athenian statesman c. 495–429 BC". "Proper noun" is not a meaning of "Pericles" but rather a grammatical classification of the word "Pericles". Neither is "given name" a meaning of "Pericles", although it is given on the sense line in the dictionary for the sake of convenience. It is not true that various meanings of "Pericles" can be classified as either "proper noun" or "proper name"; they are always both or none. Each meaning of "Pericles" can be classified as either one of Pericles—proper noun or Pericles—noun, the latter for the use of "Pericles" with a definite or indefinite article.

What I have now written refers to the following of what you have written:
"Pericles (n. “A Greek personal name”) is a proper noun. If it's an English given name, then it clearly meets the criteria allowing inclusion in Wiktionary."

"Pericles (n. “Athenian statesman c. 495–429 BC”) is a proper name, not an English word. CFI doesn't allow its inclusion. (Of course, the person should be mentioned in the etymology of Periclean [adj.].)"

Each of the quoted lines identifies a proper noun and at the same time a proper name. It is not so that one is a proper noun and the other one a proper name. Once a proper name is space-free, it is automatically a proper noun. The second line identifies not only a proper name, but also a proper noun, hence the falsity of your "... is a proper name, not an English word". --Dan Polansky 20:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you want to add a definition line for each known referent of the proper nouns Paris and Pericles? I suppose then that you'll want to do the same and add specific-entity senses under Cher, Seal, Beck, Björk, etc. And you'd want entries for proper nouns like Winston, adding sense lines for Winston Churchill, Winston Smith (from Orwell's 1984), Winston Leathers (the painter), Winston Peters (the politician), etc? —Michael Z. 2010-03-17 15:01 z
RFV passed. WT:CFI, while still making clear that not all names of specific entities warrant inclusion, no longer specifies attributive use as the deciding criterion. Indeed, it does not specify any criterion that, in my opinion, could be enforced via RFV. More than three independent, durably-archived citations have been provided, spanning more than 170 years; any further discussion should take place at WT:RFD. (If anyone disagrees with me, please unstrike and explain.) —Ruakh_TALK 17:23, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Frisbeetarianism~~
~~I see mentions but only one possible use in a book. Equinox ◑ 21:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Deleted. Equinox ◑ 01:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~מגיזה~~
Not in any of my dictionaries, and Google hits all seem to be (deprecated template usage) מ־ (mi-) + (deprecated template usage) גיזה (gíza). —Ruakh_TALK 06:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 17:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse~~
~~Rfv-sense~~
The Merriam-Webster Unabridged dictionary states as an idiom: Four threatening forces of any kind (the four horsemen...scarcities, subsidies, doles and inflation - Raymond Moley. WritersCramp 21:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Striking. AuthorityTam (talk • contribs) removed the tag quite a while ago and added two quasi-quotations, and I don't feel a need to argue about it. —Ruakh_TALK 17:51, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~hoopy~~
"Really together guy" (Douglas Adams' original definition) is not a suitable dictionary definition. If it is used other than by its author in the mouths of fictional characters, what does it mean? Citations? Equinox ◑ 10:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Deleted. Equinox ◑ 01:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~frood~~
~~Almost certainly not used outside the context of the books. Maybe these should be moved to an H2G2 appendix? --Yair rand 22:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Deleted. Equinox ◑ 01:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~dook~~
~~There is no slang language. What language is this word in, if it exists? -- Prince Kassad 21:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~English. (Not saying that it does exist, but if it does, it's English. Though it's not the most common English word of that spelling.) —Ruakh_TALK 03:32, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~rempart~~
Rfv-sense in French: rents, old folks (parents). Originally entered by Wonderfool. It is mentioned on about.com, which is usually pretty good at high-level French, but I'm having trouble tracking down usage. Could a native speaker help out? I've found rempes as a possible verlanised form of parents, but not "rempart". --Rising Sun talk? 10:42, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~The site about.com mentions rempa, not rempart. Could there have been a confusion? Anyway, I don't know any of them, but I'm not a reference. Lmaltier 08:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~neuchié~~
~~French noun - supposedly verlan for chienne = whore. There's very limited hits on the web. --Rising Sun talk? 10:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Re this, above and below. Verlan is mainly a spoken slang, so if there are limited Google hits, that's why. On the other hand, you can verlanize anything, but not all of those are going to be in actual use. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that one! And the fact that there are very few Google hits confirms my idea that it isn't widespread. --Actarus ^{(Prince d'Euphor)} 20:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~fains~~
~~Rfv-sense: British public school slang sense. —Ruakh_TALK 20:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Related to (deprecated template usage) fainites? Equinox ◑ 01:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~andantino~~
~~Rfv-sense: each sense. The original contributor defined it as:~~
(music) a tempo which should mean to play a little slower than its diminutive andante but is sometimes used as if meaning to play a little faster
and I don't know what to make of that. "Should" in what sense? "As if" in what sense? (This may actually be better addressed with references than with quotations.)
—Ruakh_TALK 21:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Bugs Bunny~~
~~Needs attributive cites. --Yair rand 00:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Deleted. Equinox ◑ 16:17, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Cheshire Cat~~
~~Needs attributive cites. --Yair rand 00:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
No it doesn't, it just needs to be corrected, both in caps (it should be (deprecated template usage) Cheshire cat) and in definition (it predates Carroll). See w:Cheshire Cat. —Ruakh_TALK 01:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~I added five citations, three of them attributive. So can I remove the RfV tag now?   AugPi 20:16, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Tweedle-dee~~
~~Needs attributive cites. --Yair rand 00:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Widespread use as capitalized common noun. Needs alternative forms. DCDuring TALK 13:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then it needs a new definition for this “widely understood meaning,” because the Carroll character's name is a proper name, not a common noun. The two citations present do not support the present definition. —Michael Z. 2010-03-09 21:41 z
These predate Carroll. —Michael Z. 2010-03-10 07:57 z
1773, “Epigram on the Feuds between Handel and Bononcini”, in Miscellaneous Poems, Manchester: J. Harrop, pp 343–44:
Some ſay, compar’d to Bononcini, / That Mynheer Handel’s but a Ninny; / Others aver, that he to Handel / Is ſcarcely fit to hold a Candle: / Strange all this Difference ſhould be, / ’Twixt Tweedle-dum and Tweedle-dee!
~~Tweedle-dum~~
~~Needs attributive cites. --Yair rand 00:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Widespread use as above. DCDuring TALK 13:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also lower-case use precedes Alice in Wonderland use. DCDuring TALK 13:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great. Now what does it mean? --Yair rand 04:47, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~heffalump~~
~~Needs attributive cites. --Yair rand 00:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
No, it doesn't; just out-of-universe ones. —Ruakh_TALK 01:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, my mistake. --Yair rand 01:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added three cites from Google books. Do I really have to waste my time doing all the others, or could we impose a limit on the number of terms Rfved by a particular person per day? SemperBlotto 08:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a waste of time, but I wouldn't have RFV'ed this one because it's used quite often. Well, my mum used to say it when I was young. So perhaps I'm naturally biased for that reason. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Often in the U.K., perhaps, but I'd never heard it. —Ruakh_TALK 14:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Goofy~~
~~Needs attributive cites. --Yair rand 00:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
What about google books:"goofy-looking people"? Not exactly an attributive use in the strict sense that would require "goofy people", but rather close to it. Interestingly, the found hits use "goofy" with lowercase "g".

What searches have you used in your attempt to find attributive uses of "Goofy"? --Dan Polansky 13:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Goofy#Proper noun got his name from goofy#Adjective, which is presumably from goof#Noun, which probably preceded goof#Verb. In writing only the capitalized form is likely to reflect attributive use of the proper noun. One of the characters most distinguishing features was his "goofy#Adjective-sounding" voice. Just as in Donald Duck, that might be the kind of thing that generated attributive use that was of the proper noun. If there were a copyright-free sound clip of the Goofy laugh (Note the attributive use.) or an imitation of it, that would be a useful ostensive definition. DCDuring TALK 14:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oops; you are right; the capitalization is crucial. --Dan Polansky 15:01, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Needs attributive cites with a widely-understood meaning. Citations which support the definition “of or pertaining to Goofy” don't qualify. —Michael Z. 2010-03-09 21:55 z
RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 17:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Snoopy~~
~~Needs attributive cites. --Yair rand 00:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
See Citations:Snoopy. DCDuring TALK 13:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Passes. I do hope, Yair and everyone else, that you look for citations (at least cursorily) before RFVing.—msh210℠ 16:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is this considered cited? "Snoopy eyes", "Snoopy look"? These are "attributive cites"?? --Yair rand 22:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed: these citations do not fulfil the CFI. Four citations refer to four different attributes of Snoopy: sad-looking, roughly-drawn, enigmatic, and surprised, respectively. But in each one the writer has had to explain the relationship; in none does the word Snoopy convey this meaning. The only definition the citations attest to is (adj.) “of or relating to Snoopy.” So this is just a plain attributive use of the name, not an English word having any “widely understood meaning.” —Michael Z. 2010-03-09 21:33 z
As you know, CFI makes no attempt to, and never has attempted to, explain what "used attributively means", and I certainly don't know. This is why I don't nominate specific entries for RFV as nobody knows what a pass or a fail is. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:36, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Read attributive. The attributive use of a noun is well defined, both in and out of the context of a dictionary, and not at all controversial. That a few editors don't know what it means is a different sort of problem.
What I do know is that editors get fixated on attributive use, and completely ignore the requirement that the attributive use have “a widely understood meaning.” —Michael Z. 2010-03-09 22:04 z
There are different issues. Firstly, these names are not just proper names. They are brand names, for which we have somewhat different standards. The first issue is inclusion. The second issue is meaning. The attributive use standard is required to warrant inclusion of a sense other than a bare name without a referent (eg. Ford as a brand name for a car vs. "Ford" as a surname and given name). For a brand name there is the specific question of there having been a prior mention of the noun. As to the determination of the sense, it would be helpful to be able to suggest what is typically evoked by the mention of the name, but that is not always abundantly clear. In such cases, we are left with the proper noun tout court and must leave it the citations to provide usage examples for the en-wikt user to infer what it might mean in any specific case.

It is not explicit in WT:CFI that all of the attributive citations must be of any one specific sense to allow for inclusion. I don't recall it ever having been interpreted that way. But it would be sensible to require multiple attestations before including some specific attributive sense.

It is often the case that the attributes evoked by brand names are rather hard to pin down, partially because they change over time, but also because they operate in emotion space. If this is too complicated, then we can dispense with a portion of our extended slogan ("All senses from all times of all words [read "terms"] in all (official) languages") to make it more easy for us to operate with the talent available. I would by no means object to dispensing with any definition for a proper noun that referenced a specific individual. They all seem to be encyclopedic. We can readily direct users to a certain encyclopedia that we know of to find all the specific bearers of a name word. DCDuring TALK 00:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean about attributive use and the Ford example. That citing “a Ford car” makes it a common noun? So then do the diverse ”Snoopy ___” quotations satisfy the rule in your view? The don't convey any “widely understood meaning” to me, and we seem to have fallen back on “defining” the word by identifying its eponym—substituting etymology for lack of any definition.
It looks like the brand names rule only applies to physical objects (although all trademarks should still be labelled). But we should consider the fictional universes rule, which has a special clause for names. I infer from it that we shouldn't define Snoopy as the dog in Peanuts cartoons. If the word is sufficiently cited out-of-universe, then why the heck can't we define it out-of-universe?
“With a widely understood meaning” tells me that the noun Casanova is rightly defined in the figurative sense. And that entries like Daisy Duck and Snoopy, which we claim to be English words but are unable to define as such, don't meet this criterion. —Michael Z. 2010-03-10 00:55 z
Ford: I offered this as an example of a trademark that we have included based on attributive use. I didn't think that we wanted to abandon settled precedent, laboriously worked out, merely because some currently active contributors weren't involved in those discussions. (That is not to say that we should not reevaluate it at BP.) What PoS it (and its cousins) should have makes my head hurt. Accordingly, I leave such matters to the professionals or to more gifted amateurs than me.

We do seem to include service marks such as those of some retailers Mickey D and airlines too. I don't see why we should carry the water of trademark holders. Let them protect their own purported intellectual property. Clearly in the case of Snoopy the word is used out of universe in all four citations (and without explanation in three). I have trouble defining many words and often leave {{rfdef}} tags so others can join the fun. To me "Snoopy" seems to have a meaning something like "doggishly soulful". But, then, I'm a dog person.

I have no truck with the entry for Daisy Duck, though, come to think of it, there might be some usage in feminist circles. Older words (like Casanova) seem to have more settled meaning, perhaps because they gained that meaning in slower-moving times or because it has ossified. We have many entries that do not bear very satisfactory definitions because they are used in evocative ways. I think of Category:English degree adverbs, especially but not limited to the vulgar ones. DCDuring TALK 01:33, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Well, function words like frikkin’ defy substitutable definition. Sometimes you just have to write “an intensifier.”~~
All four Snoopy quotes are references to the specific dog Snoopy, in the specific universe of Peanuts (and only as drawn by Charles Schulz!). They aren't invoking some conventional attributes of “a snoopy,” for example. The dialogue is not between Lucy and Linus, but they refer to that Snoopy, not some other one.
All four incorporate explanations. If they merely said “beagles with snoopy eyes,” “my daughter calls these snoopy eyes,” “giving her snoopy look,” and “gives the patient a snoopy look,” then you'd have no idea that they meant four different things: “soulful,” “simply-drawn,” “enigmatic,” and “surprised,” respectively (at least two pointedly do not mean “doggishly soulful”). Snoopy does not carry the meaning conveyed, it only refers you to Schulz's drawing, so you get an impression of which kind of enigmatic, and only if you have read the comic. It's not a metaphor, figurative use, or analogy, just a straight reference. —Michael Z. 2010-03-10 04:04 z
~~Ah, I've wasted too much of your time with my academic arguments. Let's just see if this has been cited sufficiently.~~

As to the determination of the sense, it would be helpful to be able to suggest what is typically evoked by the mention of the name, but that is not always abundantly clear. In such cases, we are left with the proper noun tout court and must leave it the citations to provide usage examples for the en-wikt user to infer what it might mean in any specific case.

~~So, find three citation which don't indicate what the word means? That seems like a failure to cite the word. That would be contrary to the point of RFV.~~

~~It is not explicit in WT:CFI that all of the attributive citations must be of any one specific sense to allow for inclusion. I don't recall it ever having been interpreted that way.~~

~~It's explicit in {rfv-sense} that a sense which can't be supported by three citations goes out the window. I'll add the tags.~~

~~To me "Snoopy" seems to have a meaning something like "doggishly soulful". But, then, I'm a dog person.~~

I was brought up by poodles, but I'm skeptical. Let's try it on for size. —Michael Z. 2010-03-10 05:07 z
RFV passed, since the attributive-use rule has been removed from WT:CFI. But, feel free to list this at WT:RFD. —Ruakh_TALK 17:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, on second look, this is clearly a fictional-universe name, and we omitted to remove the attributive-use rule for those. However, we no longer have the "with a widely understood meaning" requirement, so all that matters is that each quotation use it in an attributive sense, not that all quotations use it in the same sense. (But again, please feel free to list this at WT:RFD.) —Ruakh_TALK 17:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Mickey Mouse~~
~~Needs attributive cites. (I assume that the translations can be removed if this fails and don't have to be rfv'd separately?) --Yair rand 00:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Cited IMHO. DCDuring TALK 13:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's the proper noun defn that's being RfV'd, though for the life of me I can't think why. Normally, when there is an associated adjectival sense, the proper noun is kept in the entry for reference. But even so, haven't we all heard of Mickey Mouse ears, gloves, voice, etc. If you really think it needs attributive cites, there are thousands of them along similar lines. -- ALGRIF talk 17:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cites for "Mickey Mouse ears, gloves, voice, etc." do not make the entry pass CFI AFAIK. It needs attributive cites, like Tigger or Prince Charming. If terms passed CFI just by having things related to them being mentioned in durably archived works, we could probably cite half the Disney characters and a decent portion of video game franchises (one could find cites for "Mario jump" and "Mario style" fairly easily). --Yair rand 23:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know what is meant by "attributive" in CFI?

I oppose the deletion on the ground that this RFV invokes the controversial attributive-use rule, and does so by reading "attributive" in one particular way, whereas when "attributive" is read as "such that it modifies a noun and is part of the noun's noun phrase", the term sent for RFV is cited. --Dan Polansky 22:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't been controversial in the context of brand names and fictional characters (but see Wookiee). It has been more controversial when the oxen that were being gored were folk's favorite place names or national or cultural heroes. We clearly need to include the adjective sense, which is almost an archetype of attributive use of a proper noun. What is a bit unusual is that Mickey Mouse is a true adjective (appearing after "become", gradable, and comparable). Most proper nouns that we've discussed haven't been so thoroughly transformed. As a result the citations that would normally only support attributive use of a noun PoS now support an adjective PoS, showing yet another inconsistency in the conceptual framework implicit in WT:ELE and WT:CFI. DCDuring TALK 01:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The attributive-use rule is the one in the section "Names of specific entities"; the sections of CFI "Fictional universes" and "Brand names" do not invoke the term "used attributively". Explicitly, the attributive-use rule is the sentence "A name should be included if it is used attributively, with a widely understood meaning" under the section heading "Names of specific entities". This sentence applies neither to brand names nor to fictional universes, so introducing brand names and fictional universes into the discussion is off-topic.

That the attributive-use rule actually is controversial is plentifully documented in various votes; to refute this you would need to do more than invoking rhetorical language in "...oxen that were being gored were folk's favorite place names or national or cultural heroes".

If you want to demonstrate that the attributive-use rule does have a community consensus, why don't you start a vote for confirmation of the rule? Good luck :p. --Dan Polansky 08:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's an idea with merit. Or have a vote-off between the existing rule and proposed alternatives, rather than trying to amend it. —Michael Z. 2010-03-09 17:31 z
Mickey Mouse (adj.) is 1) formed as an attributive noun, and 2) has a widely understood meaning independent of the eponymic specific entity.
Mickey Mouse (proper n.) can be used attributively, but then it just means “of or relating to Mickey Mouse.” It's not an English word; it's the name of a cartoon. It should be plain that this doesn't belong in the dictionary. —Michael Z. 2010-03-09 17:31 z
~~Donald Duck~~
~~Needs attributive cites. --Yair rand 00:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
3 cites for audio attributes. Can't imagine other attributive use. DCDuring TALK 11:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Passed. I do hope, Yair and everyone else, that you seek citations (at least cursorily) before RFVing.—msh210℠ 16:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how these are "attributive cites". They're still direct references to the character, not uses as "words" like Darth Vader or Eeyore. --Yair rand 22:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are attributive in the sense "such that it modifies a noun and is part of the noun's noun phrase". WT:CFI does not define "attributive". If you have your own candidate definition of "attributive", you can propose it so that we know what you mean by "attributive". --Dan Polansky 13:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Attributive" has been taken to mean that the word does not refer directly to the specific entity, but is a word that is derived from the entity's attributes, independent of any reference to the entity or parts of the entity itself. Thus, for Donald Duck to pass, it would have to be a word derived from, but unconnected to, Donald Duck the character. --Yair rand 22:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you stating your reading of "attributive" in CFI. Is "the New York of the West" an attributive use of "New York", per your definition? Is "the Pericles of the Italian Renaissance" an attributive use of "Pericles"? Is there a wider support among Wiktionary editors for your definition of "attributive" as regards CFI? Can that support be documented? --Dan Polansky 22:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know exactly what the boundaries of "attributive" are, but I'm pretty sure that the general idea is that it doesn't refer directly to the specific entity or parts of the specific entity. With regards to place names specifically, people generally seem to ignore the standard of requiring attributive cites, but then again, place names is an unresolved issue. "The Pericles of the Italian Renaissance" would work (I think), but the definition would explain the attributes, not the person himself. I don't think that the specific meaning is actually documented in CFI, other than a slight mention in the CFI subpage Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Fictional universes, where it says that persons or places from fictional universes shall not be included unless they are used both out of context and in an attributive sense, giving the example "Irabu had hired Nomura, a man with whom he obviously had a great deal in common, and, who, as we have seen, was rapidly becoming the Darth Vader of Japanese baseball." --Yair rand 22:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Our practice has been to find citations in which the proper noun is used attributively and the context does not include prior mention of the proper noun. Thus "a Donald Duck voice" evokes the memory of voice as heard in a Disney cartoon or someone's imitation of it. (It would make a good audio example file. Anyone?) It does not signify "Donald Duck's voice". Admittedly this is not as clear-cut a case as Mickey Mouse where the reference to the character is more remote, more nearly etymological. Virtually every dictionary has the Mouse. Only en.wikt and Wordnet have the Duck. DCDuring TALK 01:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The guideline has two requirements: 1) used attributively, and 2) with a widely understood meaning. (The specific-entities CFI has unclear wording. We really need to improve it.)
An attributive noun is one that acts like an adjective. So D.D. in “Donald Duck voice” is an attributive, while “Pericles of the west” is not.
A widely understood meaning requires that the used of the name has a meaning of its own in the language, independent of any knowledge the listener may have of the eponymic person, character, place, etc. One indicator of this might be that the eponymic entity doesn't otherwise appear in the cited work, but it is not proof. Making this determination is a judgment call. So “[t]hey are putting a Mickey Mouse operation on the ice” has the conventional meaning of ‘unprofessional’ or ‘rinky-dink.’ But “I had Mickey Mouse hands” and “hair [...] pinned up in Mickey Mouse ears” are specific references to the character, having no meaning to someone who's not seen the cartoon.
Donald Duck is not an English adjective meaning “(of a voice), wheezing, high-pitched, and lisping.” Nor does it mean “wearing a blue sailor suit,” “being of foul temperament,” or “having white feathers.” If I said after some stage performance “they were very Donald Duck,” you'd have no idea what I was referring to.
If we claim that Donald Duck is an English word then we are just embarrassing ourselves. —Michael Z. 2010-03-09 17:12 z
~~The current adjective defintion is "Of or relating to Donald Duck" - this is nothing but a noun/proper noun being used attributively. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 17:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Yeah, I just created that heading based on the citations. Previously they had been used to show that the proper noun Donald Duck referred to a cartoon duck. It's still ridiculous. —Michael Z. 2010-03-09 20:42 z
RFV passed, since we no longer have the "with a widely-understood meaning" requirement. But please feel free to list at RFD. —Ruakh_TALK 17:49, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Daisy Duck~~
~~Needs attributive cites. --Yair rand 00:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 17:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Tintin~~
~~Needs attributive cites. --Yair rand 00:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 17:38, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~oliphaunt~~
~~Tagged in 2007 but not listed. Fictional universe. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete. All references belong to the same universe. Probably an invention taken from Middle French/Middle Dutch word - olifant.
The OED has this as one spelling of (deprecated template usage) oliphant, and includes an LOTR citation. (Its only other citation using this spelling is from John Skelton's 1523 Garlande of Laurell; but since they don't cite each spelling separately, there's no reason to think we can't find a third cite for this spelling.) So, keep and correct. —Ruakh_TALK 01:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added your definition "elephant", Ruakh. Please check and correct anything if necessary. The old definition from Tolkien universe is currently at Appendix:Tolkien's legendarium/O. --Daniel. 08:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~secondant~~
~~Rfv-sense in French --Rising Sun talk? 14:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
519 google hits for "un secondant". Might be too specific as to sport. Polarpanda 15:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
when training for top competition, you either have a coach (entraîneur) or a secondant : this term applies to chess-players or sport-masters so high ranking that nobody could sensibly qualify as their coach. no idea about best translation in English but permanent assistant is what comes to my mind. --Diligent 15:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~triple-double-double~~
~~Headword does not match title. Which (if any) is correct? SemperBlotto 08:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
The usage is a rewording of a paragraph in the referenced website. The website also says that Wilt Chamberlain's feat is the only triple-double-double in NBA history. Any citations are thus likely to refer to the same event. Pingku 11:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Too encyclopedic maybe? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not too encyclopedic. Should be kept. Believe has happened more times in college. Has many Bing hits. Purplebackpack89 17:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If something is a word, this word cannot be too encyclopedic. What can be too encyclopedic is the contents of the page, not the word. Lmaltier 11:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, delete this page and its contents as too encyclopedic. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~sexual abuse~~
~~Rfv-sense: "rape". I think this is just an innuendo of rape. But it might be a euphemism. DCDuring TALK 11:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
I don't think they're really synonyms though, just highly related concepts. The other sense is at WT:RFD so they might both get deleted separately. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the two are the same and I am sure that at least in some legal sense the term rape must include penile/vaginal intercourse. However we follow usage here rather than exact definition, so this might need a usage note at least.--Dmol 01:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would opine that rape is a form of sexual abuse, but that sexual abuse has other forms than rape (however that be defined). I don't rule out the existence of usages where the term sexual abuse specifically means rape, but would need to be convinced. Pingku 13:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was gonna mark this has failed, but the user who added it removed it herself. Shall we say RFV closed either way. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Striking per Mglovesfun. —Ruakh_TALK 18:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Mafia~~
~~Rfv-sense. French common noun. I think it's either a proper noun, or always spelt in lower case (la mafia). Mglovesfun (talk) 10:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~spannelling~~
~~Used in one book, doesn't seem to be a well-known work. At the very least, it needs a {{nonce word}} tag. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~March 2010~~
~~dervish~~
~~Rfv-sense "One that possesses abundant, often frenzied energy."—msh210℠ 18:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
That definition is verbatim from AHD, so we should reword it at the very least. That being said I think it is a legit definition, probably reverse from (deprecated template usage) whirling dervish which we still need. - [The]DaveRoss 00:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It may be legit. I RFVed it after finding no hits for google books:"son|daughter|kid is a dervish" or even on the Web (!).—msh210℠ 15:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Automatic Number Identification~~
~~Automatic Location Identification~~
As well as the definitions, what about the capitalization, are these really common nouns? Listed at RFC where nobody did anything, I figured it would be nice to see if these even exist with non SoP meanings. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RFV failed, both entries deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 17:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~BitTorrent~~
~~Template:rfd-archived Needs to pass the brand names criteria. Conrad.Irwin 20:31, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Cited fairly easily, removed the tag. - [The]DaveRoss 21:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~I've restored the tag for now. It's really not clear to me that those cites satisfy Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Brand names. —Ruakh_TALK 02:32, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
I am not sure what you feel is unclear, the first cite "...acts as a BitTorrent client..." refers to the protocol not the software or else there wouldn't be multiple potential clients (a vs the). The second "...clusters in a large-scale BitTorrent-like underlying overlay network..." is commenting on network structure, something unique to the protocol and not the software which is a client. The third "...you can use the Transmission BitTorrent client to..." refers to an entirely different client which operates using the same protocol but is maintained by a whole different group. There are also multitudes more cites available, as well as tons of usage on the sites and forums of the dozens of other popular BitTorrent clients and trackers. - [The]DaveRoss 02:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

edit: Oh, I misread, yeah those are for the protocol not the client, I wasn't trying to cite the client which I thought was already removed. - [The]DaveRoss 02:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BitTorrent is a US corporation which controls both the BitTorrent name and the BitTorrent protocol. BitTorrent is a trademark of BitTorrent, Inc. A BitTorrent client is part of Ubuntu Linux, which is sponsored by US corporation Canonical. Many parties have economic interest, so let's find three measly citations which very clearly fall under WT:BRAND. —Michael Z. 2010-03-18 19:03 z
RFV failed for the sense "The original BitTorrent client, simply named BitTorrent." Leaving the protocol. DAVilla 04:56, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Möller~~
~~Says it is English. I think it is German. How to we supply evidence for this sort of thing? SemperBlotto 17:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
It's probably both English and German. My guess is that in English the more common form would be Moller, with Möller being an alternative form, both being derived from the original German. Not that I have any evidence for that... --Yair rand 20:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't this mean miller? --Rising Sun talk? 20:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To answer the question: I think that surnames of English speaking people living in English-speaking regions should be included as English (the same applying to all other languages). The foreign origin should be explained in the Etymology section. This is a minimum. But it also makes sense to mention in English sections all surnames found in English texts, even when they are not Ehglish surnames, in order to provide their pronunciation in English, as well as other transcriptions also used in English (when applicable), etc. This is the current practice, e.g. Putin is defined, in an English section, as a Russian surname, and Poutine is definec in a French section. It's less useful when the same script is used, but it's useful nonetheless, at least for pronunciation. Lmaltier 18:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that latter case (of a name not used by an anglophone in an anglophone country) just a transliteration into English? How is it different from epōnumos (properly redlinked transliteration of Ancient Greek ἐπώνυμος? We don't want to include how Americans mispronounce that, do we? So why include how we mispronounce Putin? See also talk:Venizelos and citations:Venizelos.—msh210℠ 18:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that epōnumos is not used in English texts, it would make no sense to include it in an English section. The English pronunciation of Putin to be included is not a mispronunciation, it's the correct pronunciation in English, and mentioning it is of help to readers. Lmaltier 19:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Putin is a transliteration, so it can just as well be called English. English pronunciations of Goethe or Beethoven are justified, because those names are used attributively. But a simple German surname like Möller? A polite person should at least try to pronounce it as in German. We cannot add English mispronunciations to every single non-English name. (And surely you don't want to hear how Finns mispronounce foreign names?) Yair rand should give evidence that native English speakers keep those two dots in the Anglo-Saxon world. Immigrant Möllers don't count - their name is German, no matter where they live. --Makaokalani 16:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was mainly thinking to the pronunciation used for people named Möller living in English-speaking countries. It's not a mispronunciation, it's the normal pronunciation, it's how they pronounce it, even if it's not the same as the etymological one. And the same applies to all languages. Lmaltier 18:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A name is English if it is used in English context. Möller has been used in English context, therefore it is English. If pronunciation in English is different, but the original is sometimes used in English context, the entry should include both. (Although this is somewhat unrelated, you may notice that both /ˈpæ.ɹɪs/ and /pɑˈri/ are included in Paris.) --Yair rand 06:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the English pronunciation? And the translation table is empty. "It might be called an English surname, and it might have an English pronunciation" is not the way to verify an entry.--Makaokalani 13:35, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~baosj~~
Arabic-influenced Norwegian slang word meaning police. I haven't picked up on this word myself, but since it is very easy to add words that may not have the prevalence needed for inclusion here, I'm requesting that sources be presented for this word and meaning. __meco 20:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing usable on Books, and there doesn't seem to be Google Scholar in Norwegian. Early Google Groups hits are not looking promising either. If anyone who actually speaks Norwegian wants to try, even better! Mglovesfun (talk) 12:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know Norwegian at all, but perhaps this is a cite?—msh210℠ 19:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I can't see page 45 of [125], but it seems to be saying that a number of people use the word. If so, then that author found attestation (oral, not CFI-meeting) and committed it to print in a CFI-meeting way. Does that suffice?—msh210℠ 19:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~moonraker~~
~~Rfv-sense: a woolgatherer. Ƿidsiþ 09:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~aidle~~
~~Listed as a noun, definition is for a verb. Which is it, if any? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
It's a word for word copy from here: [www.allwords.com/word-aidle.html allwords]. I don't think even the entry creator knows what he's talking about. delete - cannot be attested. Jamesjiao → ^T ^◊ ^C 02:10, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It lists an 1874 book as it's source, I think it should get at least a month like other entries that are not patent nonsense. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've found it in three different dictionaries, but can't find any examples of use. However it seems to be Scots for idle, it also appears in a Robert Burns poem. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is in a Burns poem, but it isn't a Scots form of (deprecated template usage) idle but rather (deprecated template usage) addle (used by Burns as a noun = putrid water). Ƿidsiþ 16:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that's what I meant by "it's also" - yes it refers to addle. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RFV failed, entry deleted. @Jamesjiao: On the contrary: allwords.com got it from us. @Mglovesfun&Widsith: please do add the Scots word(s). :-) —Ruakh_TALK 17:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Ameche~~
~~Common noun? Caps? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
I am in favour of deleting it. If it was somehow used to mean a telephone, it wasn't used for long and probably only by a few. Jamesjiao → ^T ^◊ ^C 02:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But we only require three durably archived citations over at least one year. 'Taint much. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:28, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cited easily. I do hope you searched some before RFVing it, Mg.—msh210℠ 20:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW I was cleaning up a batch of articles and didn't want to stop mid-list. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~gainbite~~
~~Not in the OED. Few hits on Google book search all seem to be mentions, not actual use. SemperBlotto 15:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~healing factor~~
~~Rfv-sense: The superpower (of a fictional character) of quickly healing himself or herself.~~
~~While well aware of this concept, surprisingly use of this term is difficult to find. All the main hits refer to non-scifi stuff. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 01:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 17:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Antônio Nunes~~
~~The gesture of slapping one's own thigh, usually while shouting "Antônio Nunes" in a manner similar to a war cry.~~
~~Seems to have been invented a few months ago. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 01:49, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 17:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~transport ship~~
~~Google suggests that this term actually refers more to ships that transport troops? —Ruakh_TALK 21:24, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~I added troop definition. Materiel definition is almost surely deprecated or incorrect.--71.111.229.19 09:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Thanks. I've changed the {{rfv}} to {{rfv-sense}}. —Ruakh_TALK 03:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
RFV failed, sense removed. —Ruakh_TALK 17:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~echophilia~~
~~Two things:~~
Definition in the entry is unattestable.

It's actually a term used to refer to a symptom in people with Tourettes. It refers to the compulsion to repeat what people do or say.
~~Jamesjiao → ^T ^◊ ^C 08:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
I don't know the field, but that seems so rare as perhaps to be an error: two books and under 200 Google Web matches (some of which are junk like people's online nicknames). I've heard of (deprecated template usage) echolalia, which seems to be what you describe. Equinox ◑ 17:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~I think echophilia reflects both echolalia and echokinesis. I am a Tourettes sufferer myself. Fortunately I have neither symptom! Jamesjiao → ^T ^◊ ^C~~
RFV failed, entry deleted. (When the existing sense fails RFV, but I'm sure that there exists a sense that would pass, I frequently replace the definition with {{rfdef}}; but in this case, I'm really not sure that the sense that Jamesjiao mentions would pass. Nonetheless, if you're reading this and think you can cite that sense, you should feel free to create the entry with it.) —Ruakh_TALK 17:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~lieu de mémoire~~
Supposed to be English. It's certainly French (see w:fr:Lieu de mémoire), but is it English as well? (Not absolutely sure of the definition, and needs formatting if OK) SemperBlotto 22:07, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/citd/holtorf/2.6.html

I read it in Brubaker's "Ethnicity as Cognition" and had to look it up. Also, Edward Said has a book subtitled Lieux de Mémoire (ie, plural)CMEHalverson 05:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~please~~
Rfv-sense: (Cincinnati, OH, US) Said as a request to repeat information; excuse me. Said to be a calque of German (deprecated template usage) Bitte.
I doubt that there is much higher frequency of usage in Cincinnati than elsewhere in the English-speaking world. I don't see why this merits a separate sense, let alone a separate PoS, still less a separate etymology, the third shown in this overwrought entry. DCDuring TALK 23:44, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I worked for an American company years ago, and one of my coworkers explained this to us. She said it was quite common, and particular to that region. Not sure if it is only in one city though, maybe state wide. But she said that often, if it was said to a person from outside the state, it seemed like you were telling them to add "please" to the end of their question, and many of them would repeat it more politely.--Dmol 12:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think citation would definitely help, as it's not clear how or why this sense is different to the ones above. I have an idea, but no way of knowing if that idea is right or not. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it is worth a separate sense (preferably supported by something other than a local blog/free weekly), is it worth a separate PoS and Etymology? Is it used in Milwaukee or St. Louis (also with strong German influence)? If not, why not?

A usage note seems more appropriate. DCDuring TALK 13:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I live in St. Louis and have not noticed its being used here.—msh210℠ 16:42, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~chaos~~
~~Rfv-sense x 2:~~
A force that seeks to spread disorder.

An unseen force or energy believed to drive the universe.
~~Senses deleted (or edited beyond recognition) by anon. First has translations. The anon may have been right to delete them. DCDuring TALK 13:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~slutlamp~~
~~I see three uses on google books, but is this any more than a coinage by Cormac McCarthy? Nadando 19:19, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~McCarthy does like to remove spaces from compounds (slut lamp/slut-lamp is a bit more common). --Bequw → τ 19:56, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~aquabob~~
~~An icicle. I see a few mentions in books but no uses. Equinox ◑ 20:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Deleted. Equinox ◑ 01:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~mot savant~~
~~learnedism~~
I redefined mot savant from my understanding of it. Can someone confirm it? I have never heard of learnedism and the definition is vague at best. CMEHalverson (talk • contribs) seems to think they are synonyms. Any suggestions? Jamesjiao → ^T ^◊ ^C 01:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither in the OED. Google books shows plenty of hits for (deprecated template usage) mot savant, but all seem to be in French texts. It also shows a few hits for (deprecated template usage) learnedism - so I may have deleted it a bit hastily. Anyway it needed a better definition. SemperBlotto 08:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~butter~~
~~Rfv-sense. French, to kill someone. I thought that was (deprecated template usage) buter, is this a common misspelling of it? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~No, I don't think so. The second sense should be deleted too (it's also buter). But the first sense is OK. Lmaltier 18:44, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Moriarty~~
~~Moved to WT:RFD#Moriarty~~
~~ACTT~~
Twenty different senses given, none of which are on their face obvious candidates for inclusion. At what point do we permit inclusion of an abbreviated name of a trade organization or private company? Should those meet the CFI for brand names? bd2412 T 16:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~I asked a similar question about an entry I created - RMIT - but received no answer. ---> Tooironic 22:56, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~A.P.P.L.E.~~
~~Definition would seem to require CFI for brand names. I doubt this can be met. bd2412 T 18:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~requæst~~
Can't find it anywhere. The page includes one citation, although the link shows that the actual use is requaest. Two more would seem hard to find. (The OED just updated their entry, and they list 18 different recorded spellings, none of which is this.) Ƿidsiþ 10:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~prefucking~~
~~Probably out there. Equinox ◑ 21:57, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Deleted. Wonderfool, and nobody has tried to cite it in several months. Equinox ◑ 01:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~eka-proactinium~~
~~Nothing in Books, Groups. Should probably be "protactinium", but that doesn't help either. Equinox ◑ 17:54, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Deleted. Equinox ◑ 01:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~birdielike~~
~~Difficult. One Google Books match refers to the golf achievement and another to an actual bird. Those two are all Google has to offer. Equinox ◑ 21:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
For information, my Pocket Oxford Dictionary explicitly states that all compounds noun + -like should be considered as existing in English. This is not a reason to include all these words without attestations, but I think this is a reason to include such words if at least one attestation can be found (without this attestation, their existence would be only virtual, in my opinion). Lmaltier 22:16, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The POD's considerations aren't like ours. We've got a very clear anti-baseball 3-and-your-in policy --Rising Sun talk? contributions 22:21, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Uncited, and was created by Wonderfool making trouble. Equinox ◑ 01:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Shire~~
~~needs cites from outside the LOTR world. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 21:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~None that I am aware of outside LOTR. delete along with all the blue linked translations Jamesjiao → ^T ^◊ ^C 03:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Deleted. Equinox ◑ 01:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Kontu~~
~~Rfv-sense: Shire - needs cites from outside LOTR world --Rising Sun talk? contributions 21:48, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
This is real. The title of the chapter VIII of the sixth book reads "The scouring of the Shire" in English and Konnun puhdistus in Finnish. But if Shire is to go, this should go as well. I don't think there's any attributive use for it. --Hekaheka 22:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~mille~~
~~Rfv-sense. French adjective, how is thousand an adjective? Might just be a total error. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
fr.wiktionary has it as a "adjectif numéral". SemperBlotto 12:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assume because it qualifies a noun: mille hommes (a thousand men). Surely we wouldn't call this an adjective in English, would we? What criteria should we be using? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some call two an adjective, but we call it a cardinal number. I don't know French, but suppose mille may be similar.—msh210℠ 15:14, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In French, mille is also called a cardinal number. But cardinal number is not a part of speech, all numbers are considered as "numeral adjectives" (deux hommes, le deuxième homme), but they can also be used as nouns (le deux est son nombre préféré, le deuxième) or as "numeral pronouns" (seulement deux sont arrivés). Lmaltier 22:08, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is what we mean by cardinal numeral; it is a numerical word that may quantify a noun, but may also be used as a noun itself or as a pronoun. The terminology for parts of speech in French is different, but these words still fit within our nomenclature. French mille is a cardinal numeral by our terminology. The French may have different terminology, but that's because they're labelling their words in French, not with calques of English terminology. --EncycloPetey 01:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted - not an adjective as far as we're concerned. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 23:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~dead'n'buried~~
~~No hits on a cursory check.—msh210℠ 16:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
70 hits on Google Books: http://books.google.fr/books?as_q=%22dead%27n%27buried%22&num=10&btnG=Recherche+Google&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_brr=0&as_pt=ALLTYPES&lr=lang_en&as_vt=&as_auth=&as_pub=&as_drrb_is=q&as_minm_is=0&as_miny_is=&as_maxm_is=0&as_maxy_is=&as_isbn=&as_issn= Lmaltier 21:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All hits have spaces between words: dead 'n' buried instead of dead'n'buried. 'n' is simply an alternative form of and. Jamesjiao → ^T ^◊ ^C 02:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just rename it and delete the redirect IMO. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me, if this verification fails.—msh210℠ 17:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done and done. if anyone has any objections, raise you hand now or forever hold your peace :). Jamesjiao → ^T ^◊ ^C 05:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~aloisiite~~
~~Surely not. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Contributions by this IP have all been good. This word does exist, but the mineral itself is not recognized internationally. However from our point of view, if it can be found in durably archived sources (which is the case), then it should be included. Jamesjiao → ^T ^◊ ^C 03:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

B.g.c brings up a lot of hits, but they mostly seem to be lists of minerals, not real usages of the word.--Prosfilaes 04:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Specialist vocabulary merits an entry. C.f. names of chemical compounds. -- ALGRIF talk 14:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, I was just reacting to the bizarre spelling. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~message~~
~~Rfv-sense. Tagged but not listed. Also, given as a plurale tantum, but under the singular form. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Many other plurale-tantum senses whose singulars exist are given under the singular form also (as that's where people may well look for them), though many others are given under the plural form. We don't seem to have a policy/BCP on this.—msh210℠ 17:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, we have common noun sense of message as "Any concept or information conveyed by the use of (usually written) symbols". Does this match your experience? It doesn't mine: to me, a message is merely any concept or information conveyed. It can just as easily be oral ("he relayed the message") as written. But maybe I'm exceptional in this regard (as in so many :-) ).—msh210℠ 17:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No it's wrong. Go for it. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:14, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the sense for groceries should only be at messages. It always ends in the s.--Dmol 04:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Software titles~~
These are proper names whose inclusion is restricted under both specific entities and WT:BRAND. Note that open-source advocates, software developers, and web designers may have an “economic interest in the product.” —Michael Z. 2010-03-18 17:42 z
Are you sure you want to RFV these and not RFD them? ~~I could easily find citations attesting the existence of e.g. XP, Chrome and Acrobat, even though they are not the full names of the products in question.~~ Ah, but probably not in a good attributive way. Equinox ◑ 19:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would going straight to RFD be kosher? Suits me, although a couple of these may turn out to be attestable. Yup, citing them per Specific and/or Brand guidelines may be a bit of work. —Michael Z. 2010-03-19 23:25 z
A small aside on (deprecated template usage) Linux: whereas most of your terms are proprietary things, this one is a free (open, shareable) operating system that anyone can take and modify, so you can definitely talk about Linuxes (different varieties). Collins even has linux and linuxes as (I think) lower-cased terms playable in Scrabble, along with emacs (text editor released under a similar "free" licence) and its silly plural emacsen. IMO, this makes it pretty generic and worth an entry, as opposed to (say) (deprecated template usage) Windows which is one specific branded product. Equinox ◑ 23:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was thinking Linux may be citable generically, as in “a Linux netbook” or something. But open-source brand names might be even harder to cite per WT:BRAND than others. There are potentially many more “parties with economic interest in the product,” such as distributors, consultants, etc. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds. —Michael Z. 2010-03-22 00:03 z
~~But of course, Windows also has distributors, consultants, and so on. —Ruakh_TALK 00:12, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Right ye are! I thought it was cited. Now it can be. —Michael Z. 2010-03-25 19:32 z
They are words used in English, and including them is useful (e.g. how do you pronounce Mozilla in English? I have no idea...) The first sentence of CFI makes them includable. Lmaltier 22:25, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I second that, plus many of these technologies may have a translation into other languages with pronunciation, gender and other useful information. If we restrict the entries to have a dry definition - what it is, then we can restrict "economic interest in the product." Look at BMW as an example. If the entry stays as it is, is there any problem? Users will want to know words from the linguistic point of view and search for translations, if they are relevant. The translations may be only colloquial (in Japan Windows is still "Windows") but they do exist, e.g. ウィンドウズ. --Anatoli 00:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~BMW is expanded as an initialism, and not a defined as a brand name. I dunno if our CFI allow it or not.~~
But these are all names, and probably not English words according to the terms of our CFI. (Wikipedia may have information about their names.) If you think some of these may be English words, here's your opportunity to cite them. —Michael Z. 2010-03-25 19:32 z
Arabs transliterate software names more often than others. A dictionary can tell users that it is Template:Arab, it is masculine and can be pronounced "'akrubaat" (one standard variant). A person not familiar with the language won't know this, even if they have the link to the Wikipedia page. It's Template:Hebr in Hebrew, etc. --Anatoli 00:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of CFI does not explain exactly what a word is; the rest of CFI does that. Per CFI, Mozilla is not a word if it's only ever used by people with economic interest in it. --Yair rand 23:19, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an economic interest in Mozilla (or any of the others) but use the term frequently.--Dmol 00:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As do many others, which is why most of these terms are probably citable. --Yair rand 01:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~We need to start making these comments below in the appropriate section. As this part grows it will be impossible to follow a discussion on a particular RFV.--Dmol 00:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Acrobat~~
~~Apache~~
~~Chrome~~
~~Firefox~~
~~GNU/Linux~~
~~[Added to rfv. —Michael Z. 2010-03-22 00:08 z]~~
~~Linux~~
~~Sense of “kernel”~~
~~Sense of “operating system”~~
~~Lynx~~
~~Mosaic~~
~~Mozilla~~
~~Sense of “mascot”~~
~~Sense of “application suite”~~
~~MySQL~~
~~Navigator~~
~~Netscape~~
~~Sense of “company”~~
~~Sense of “software”~~
~~Safari~~
~~Skype~~
~~Company / software sense~~
~~Verb sense~~
~~I've added the verb sense, and no doubt it exists, but will leave in RFV for discussion as to whether it is capitalised or not like Google / google.--Dmol 22:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Since Google and google both exist I suppose Skype and skype should too. There is a mixture of capitalizations available on Google Books. Polarpanda 14:11, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Thunderbird~~
~~Windows~~
~~[Added to rfv. —Michael Z. 2010-03-25 19:32 z]~~
XP
~~selfhood~~
~~Five senses seems too many. I RFV these two: "individuality" and "selfishness". Equinox ◑ 19:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~off~~
~~Rfv-sense: (intransitive) To kill oneself.~~
I've only heard this as "to off oneself", which is included in the first sense of (deprecated template usage) off. DCDuring TALK 15:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In a film called Wristcutters, which is set in an afterlife reserved for suicides. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 01:46, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~manducantes~~
~~Supposed to be a Latin noun. Looks like part of the verb (deprecated template usage) manduco or (deprecated template usage) manducor to me. SemperBlotto 15:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~autem gogler~~
~~From the 1811 vulgar cant dictionary. "Pretended French prophet." What exactly does this mean? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~пеперуда~~
Never heard the third meaning. Either fabricated or protologism or slang. In the first two cases it must be removed, in the third case citations and the due tag would be needful. The uſer hight Bogorm converſation 18:10, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~clumsy~~
~~Rfv-sense. A euphemism for a person with Down's syndrome or similarly disabled person. Hmm. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:42, 21 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Really? How is this euphemism? I'd be offended if I had Down's syndrome. And no, never heard of it. Jamesjiao → ^T ^◊ ^C 04:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The noun sense is most probably taken from www.allwords.com, I couldn't find it anywhere else (I've checked in about 30 dictionaries, including slang). la la means I love you 18:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think citations could back up the more general sense of (informal, rare) A clumsy person. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:04, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@la…you: No, www.allwords.com got it from us. —Ruakh_TALK 19:08, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~presex~~
~~To me, it's used more attributively like an adjective (presex talk, presex romance). Jamesjiao → ^T ^◊ ^C 04:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~salsamentarious~~
~~"Salty, saline." Google Books has exactly one book with a use rather than a mention. Equinox ◑ 16:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~hmm I found a few uses of it on google books. See: Look for Deformities of Dr. Samuel Johnson Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 22:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~PDLC~~
~~Three senses. Searching for PDLC + downloadable content on Google Books and Groups yields basically nothing. Equinox ◑ 23:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~marshal~~
~~Highest ranking piece on the board game Stratego. DCDuring TALK 19:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete, too encyclopedic. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You probably mean too specialized? It's exactly the same case as the chess sense of king, except that it's a specialized term used only for Stratego, and Stratego is a trademark. Is there a rule about such cases? Lmaltier 19:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The most relevant precedent I can think of is house#noun, referring to the Monopoly token. I labored mightily to find citations in which the word was used to refer to the token not being used in the game itself or in a fanzine. I don't know whether fanzine citations should count (or whether there are such for Stratego. Chess pieces are more likely to have appeared in usage like the "house" usage. DCDuring TALK 00:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that house in Monopoly is the usual sense of house, only applied to the Monopoly rules and, therefore, does not deserve a definition line more than the word bill applied to Monopoly, unless there are allusions to the Monopoly context which might be difficult to understand without this definition line? Is this the rule?

I think that finding marshal in its Stratego sense used outside the Stratego context is likely to be impossible, it's like looking for uses of Mammalia outside the context of zoology... Lmaltier 07:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See discussion of January 2008. It was a vote after a full discussion, from the days when CFI was not a dead letter. The Monopoly house sense was deleted. Note the citations. DCDuring TALK 11:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't WT:CFI#Fictional_universes apply here? (That's the same argument I gave back then for removing the Monopoly sense of house, incidentally.)—msh210℠ 17:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think that does apply, should we move to RFV? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:23, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from RFD. Please continue discussion here.—msh210℠ 16:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone disagrees with the contention that the fictional-universes criterion applies, please speak up. The thirty-day clock is ticking.—msh210℠ 23:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~psephocrat~~
~~I could only find two citations of this term. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 01:37, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~brain helmet~~
~~I've never heard this, and neither Google Books nor the Google News Archive turns up much of anything relevant. —Ruakh_TALK 01:55, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~in potentia~~
~~RFV for the adjectival sense:~~
~~(of a politician, party or faction etc) in power~~
This sense is not listed in the OED, although it is prima facie consistent with the phrase's etymology. As a side issue, is this phrase an adjective at all? I thought it was an adverb, although the distinction in this case is unclear to me. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 02:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~wordness~~
I have created the entry "wordness". However, I have difficulties finding proper citations for the definition "The quality of being a word". The term "wordness" alone can be found in Google books, but often used by non-native speakers of English, in unclear senses, and often in quotation marks. By contrast, I have no problem finding good citations for "wordhood", one even from Quine. Unlike "wordness", the term "wordhood" seems to be a regular formation, as the suffix "-ness" is typical for adjective-derived terms rather than for noun-derived terms, for which "-hood" is typical: "objecthood", "manhood", "parenthood". --Dan Polansky 11:31, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cited. Equinox ◑ 10:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some senses are cited, right, but I don't know what senses. The def "The quality of being a word or words" seems not to match the quotations. Only in the first quotation is wordness attributed to a word. In the second two quotations, I see wordness attributed to poetry and writing, as, the wordness of poetry, and the wordness of writing. I do not know what the wordness of poetry is supposed to be, but it is not "the quality of being a word or words", as poetry is not words, it consists of words. What the wordness of poetry could be is poetry's consisting of words rather than of incomprehensible combinations of morphemes. The second quotation implies that "the logos of true poetry" is "the wordness of true poetry", which is Greek to me.

I do not dispute that there are plenty of quotations for "wordness", but in what senses is beyond me. --Dan Polansky 18:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~callophobia~~
~~I can't seen any actual use of this word on Google books - only a few mentions. SemperBlotto 13:03, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~google~~
~~I am especially dubious about the sense of "a quick look in a place", but citations for "a quick look on the internet" wouldn't hurt either. Polarpanda 14:09, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~San Diego~~
~~As with Shenzhen, attributive use is required, whatever that means. Polarpanda 14:35, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
No it doesn't. The "attributive use" concept was never voted on. SemperBlotto 08:18, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In common-law countries, usage is sufficient to make law. I didn't notice any consensus opposing this for the years the principle has been in practice. The restoration of Shenzen contrary to RfV process seems unwarranted. DCDuring TALK 12:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get Shenzhen back then ? Polarpanda 11:37, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Voted on or not, it's in WT:CFI. If my current proposal (not yet finalized) passes into CFI, this would seem to be a good second change to make. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The attribute-use rule has not been voted upon, and does not endorse even a 50%-majority community support, let alone 70%-majority community support. Anyone can start a vote for confirmation of the attributive-use rule.
Common law does not rest on unvoted-on statute-like policies like CFI; it rests on the actual common practice, as far as I understand the concept of common law. --Dan Polansky 13:34, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this has been well supported by community, or else we wouldn't get as many attributive use requests here! As I say I think at the very least it should be changed to make it clearer, or even better scrapped, but then, what do we replace it with? Mglovesfun (talk) 13:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that there really is a community support, you can start a vote for confirmation of the attributive-use rule. The number of posted RFV nominations alone does not really say much about the community support for the rule. The reason why no one starts such a vote is that there is very little chance for this vote to pass, or even to gain a 50%-majority support. --Dan Polansky 13:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we don't normally have votes to support the status quo; we have them to change it. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's true - but CFI is not normally out-of-step with practice, or the feelings of the community. SemperBlotto 14:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That may be right about what we normally do, but not about what we should do when it comes to unsupported policy items. Most parts of CFI are uncontroversial, and some parts of CFI have passed a vote. --Dan Polansky 14:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If just one of those who wish that the status quo were different would simply do the work to find an alternative that actually has consensus, we could put all this bickering behind us. I personally will not do it because if I never again saw a proper noun entry in wiktionary it would be too soon.
We need some specific principles other than whim for inclusion or exclusion or some process for including or excluding. The items in question are proper nouns. There are two basic questions: inclusion and definition. I would bet on there being more consensus for inclusion of toponym components (York) than on either entire toponyms (New York) or on encyclopedic definitions (all or some of the specific entities that bear a word as all or part of their name). This would be similar to the closer-to-consensus practice with respect to personal names. Anyone? Anyone? DCDuring TALK 15:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'm thinkin’ on it.~~
From all the chitchat, I assume no one's trying to verify per CFI. Delete. —Michael Z. 2010-03-25 19:12 z
DCDuring, fact is, there is not even a plain majority support, let alone consensual support, of the unvoted-on attributive-use rule; talk about people not doing policy work will not change that. If you want to enforce the attibutive-use rule, it is up to you to prove that it has a community support. Mere quoting of CFI does not prove consensus: you have to point to a vote or at least to a discussion in Beer parlour that documents the consensus. If you want get deleted things that only a minority of editors wants to get deleted, the political work of convincing the rest of editors is up to you. Those parts of CFI that have not been voted-on and clearly fail to achieve community support are illegitimate. --Dan Polansky 08:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These are all very interesting assertions. Most elements of how things are done around here have not been voted on in detail. Whatever the irregularities in the establishment of the rules there may have been, the fact that they have been in force makes them part of the status quo. w:Common law is an important element of culture in most English-speaking countries. Laws that have been in effect for some time do not cease to be in effect merely because it was discovered that there were irregularities in the law's enactment. There could be restriction of the franchise, corruption, mistaken drafting, etc, none of which invalidate a law that has been in force. A journalistic expose might lead to some process to change the law but does not itself change it. I have never disputed your research, just its consequences. DCDuring TALK 09:50, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Common law is something I have no firm grasp of. From what I have heard, common law is something about precedent-based regulation as contrasted to continental rule-based regulation. I have read about common law in Encyclopedia Britannica, 1911. EB1911 tells me that common law is contrasted to several things, including statute law. Wikipedia says: "Common law is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals (also called case law), rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action." From what I can see, CFI looks like a statute. It has been asserted that "it has been decided" that the attributive-use rule should be there. But my research has shown that it has not been decided. It seems that someone has managed to sell the community the idea that the rule is somehow well enacted, and the community has in part bought into it. I admit that the attributive-use rule has been accepted by various memebers of the community in their attempt to provide evidence according to the rule. I myself have tried to provide evidence to satisfy the rule in at least one case. But the reason I did so was that I thought that this was a well enacted rule. From what I can see, CFI has not much to do with common law, if anything at all. Given my constrained knowledge, I find the commmon-law argument that is supposed to let an unvoted-on unsupported rule overrule the community consensus implausible. But even if the argument was right in its claim that the analogy to common law is fitting—which I do not see, and it remains an analogy rather than a rock-solid piece of logical inference—, I still do not see how the argument could overrule the consensus principle of a Wikimedia wiki. --Dan Polansky 13:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There's a consensus to follow the guidelines. If you disagree, then please point out the vote where we decided to just let you ignore this one? —Michael Z. 2010-03-26 20:39 z
Re "There's a consensus to follow the guidelines": prove it. Prove that there is a consensus to stick to the letter of every single unvoted-on sentence of CFI. --Dan Polansky 10:03, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The rule has been there for over 7 years.[126] We still refer to it every day on RFV. Where's your evidence that there's consensus to drop this rule? —Michael Z. 2010-04-07 18:10 z

(<) Re "We still refer to it every day on RFV." We don't. The burden of proof is with you. The rule is illegitimate. --Dan Polansky 18:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~guardein~~
Rfv-sense. Old French. Since we classify Old French and Anglo-Norman as separate languages, this needs to be cited in both. Unfortunately nobody really knows what the difference between the two is, *sigh*. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well this seems to be attestable in English(!) as a historical term, also (deprecated template usage) Guardein in German as a variant of (deprecated template usage) Wardein. There are some uses of this in books with limited preview that seem to be Old or Middle French rather than Anglo-Norman, but without a date, how can they support one or the other? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:04, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Godefroy dictionary doesn't give this, oddly enough it only give (deprecated template usage) wardein with a 'w', not with a G. So maybe create that and dump this as (currently) unattestable. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~pseudocide~~
~~"An emotional death that leaves the body alive but barely functioning." Equinox ◑ 21:46, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
This was the only ever contribution of User:Dragonfire75, which included a third definition "killing something fake". The word's so silly that I'm not sure it can be cited - what is an "emotional death"? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure that the three quotations we have all support the same meaning. 'Pseudocide' on Google Books seems to represent a lot of meanings, almost like a protologism created separately by different people at different times with totally different meanings. Only one of the three supports the current definition unambiguously. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~espionage~~
~~Rfv-sense. There are three definitions:~~
The act or process of learning secret information through clandestine means.

Undercover work

Spying as reconnaissance
They look about the same to me and I would like to combine them into one. The translators would seem to agree. Only Chinese translations differ between definitions. --Hekaheka 02:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it, I would say. Ƿidsiþ 07:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seconded. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:55, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thirded. ---> Tooironic 12:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Done. --Hekaheka 18:06, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Bart~~
~~Rfv-sense. (British) a baronet. Note this is Bart, not bart. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:52, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Well, (deprecated template usage) Bart. (with a dot) is easily cited: do a b.g.c. search of your favorite baronet, plus "bart", restricting your search to full-view books, and you'll find plenty of examples. Capitalized seems to be more common than lowercase. Without the dot is much harder to cite (which surprises me; I had thought that Britons tended not to put a dot after abbreviations that end with the last letter of the word they abbreviate), but I think we have a tradition of excluding the final dot, anyway. —Ruakh_TALK 17:10, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bart(.) does sometimes appear in uppercase when not part of a title; see, e.g., google books:"walter scott" "a bart". It also appears in lowercase (same search).—msh210℠ 16:31, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Besserwisser~~
~~RFV English. Even if this is attestable, is it upper or lower case? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Seems a bit attestable FWIW. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:41, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~falsehood~~
~~Rfv-sense: The trait of a person who is mendacious and deceitful. (previously called "obscure") Not sense 1: the state of being false. DCDuring TALK 15:01, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Would you accept any of these? :
http://books.google.com/books?id=IqoYAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA170&dq=his-falsehood

http://books.google.com/books?id=PLYVM_9okGwC&pg=PA511&dq=his-falsehood

http://kingjbible.com/micah/2.htm

—Ruakh_TALK 15:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The definition means dishonety/deceitfulness, right? Overlap with the first definition "the state of being false" I'd have thought. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~I think it could be defined as "the state of being false", but it's nonetheless very different from the question of whether a statement is false. —Ruakh_TALK 17:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~(And actually, for people and statements both, it's less a "state" than a "property" or "quality".) —Ruakh_TALK 17:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
The first one might be arguable, but the others are clear. Do you think it is still in use currently in this sense?

Other dictionaries report as many as five senses, including (deprecated template usage) mendacity, only sometimes shown as obsolete.

Some make the distinction between "a false statement" and "something false; an untrue idea, belief, etc." Other senses are "lack of conformity to truth or fact" and "deception".

If we are to be merely a translating dictionary or aimed solely at earlier stage language learners, these kinds of distinctions may be more than can be supported. DCDuring TALK 18:54, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~ennoia~~
~~Not in any of my dictionaries. SemperBlotto 17:28, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Our entry looks like a copyvio of the definition given by Silva Rhetoricæ... — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 18:44, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
The definition didn't seem to fit usage, which are mostly transliterations of classical Greek (deprecated template usage) [script needed] (ennoia). Did Silva Rhetoricae nod? DCDuring TALK 21:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Nod? What do you mean? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~The phrase "Even Jove nods" means "everyone makes mistakes" (I can't remember why). SemperBlotto 16:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC) (oe was it Homer?)[reply]~~
~~OK, thanks for the explanation. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 18:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
We now have (deprecated template usage) even Jove nods and (deprecated template usage) even Homer nods (of which the former is an alteration). — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Deleted for copyright violation. Hopefully someone will write a new definition for it. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
I couldn't find any evidence of the term's use to mean a rhetorical figure. DCDuring seems to have been mostly right in his estimation. I've recreated the entry for the technical term which seems little better than a transliteration. Let me know what you think. Also note the use of (deprecated template usage) Ennoia as a proper name, often, it seems, as some sort of personification of (deprecated template usage) ennoia. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 18:45, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with the content of the entry, but I have never liked entries for transliterations. I am reminded of our practice on romanized Yiddish spellings. I had always hoped that the typography of italics or quotes meant that we were to ignore such in attestation. Is there usage without italics or quotation marks (or in glossaries or dictioanaries)? DCDuring TALK 18:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not really a big fan of them, either. Unfortunately, since gone are the days when academic writers would liberally intersperse their works with untransliterated terms and phrases from Template:Hebr, Template:polytonic, Template:Arab, and Template:Deva, today's readers are likely to encounter an obsure or untranslatable term already Romanised, without even a cursory mention of its form in the original script. Consequently, I feel that we should at least do something to help, and I can't really think of anything better than stubby "transliteration of" entries (though perhaps they should be Translingual). What do you think? Also, what is our "practice on romanized Yiddish spellings"? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:13, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We only include transliterated entries as English (Why not translingual?) if they are so attestable. I am unclear under what circumstances attestation is prevented by the typography (italics, quotation marks, etc). We do not show romanizations of Yiddish words as Yiddish, but show the Yiddish ancestor in the etymology. It doesn't seem entirely consistent, but I leave such matters to my betters. I find definition, etymology, and formatting of ordinary English words (not even proper nouns) and idioms more than challenging. DCDuring TALK 18:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find the line between a foreign term appearing transliterated in English text and a highly-unnaturalised English term of foreign origin extremely difficult to make out. IMO, italics are a really bad metric for this; for example, (deprecated template usage) nom de plume is almost always italicised, but it was formed in English. Furthermore, there are many terms which look like and are treated as if they were foreign, but which either don't exist in their supposed languages of origin or have taken on completely different meanings in English (for examples of these, see w:List of pseudo-French words adapted to English and w:List of pseudo-German words adapted to English, as well as w:Pseudo-anglicism for the same phenomenon in other languages). More absurd still, there are many situations where a commonly used foreign phrase in English is unidiomatic in the source language, which yields the utterly unhelpful and ludicrous outcome that we are barred from creating an entry for a term which frequently occurs in English and whose meaning no average Anglophone could be expected to guess. Whilst having entries for mere transliterations is somewhat undesirable, I see no better way of tackling this issue. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment on Doremítzwr's and DCDuring's hints that transliterations should perhaps be considered translingual: Words are transliterated not just into an alphabet but into the pronunciation of that alphabet in a certain language. Thus, the Hebrew word (deprecated template usage) ישיבה is transliterated "yeshiva" in English (where it hs already become a word) but, apparently, "jesiva" in Hungarian.—msh210℠ 16:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~evenhood~~
~~I am having trouble finding three uses of this. There are certainly more mentions than uses. DCDuring TALK 20:51, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
I can't find any unselfconscious uses on b.g.c.; though this one is O.K. per WT:CFI, and this one probably is (though snippet view makes it hard to be sure). But to be sure, I don't think all the mentions are actually wrong; rather, they seem to be updating the spelling and form of an old word spelled in an old way. ((deprecated template usage) Euenhede, for example, would have no difficulty meeting the CFI.) We are unusual, even among dictionaries, in our obsessive emphasis on spelling. —Ruakh_TALK 17:03, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A spelling like "euenhede" would seem to be attestable in Middle English at least. Such a spelling is more reliable than our sometime use of {{dated}} and other tags as indicating that a term is not used in current English. I found the mention of evenhood by the advocate of the use of Anglo-Saxon words in philosophy to be telling of its non-use. DCDuring TALK 19:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'd call that (deprecated template usage) evenhede on Wiktionary. I think we require three citations post 1470 for this to count as Modern English. Presumably if (deprecated template usage) evenhood is not attestable, the only uses of it must be a long time ago. The difference Ruakh, as you know, is that we allow all attestable spellings to have entries, whereas paper dictionaries and some online ones will just direct you to the most common spelling. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's part of the difference, yes, but not the relevant part. ;-) —Ruakh_TALK 16:11, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~blip off~~
~~(slang) To kill. Never heard of it. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:28, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Just another unattestable entry copied from allwords.com. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 08:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought they copied from us? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:26, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Give me tomorrow to try and cite this, otherwise it fails as unattestable. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~moto continuum~~
Note that google books:"moto continuum" yields only three English results (the rest are Spanish and/or Portuguese AFAICT), which I have now cited at Citations:moto continuum; of those, the 1982 and 2003 quotations may share a sense, but the sense of the 2008 quotation's use is definitely distinct. As such, this phrase would seem to fail the CFI's fourth attestation criterion.
The uses seem to mean more or less the same things as (deprecated template usage) perpetuum mobile and (deprecated template usage) moto perpetuo (respectively), and exist, I hypothesise, in confusion with the latter; (deprecated template usage) moto continuum seems to be an Italian–Latin hybrid. Searching for google books:"moto continuo" (Italianate) and google books:"motus continuus" (Latinate) yields far more results — both are very probably attestable in English.
— Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:45, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~needle~~
~~sense: "A weapon used in ancient China, and today by Shaolin monks." not mentioned in Wikipedia, and nothing obvious on google books. Polarpanda 22:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
It is. In Mandarin, it's called a 刺 (cì) meaing to prod or to prick and in this case used as a noun meaning a thin needle-like weapon. It's traditionally an assassin's weapon (hence the word 刺客 meaning assassin). One of the most respected needles is the Ermei needle. The wielder usually uses two needles, one in each hand when engaging in combat. The needle is about the length of a grown man's forearm. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 07:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well ,it sounds convincing to me -- but you need to show citations of people calling it a needle in English. Ƿidsiþ 08:05, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have now included a google book result for it as a citation with illustration of the actual weapon. Hope this helps. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 10:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weird... Wenlin only lists "①thorn; splinter ②〈wr.〉 visiting card" as noun definitions of 刺. I've certainly never heard "needle" used in English in this fashion and indeed Google Books does not yield anything convincing. 114.78.197.87 11:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had never heard of the word hoplon until I started to read about Roman history. If you keeping reading the book that I've provided as a citation on the entry's citation page, you will see a lot more words that you've never heard before. As authoritative as Wenlin can be as a dictionary, it will always have something missing. Here is a link from alibaba (a Chinese trading site) for a pair of Ermei needles. Keep in mind that because there aren't any similar weapons in English speaking cultures, the word needle to mean 刺 is only an approximation. There might be other translations of the word in English, but a needle is definitely the most common. P.S. I believe it's called a needle in English as it's originally called a 针. I hope it makes sense to you now. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 10:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think your citation reads The Emei Sting was originally called "Emei Needle" (Emei Zhen) which is something, but I believe only counts as a mention, not a usage. Polarpanda 11:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would imagine that most Chinese Kungfu novels such as 证魂道 have gone untranslated. So the actual use of this word in English is probably very rare. However a simple search should give you plenty of descriptions for this weapon: [127] w:Emei_Sect. (This is more for the anon - an article on w:zh:峨嵋刺, the most well-known needle on zh wiki.) Here is one that lists books on Kungfu and ancient Chinese weapons [128]. Unfortunately I do not have access to these books to show you any reference to the needles from different Kungfu sects, Ermei being one of them. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 13:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Here is another one about Bagua needles (used by Taoists - another Kungfu sect as well as a religious sect) Note that this is in pdf Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 13:32, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Sorry, the anon IP earlier was me (forgot to login). My implication wasn't that Wenlin is a golden standard or that my personal experience is gospel (of course, it isn't), I was merely making a general comment. Your evidence is convincing. I would keep this sense, provided you supply the required citations. Moreover, adding a (rare) tag wouldn't go astray. ---> Tooironic 14:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~überaffentittengeil~~
~~That word makes me kind of embarassed^[sic]. Additionally, it does not seem to be citable. -- Prince Kassad 23:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Almost unfindable on Google, less than 100 hits. Google Books, zero, Google Groups two. Looks like a likely fail, but feel free to try other sources. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~professorial~~
Rfv-sense: "In the capacity of a professor".
I thought just the other sense of "characteristic of or relating to a professor". DCDuring TALK 22:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one that added that meaning, according to the page history. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I split the recently added wording, with which I am not familiar, into a separate sense and also amended the base sense. If often do that kind of thing when only part of a definition seems wrong to me (and also not supported in other dictionaries) and where the words in the sense do not really amount to the same meaning or different shades thereof. In any event, it is the song, not the singer, that is at issue. DCDuring TALK 23:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you count things like google books:"his professorial duties"? That use could perhaps be defined as "relating to a professorship", but not IMHO as "relating to a professor". —Ruakh_TALK 16:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, I would. That just didn't strike me at the time, having just been working on (deprecated template usage) professorially, which would not usually relate to the position. My mind just isn't as flexible as it ought to be. DCDuring TALK 16:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~compass~~
Rfv-sense
"The chief end in all my labours is to vex the world rather than diert it; and if I could compass that design without hurting my own person or fortune, I would be the most indefatigable writer you have ever seen without reading" - Johnathon Swift in a letter to the Pope 29th September 1725, according to "Camelot Classic - Prose writing of Swift" chosen and arranged by Walter Lewin, 1886.
~~bluebonnet~~
~~"The traditional blue coloured version of the Scottish tam o'shanter hat." Google Books has one or two mentions but (as far as I could see) no uses. Equinox ◑ 11:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~bowled out~~
Listed as a noun. Even an adjective (which we don't have) would seem dubious, the only sense of this which is in widespread use would be {{past of|bowl out}} - which we also don't have. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Yes, I think it would be better as an adjective, and as the past of the verb to (deprecated template usage) bowl out - I'll do that. SemperBlotto 07:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Does this attestably prove out as an adjective? It seems like just a past/past part. DCDuring TALK 15:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would not include this word as an adjective as its meaning is not distinct from its verb counterpart. e.g. New Zealand have been bowled out for 167 (runs). (I know, should've been the Aussies :P). The first definition is dubious however. One could say: Taylor is out <pause> bowled for 49, just shy of a half-century. (ie. he's been dismissed and the method of dismissal is having had the ball hit his stumps), but not Taylor is bowled out for 49. - which makes no sense to me. So delete adjective sense(s).Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 08:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't seem to be an adjective, just use of the passive voice. Still, a month won't do any harm, it's not patent nonsense or an attack page (which we do get here at RFV). Mglovesfun (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~April 2010~~
~~tatkal~~
~~Both verb and noun. -- 124.171.169.189 07:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~bruno~~
~~English. A tough guy. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~the book is on the table~~
~~I'm rather fascinated by this Portguese phrase. Would love to know how it's used. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 17:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~I love you~~
~~I'm fascinated how this is Portuguese. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 20:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
I'm removing this (and above) because... using an English sentence in the writing of another language doesn't make it part of that language. This is just...ugh. :) — [ R·I·C ] opiaterein — 22:33, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd consider it Portuguese if it's used in Portuguese context. --Yair rand 00:10, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~ostrich~~
~~Rfv-sense. "In golf, a five under par. This is a tentative name, and has never actually been achieved."~~
This should be fun. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Par_%28score%29#Ostrich also, we have entries for condor and albatross as four under par, and three under par respectively, so this should be included too.
Wiktionary inclusion rules usually don't work that way. See WT:CFI. We typically require three suitable quotes from durably-archived published sources to justify an entry. A term for a hypothetical situation can be included (such as a wormhole or unicorn), but it still need to be a term that is demonstrably used in publications. --EncycloPetey 03:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Euro-wasp~~
~~"(British) An aggressive European wasp, Dolichovespula media". Equinox ◑ 14:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Cited. (is two enough?) SemperBlotto 17:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Three. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added a third. Are you happy now? SemperBlotto 07:06, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:24, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~reserve~~
~~The sense "To serve again (e.g. a tennis ball)" at the Verb section. Other word may be utilized; "to have a second serve," etc. --Eveningmist 17:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
If we keep this sense then it should be under a separate pronunciation (and etymology?). I would always write re-serve, but the modern trend to omit even essential hyphens seems unstoppable. Dbfirs 13:49, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~portulent~~
~~Sense 1: anticipating alcohol. Equinox ◑ 22:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Tosh - not even defined as an adjective. Remove SemperBlotto 07:07, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Yet another) bad transwiki that probably should have been deleted on sight. However since it's here, let's try and cite it. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've had a go, and found absolutely nothing. Google Books, News, Groups and Scholar all turn up zero relevant uses. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:56, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fails, zero citations found after a month. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:38, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
r̃
~~Rfv-sense: Hausa section. Never seen nor heard of this. -- Prince Kassad 22:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~rolling~~
~~Rfv-sense: Being under the influence of the psychedelic stimulant MDMA (aka "Ecstasy"). Note we don't have a verb sense for this at role. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:11, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~weohrtan~~
~~Tagged but not listed. Old English "to become". --EncycloPetey 03:16, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
The etymology of (deprecated template usage) weird gives (deprecated template usage) weorþan as its etymon, not this. Incredibly rare so Google, although Old English did disappear quite a while before Google was invented. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~intellectual philanthropy~~
~~Is this more than sum-of-parts? Spam? SemperBlotto 15:20, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~kleidershrank~~
~~Mutante has expressed doubts. —Ruakh_TALK 21:00, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Can't find any reference to either schrank as a piece of furniture or kleidershrank when searching in Dutch on google. Maybe a cite or two from the author would help. An equivalent term in Dutch would probably be klerenkast. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 04:54, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~true~~
~~(Noun) "The fitment of a part in a machine such that their axes coincide". Not really sure what this is saying, but it looks fishy to me. Polarpanda 19:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Because it's ungrammatical. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Perhaps it's meant to be an adjective. Chambers has "accurately adjusted or in tune" and "straight or flat." Pingku 19:56, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~What's ungrammatical about it? —Ruakh_TALK 20:06, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~We don't have a definition of fitment for the implied sense of "an act of fitting." Even if we did, I'd struggle connecting it with a noun sense of "true". Pingku 20:24, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
... and certainly not "plural only". Can anyone find usage of "a true" or "trues" in this sense? I would guess that there will be occasional such use, in which case we need to move the "plural only" and change "fitment" to "fitting". Dbfirs 20:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~On reflection, it's grammatical but poorly worded. Looks like the work of a non-native English speaker. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Hasn't anyone ever heard of something being "out of true" or "in true"? I am not sure that the word is currently in general use in the sense intended outside of those terms.

The word fitment does not appear in COCA, and does appear in BNC. As a UK term it ought not be in the definition.

Would "alignment" be an adequate synonym? DCDuring TALK 23:16, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guess a dated or rare British word, I've absolutely never heard of it. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:18, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are your referring to "true" in this sense or to "fitment"? DCDuring TALK 15:57, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Citations added for the "alignment" sense. All of them actually "out of true." Pingku 12:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't found any valid citations for "into true" or "in true".
I have inserted an RfV-sense tag for the sense of "true": those who are loyal or faithful. This seems like an elliptical construction that is possible for almost any sense of any adjective. I believe that no use can be found where there is not a specific omitted referent. consider the following:
"There was an imbalance between true and false answers. The true constituted 54% of the total.
~~-- DCDuring TALK 15:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
DCDuring, I've never heard of fitment in any context. Any UK people actually heard this or seen it in use? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are 21 hits for the word at BYU's BNC. I didn't check for the sense. It is in some dictionaries. It seems real, but a very poor choice of word to use in a definition. DCDuring TALK 16:33, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't implying it wasn't real, just that it's likely to be rare, or dated. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think "fitment" is more common in the UK than "true" in the questioned sense (especially in the sense of a part to be fitted), but I agree that it is not a suitable word to use in the definition. Dbfirs 21:52, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~xinwen~~
~~A non-standard entry (anon user: 91.104.40.130), missing traditional, not sure about toneless pinyin. --Anatoli 02:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Same user's new enries: Muqinjie, Fuqinjie, tufaxinwen. --Anatoli 02:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what to do with him. We keep blocking his IP's, but everytime he comes back with a different IP. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 02:30, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thanks. Is it 123abc striking again? --Anatoli 02:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What are we verifying here? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure about our rules for inclusion of toneless pinyin. If not allowed, then the entries should be deleted if they are allowed - need to be fixed. I don't see much value in having pinyin entries, though. The pesky user appeared as 91.106.51.144 today. I blocked him (those who know how many warnings he was given, will understand why). --Anatoli 02:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Does anybody want to keep these entries? New ones are tufashangma, shangma and huaxinluobo. --Anatoli 02:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~All I'm going to say is these entries are doing my head in and we really need someone talented to draw up a proposal to exclude such useless entries. ---> Tooironic 06:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~abuse~~
Rfv-sense: Sexual assault; violation; rape.
Do we really think it's valid to say that abuse (by itself) means "sexual assault"? To me this sounds wrong, like, for example, saying that 'excitement' necessarily means 'sexual excitement'. (Same problem with verb sense 3.) --TyrS 14:41, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Without a modifier, I can't think of a situation where use would be that specific. --EncycloPetey 18:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this more a case of semantics (if that's the right word). If you make it clear that you're talking about sexual abuse, you can then keep saying 'abuse' and the listener will understand. In the same way that at a soccer game, 'player' will refer to soccer player. Hence, I'm not sure what sort of citation we should be looking for. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~intern~~
~~Dutch portion - noun definitions. Can a Dutch native speaker confirm this? I have no idea where Verbo got these defs from. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 23:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~outro~~
This request is a bit different from most. I have no doubt the word is used (having heard it used), but would like to use it as WOTD. For this, I think it ought to have a really good selection of citations, since it's of relatively recent coinage. I am also uncertain whether the two definitions are in fact distinct, since I've also heard this used in reference to on-line videos. So: (1) Could people help to add really good citations? (2) Is there one sense or two? --EncycloPetey 04:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem that well over 95% of the finds are about music. I put one new one into the entry. I also found one cite that I don't feel is a "quality" addition, which mentions "Benny Hill's weekly sexual-harassment-lawsuit-waiting-to-happen outro sequence." in a piece about 70's tv progs. Also I found one about magazines - "That's not to denigrate the many magazines that are put together this way - most of them are extremely intricate and incredibly hard-working - it's just that they sometimes feel like one long intro section. Or one long intro section that seamlessly bleeds into an outro section." This you can find here if you think it is useful. -- ALGRIF talk 14:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Thanks! --EncycloPetey 14:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~cockscomb~~
Rfv-sense A serrated cleat once fitted to the yards of a square-rigged ship and used when the sail was being reefed.
I'm unable to confirm this sense in my ready-to-hand references (Smyth 1867, Layton 1982). cockscombing (rope fancywork on cylindrical items such as spars or or rails), coxcomb (alternative term for cockswain), and several nautical senses of comb (especially, a fitting or timber through which various lines are rove or stoppered.) Nautical jargon being what it is, being unable to find it in my references isn't saying much, but can anyone else find a citation? - Amgine/^talk 14:41, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~rake~~
Rfv-sense jut out (ship’s bow or stern above keel)
Uhm... The portions of the hull on either end extending beyond the keel are the rakes, but that's a noun. A verb sense is to place out of square or out of plumb, especially at an acute angle, such as the bowsprit or masts which are often raked back or up (or, in some rigs such as the junk, raked forward). There's also the nautical sense of canonading so the shot ranges in the direction of her whole length (similar to enfilade, only afloat). (Overhangs/counters might be described as rakish as well, implying strength or speed, but I think this sense is pretty much wrong.) - Amgine/^talk 21:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Tetris~~
Proper noun: “A puzzle video game in which falling tetrominoes must be manipulated to form complete lines, which are then cleared from the grid.” The sole citation is not an attributive use: “a Tetris-like arrangement.”
Noun: “(by extension) The act of clearing four lines at once (the maximum possible) in Tetris.” No citations.
Tetris is a trademark of the Tetris Company LLC. WT:BRAND should apply. —Michael Z. 2010-04-09 04:37 z
Instead of continually asking everyone else to cite these proper noun entries, why not start doing it yourself? You obviously have a strong interest in them. I do want to commend you, though, for the hard work you've put in to make sure we have really great entries on all these proper nouns. They will likely end up being the best-cited and best-written entries on Wiktionary because of your tireless efforts. Your many nominations have pulled much of the community together to work on these entries above all others. Kudos! --EncycloPetey 04:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Proper noun now cited. --EncycloPetey 04:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
“Tetris-like arrangement” is not an attributive use (unless you want to add Tetris-like to the dictionary). —Michael Z. 2010-04-10 04:04 z
Since it implies a very specific sort of arrangement, it confers attributes of Tetris onto the arrangement. It is also part of the noun phrase for arrangement, as required by the grammatical definition of attributive. This is therefore attributive use, by the very definition of attributive. The suffix -like conveys no additional meaning; one could get the same meaning from Tetris arrangement. How much effort have you put into citing? --EncycloPetey 04:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None, because I didn't think this belongs in the dictionary. Do you have a citation for “Tetris arrangement?” Because CFI calls for attributive citations, not attributive-like. —Michael Z. 2010-04-10 06:33 z
Sigh, so you didn't do any research yourself, and misread CFI as well. The attributive use criterion only applies to names of specific entities, like persons and places. It does not apply to brands and isn't mentioned until after the section for brands. --EncycloPetey 06:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~I've had a go at doing the common noun, but they might not meet WT:BRAND. There are plenty more out there on Usenet though. Equinox ◑ 12:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Looks like this one is only used in the plural. —Michael Z. 2010-04-10 04:03 z
What makes you think that? It's more likely an artifact of Equinox's search methods. I've added a citation for the singular. Did you even try to look for cites yourself? --EncycloPetey 04:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you guys were done. Should I always check your work? —Michael Z. 2010-04-10 06:27 z
Why, exactly did you think we were "done", since no one claimed we were? Why did you assume that the three citations provided for the common noun were 100% representative of the entire population of cites? Why are you surprised to find that a sample of three citations chosen to meet arbitrary selection criteria aren't randomly selected? Seems like you're making a lot of unwarranted assumptions without any basis. And what work needs to be "checked"? For what? You haven't done any work on this entry before, so why start now? --EncycloPetey 06:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I was subtly urging you guys on to victory. Sorry to annoy you. Regards and good night. —Michael Z. 2010-04-10 06:52 z
~~eccentricate~~
~~Added as an anonymous one-liner. I've cleaned it up, but am not sure it's attestable. Equinox ◑ 15:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Eccentricated is attested, I think, and seems to be either an adjective (having eccentricity, of an ellipse or the like) or a participle (made to have eccentricity), but I'm not sure which. This uses it in "have been eccentricated from": does that make it a verb? DCDuring? this is invisible to me, but the search-result page's snippet reads " […] Milton cramps with hard words and eccentricates by […] ", fwiw. Usenet shows but three hits, in none of which do I understand what the word means: [129], [130], [131].—msh210℠ 17:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~guilter~~
~~Protologism? SemperBlotto 16:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Lot's of Google Book hits, but not sure if any support this sense. Guilter is attestable as a family name. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~knapik~~
~~"a thin, crisp biscuit.". Mglovesfun (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~round~~
~~Rfv-sense: "Of an angle, measuring 360 degrees". Is this ever used in any form except as the set phrase round angle? --EncycloPetey 03:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~reflex~~
~~Rfv-sense: "Of an angle, greater than 180 degrees but less than 360 degrees". Is this ever used in any form besides the set phrase reflex angle? --EncycloPetey 03:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Does that matter? (An overwhelmingly common usage is not the same as a set phrase.) The meaning of reflex is in the word reflex, demonstrated pretty well by “an angle is convex if it is not reflex.” —Michael Z. 2010-04-10 05:35 z
Please note that some of the added quotes (e.g. reflex edge, reflex vertices) do not apply to the single geometrical definition in the entry. Either the definition needs revision, or else some of these quotes pertain to other senses not yet defined. Also, the 1895 quote is defining the term, not using it, and so does not qualify under CFI. Only the 1878 and 2001 quotes look to support the current definition. --EncycloPetey 05:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1895 is defining which term, reflex or reflex angle? —Michael Z. 2010-04-10 06:15 z
Why shouldn't 1958 (“the dihedral angle is reflex”) apply to the definition? —Michael Z. 2010-04-10 06:18 z
~~Because it's a three-dimensional quantity that is measured in a different way than a two-dimensional angle. --EncycloPetey 06:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
No, it's a simple two-dimensional angle between two three-dimensional surfaces, measured on the plane perpendicular to the edge where the surfaces meet (in this case, it's a reflex edge). —Michael Z. 2010-04-10 15:04 z
Perhaps the citations indicate a correct definition like “subtending greater than 180 degrees but less than 360 degrees of arc (usually, of an angle).” —Michael Z. 2010-04-10 06:23 z
~~That could work for just about everything except "reflex edge", but that might just be an aberrant usage. --EncycloPetey 06:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Then “subtending greater than 180 degrees but less than 360 degrees of arc on a plane (usually, of an angle),” might work. That might be technically pedantic, since angles are normally measured thus. Reflex edge seems to be a normal phrase in 3-d geometry. —Michael Z. 2010-04-10 14:55 z
Another way to define this could be “of an angle, ... or having such an angle.” —Michael Z. 2010-04-10 15:40 z
1992[132]
If the two faces form a local concavity (i.e. if their common edge is a reflex edge of the front) then they are likely to be part of the same tetrahedron.

1993[133]
Here a reflex edge is defined as an edge e whose two adjacent faces lie on the same side of the vertical plane passing through e (this restricted definition of reflex edges excludes in practice most concave edges of free space and thus makes the system construct far fewer cells than would otherwise be required).

2007 [with diagram][134]
The triangular base of the prism is twisted so that each of the three rectangular faces fold into two triangular faces with a reflex edge between them.

2008 [with diagram][135]
Each of the three square faces is broken along a diagonal reflex edge (an edge at which the polyhedron is locally nonconvex) and two triangular faces.
~~2-d reflex edges:~~
2003[136]
If P has no reflex edges, then P is cuttable by a circular saw, so any blueprint is valid.
Perhaps, but most of these seem to have to define what a reflex edge is. I'm more inclined to think that reflex edge deserves a separate entry with a 3-D definition, because the angle has to be "between two polyhedral faces with its vertex on the edge", rather than "an edge of a polygon where one (or both) of the angles with vertex at the segment's endpoints is reflex". --EncycloPetey 16:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I cited those to illustrate the meaning of reflex, but I think they all use the term too, except arguably 1993. Maybe reflex edge could be defined, although it could also refer, e.g., to the interface of intersecting planes; it just happens that in problem-solving for modelling, etc., geometricians deal with polygons with common vertices. —Michael Z. 2010-04-10 16:48 z
~~response time~~
~~Sum of parts. Definition is wrong. SemperBlotto 07:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Hmm. The definition is certainly too narrow, but I'm not sure this is really sum of parts. Consider that it could mean "the time when it is necessary to respond" or "the time at which a response is made" or "the time during which responses are accepted". What it actually refers to is the time elapsed between some action and the response necessitated by that action, such as the time it takes for paramedics to reach an accident after an emergency call is placed, or the measured time in a sensory test between the application of the stimulus and the response of the subject. --EncycloPetey 07:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with EP here. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the earliest clear-cut citations from bgc and news that I found (poor dating and too many hits to do the same on scholar). The term seems idiomatic, clearly used almost exclusively with a rather specific meaning. Other dictionaries have varied treatment, many omitting it, some having only one or two supposedly context-specific senses, some having a single unrestricted sense. Early use seems to be about the response of human subjects in the context of medicine, psychology, or education. I think we should start with a generally worded sense and then consider whether there is anything about the term's use in a specific context that merits specialization. The language of 'stimulus' and 'response' of a 'system' seems natural to us now, but wouldn't do full justice to earlier use, IMO. OTOH most of the context-specific use is well captured by differences in what are usually deemed stimuli, a responses, and systems in each context. DCDuring TALK 14:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~OK - I've improved the computing sense, and added some more senses. Looks reasonable now, but could do with more quotes. SemperBlotto 15:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Fabs~~
Just found this while updating some templates. I wasn't sure to rfd, rfv or rfc it, so I brought it here. Which of our criteria does this meet, if any? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None - it should be the Fab Four. SemperBlotto
If one does, the other probably does too, right? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. Equinox ◑ 15:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on, I'd compare it to Spidey, an informal nickname for a specific entry. Do these entries meet our criteria simply by being attestable? If yes, great, no complaints from me. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reminds me of the recent Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion#iTouch; similar terms include (deprecated template usage) Ab Fab, (deprecated template usage) Apop, (deprecated template usage) Mickey D, and (deprecated template usage) Codies. However, since this has been brought to RFV, it only needs attestation, and I've shown that it is actually used. Equinox ◑ 15:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend keep. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:02, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cited and kept. Anyone objecting to its inclusion, rather than its attestability, should open a new RFD. Equinox ◑ 17:58, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~peasiewheep~~
~~"Lapwing" in Eastern Scotland. Equinox ◑ 18:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~meiwe~~
Supposed to be Japanese for "multiply". IIRC, we do include attested transliterations of Japanese for some reason, but this doesn't seem to be. (BTW, is this the verb "multiply", or the adverb?) —Ruakh_TALK 20:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~It's junk. "we" isn't even possible in modern Japanese. Polarpanda 20:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Well, /we/ and [we] aren't possible, but my understanding was that <we> is nonetheless possible in transliterations (to distinguish ゑ from え). Is that not so? —Ruakh_TALK 22:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~That was also my understanding. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 14:36, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~ueber~~
~~English: "An alternative spelling of uber that takes into account the umlaut of the German über." Equinox ◑ 23:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
I've only seen this done in electronic catalgos of libraries, where the umlaut is transcribed as a following-e. In that situation, this is used in German titles though, and not as an English word. --EncycloPetey 14:34, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~absent-minded professor~~
~~This entry was removed from the list of wanted entries by Doremítzwr. So I'd like to know if it is attestable, if possible. --Daniel. 00:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Widespread use. DCDuring TALK 00:27, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Agree with DCDuring. A quick google search shows this term to be easily attestable (which is not to say I'm actually going to take the trouble to do so :-P). It is also idiomatic. An absent-minded professor need not be a professor (although they are generally absent-minded). -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 08:09, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It behooves the person making the entry to take the trouble to cite it or find support from other dictionaries. RfV does not exist to get other people to do work for one's own entry. DCDuring TALK 10:12, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, it depends on whether people are willing to verify a term proposed; I'd appreciate if someone got citations for absent-minded professor despite the fact that I created that entry. Anyway, DCDuring, if your statement were strictly true, RFV probably would not exist because we could simply ask for attestation on the talk page of each respective creator. :) --Daniel. 10:55, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sense 1 (with quotations) and Sense 2 in a trustworthy (IMO) dictionary. la la means I love you 18:04, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Three citations added to the entry. bd2412 T 19:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The literal sense is SoP. It's the other sense that wants citing IMO. The standard citation ("Oh, John is such an absent-minded professor") is most readily construed as a metaphoric use of the first sense. I'm not sure we should have this entry at all.—msh210℠ 21:53, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What would constitute a good citation of a common noun phrase for figurative use? If metaphoric use doesn't count, than there are many senses of many words that should be deleted, eg head. I find it easier to simply disqualify any citation that is more nearly marked as a simile by use of a word like (deprecated template usage) such or (deprecated template usage) like. (In principle, there may some similes that would be idiomatic.) Are there some other practical criteria? DCDuring TALK 22:51, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, "John is an absent-minded professor" admits the metaphoric sense IMO, but not "John is such an...". Sorry for not making that clear. I also didn't Google the former, and was assuming it's not attestable. I may well be wrong.—msh210℠ 23:00, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that all of the citations we have and the 22 hits at COCA are in the context of a role, image, character, caricature, resemblance or other marker of a simile. DCDuring TALK 23:06, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is all of what Google makes available of a mention of the term:
Lua error in Module:quote at line 2659: Parameter "indent2" is not used by this template.

Take a look at the citations. They are the only 3 of the first 170 at bgc that didn't have an obvious marker of simile, IMO. DCDuring TALK 23:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is "is a ... before his time" not a simile? (That's from the Hallowell quote.) And the West quote seems to be using the phrase literally, no?—msh210℠ 00:08, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are probably right about the Hallowell. In the West, I actually missed that Oak is a professor, though it is right there in the cite. I found 2 others and could probably find more. The question is whether there is any need to jump through such hoops when most of our contributors don't seem to think it worthwhile to exclude such collocations. We have folks who are flummoxed by the attributive-use standard for proper names as well. Is this just a long run for a short slide? The dictionary-evaluation book seems to consider stereotypes worth considering for inclusion. Should all attestable stereotypes be deemed includable on "cultural" grounds for non-natives? If so, why do we exclude company and brand names which are about as significant culturally? DCDuring TALK 00:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re your cites, thanks for the work, and I'm glad to consider this cited. Re whether they're necessary... well, I think so, and AFAICT you (DCDuring) think so, so.... Personally I think that cites of the kind I pushed for, and you've found, here, are necessary for all exemplars, like this one, and like pancake (of flatness), board (of flatness), rail (of thinness), etc. Any exemplar without such citations (that is, with only simile citations) otherwise inclusible should have a usage note saying what it's an exemplar of, but that's it. Just MHO.—msh210℠ 00:42, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Passed.—msh210℠ 19:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~nearhand~~
I don't understand the logic of this being analyzed as a preposition rather than an adverb. It might be more compelling if there were citations that showed it in use followed by a simple noun as an object rather than preceded by a word like "there", which is the only candidate for object AFAICT. The citation given is also for (deprecated template usage) nerehonde, not the headword. DCDuring TALK 15:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now cited more fully. I think it's fairly well-established practice that spelling variants can (and should) illustrate the lemma form as well as the specific form in question. Otherwise half our words would seem to spring into existence a couple of hundred years ago. Ƿidsiþ 19:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The 2 new citations seem perfect. I still don't see that the post-positioned use has to be a preposition rather than an adverb. Were post-positioned prepositions common in Early Modern English or in Middle English? It would seem suspect if the only instances of postpositioned use were after words, like "there", analyzable as adverbs. It might be worth noting something about postpositioned prepositions, especially if there are peculiarities to EME or some other vintages of English, both in a usage note and possibly in an Appendix on EME. (WP's EME article doesn't cover this.) I wouldn't be surprised to find others who share my botheration at this. DCDuring TALK 20:19, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you could probably interpret it as an adverb in that sentence if you wanted. Ƿidsiþ 06:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~hack~~
hack#Adjective, shown as not comparable. I believe that this is only attributive use of the noun. It would need cites showing it as comparable or gradable or appearing after "become". See Talk:hack and Wiktionary:English adjectives. DCDuring TALK 17:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~double file~~
~~The creator of the entry labels this word as "English", but says its used mostly in France. I find that very strange. --EncycloPetey 02:48, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
It looks like SoP to me. Also, user says it is uncountable, then gives an example in the plural. Very strange. SemperBlotto 07:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We do have single file, however. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:25, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~The example in the plural was added by EP. —Ruakh_TALK 11:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Cited IMHO. —Ruakh_TALK 11:59, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:01, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks SoP to me.—msh210℠ 16:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant it looks good (as in cited), it does seem to be SoP but we might need some usage notes under (deprecated template usage) file. 91.107.174.32 23:12, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~semper-~~
~~Listed as an English prefix. Are there any examples of English words using this prefix? --Rising Sun talk? contributions 09:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
The OED lists (deprecated template usage) semper-annual, (deprecated template usage) semper-green, (deprecated template usage) semper-identical, (deprecated template usage) semper-juvenescent, and (deprecated template usage) semper-lenity as derivations and (deprecated template usage) sempervirent, (deprecated template usage) sempervirid, (deprecated template usage) sempervive, (deprecated template usage) semper-vivens, and (deprecated template usage) sempervivum as terms closely related to the prefix, but not formed with it. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 11:44, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~बंगलूर~~
~~Apparently Hindi for Bangalore - but the Wikipedia link given is a dead end. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 09:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Both names are used in Hindi, बंगलोर (baṅgalor) and बंगलूर (baṅgalūr). I believe that baṅgalor is the traditional spelling in Hindi, and baṅgalūr represents the new name, closer to the Kannada. —Stephen 09:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~TFTC~~
~~What does this even mean? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:34, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~According to google:"tftc", it's a Geocaching term. Dunno if it'll meet the CFI, though. —Ruakh_TALK 19:37, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Since its use is restricted to one particular game, I can't see how it belongs anywhere other than an appendix. Dbfirs 20:31, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Well, we have terms that are specific to chess and to Monopoly; and geocaching is more than just a "narrow community"; so if someone can cite it, then I think it should stay. If. —Ruakh_TALK 01:16, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Shuhrat~~
~~Seems to be only in transliteration, not in English. (If kept, the inflection line needs checking.)—msh210℠ 18:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~sparsile~~
~~Defined as noun, listed as an adj., not seeing hits, but one mention says it's a star not in a constellation, so I'm listing it here just in case.—msh210℠ 18:37, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Yes. I've changed definition to match that in the OED. Citations will be hard to find though. SemperBlotto 07:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~bourrèe~~
~~I'm betting this is a 'misspelling of 'bourrée'. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Yes, it's a misspelling. Lmaltier 16:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Deleted. Equinox ◑ 17:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~iPad~~
~~アイパッド~~
~~iPads~~
~~I can't imagine this will pass, since we need cites independent of Apple spanning three years, and the referent was released to the public in 2010.—msh210℠ 17:59, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~See also Special:Contributions/Jagne.—msh210℠ 18:02, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
iPad is a name used for several pads of the iAge:
iMaccessories iPad game controller,[137] attested in 1999.[138]

Netpliance's i-Opener included a component called the IPAD, attested in 2000.[139]

LG's Digital iPad, a linux tablet, is mentioned in 2001.[140][141][142]

A 2005 ad for tablet computers in Business Review Weekly[143] has the phrase “Associates also use the iPAD devices to scan any out-of-stock items each ...” but I can't tell what it's about.

Apple's iPad was speculatively mentioned by that name as early as 2005, published in Business Venezuela[144], and archived in full on the net “Indeed, a Technorati search turned up a blog revealing mockups of an iPad, a tablet PC-like device.”[145]
I found these by searching for iPad tablet. There may be more. We may be able to write a generic definition to describe the early history of the name. —Michael Z. 2010-04-15 17:04 z
Should we have an entry for the i- prefix? —Michael Z. 2010-04-15 17:21 z
The prefix seems like an excellent candidate. Not so sure about the generalized iPad idea. DCDuring TALK 21:06, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I gave a stab at a sense of i-. Needs generic quotations. —Michael Z. 2010-04-18 22:23 z
~~Son House~~
~~Can we get two more citations? --EncycloPetey 03:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Still working on this. No luck yet. I just put in a request at the Wikipedia help desk, maybe they will turn something up. I refuse to believe that King just made this up. Herostratus 04:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As soon as the ice broke up I received a copy of The Stephen King Encyclopedia that I had ordered, but there's nothing helpful in that. I have not been able to get any more citations, so I give up, I guess. Herostratus 22:03, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Milton Keynes~~
~~Shenzhen was deleted for no citations, I would like to see if Wiktionarians care more about places in their home countries. Polarpanda 11:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Citations added. Stop wasting people's time. SemperBlotto 07:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
The attributive-use standard requires that the citations illustrate a use that does not simply point to the referent. Thus a "Milton Keynes resident" is merely a resident of Milton Keynes. A usage such as "The Rouse Company built two Milton Keynes developments called Columbia, Maryland and Reston, Virginia." is the kind of attributive use that the "attributive use" standard was intended to include. In that example the term "Milton Keynes" is used attributively and not to refer to Milton Keynes but to suggest that the developments have a constellation of characteristics reminiscent of Milton Keynes.

Whether a usage such as "Columbia, Maryland is an American Milton Keynes." or "Columbia, Maryland is a Milton Keynes-type development." should also count would be an interesting question if we keep the attributive-use standard for non-referential (non-encyclopedic) senses.

I mention this because some seem to or claim to find the attributive-use standard completely unintelligible. That was in the context of trying to include only non-encyclopedic material, admittedly at a loss of toponymic information, such as etymology, pronunciation, and translation/transliteration. DCDuring TALK 11:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~unownable~~
RfV-sense for "That cannot be owned; that cannot be overwhelmed or embarrassed by anyone."
Since I couldn't find any durably-archived uses of *(deprecated template usage) unpwnable after a cursory search, I also doubt that any (or at least many) will be found of (deprecated template usage) unownable in this sense. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:03, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
well, I've got one cite so far. Anyone?—msh210℠ 16:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why are two senses combined in one line? How could a normal user not think there was something shoddy about our work? Most of the usage will almost certainly be of the boringly conventional sense. Was a contributor trying to avoid the need to separately cite the novel sense? DCDuring TALK 20:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~kawaiify~~
0 b.g.c. or Google-groups hits for any of this proposed verb's conjugated forms. These requested terms should not be requested, let alone created, if they cannot satisfy the CFI. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 19:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Equinox ◑ 17:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~kleintje~~
Is this word really an adjective? I know it only as a noun, and I've never heard of any of the senses listed under the adjective heading. Some examples would be nice. —CodeCat 10:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~steakburger~~
Rfv-sense: A burger containing unground steak rather than a patty.
I think this only refers to a better-than-expected hamburger, eg, one made from a better cut of beef. There was a court case c. 2004 which seems to consistent with my definition (now added), but not wholly inconsistent with other uses of the term. DCDuring TALK 18:29, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The contested definition is precisely what I would expect if I ordered a steakburger. If I was given a patty I'd think there was a mistake made. Perhaps this is a regional variation?--Dmol 23:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There could certainly be regional usage variation. In what regions have you ordered a steakburger? In the US we have "steak sandwich" (and, narrowly, "Philly cheesesteak") that would that definition in places I've been. I have seen no documentary evidence for the challenged sense and no regional context was offered. DCDuring TALK 02:04, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a couple of recipes with fillet steak rather than ground meat. [146], [147], --Dmol 13:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are for "steak burger" not "steakburger". They are not durably archived sources. An RfV is about attestation. There should be usage in cookbooks and newspapers if this usage is widespread. DCDuring TALK 15:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my part of Canada, I have seen steakburger as being the sense provided. I have also seen it spelled as steak burger. The burger in question uses either a sub bun or a burger bun with a single piece of thinly sliced steak. While a steak sandwich looks more like a London steak on a bun. On the other hand, I have seen a ground beef patty burger also called a steak burger, because it used premium beef. 76.66.193.224 07:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~meh~~
"Used to express a mild disagreement where the person does not have either the solid foundation to actually argue a point, or does not feel the argument is worth pursuing any further." The second part ("does not feel...worth pursuing") is sense 1, i.e. apathy or boredom; the first part ("mild disagreement") I doubt. Citations? Equinox ◑ 22:42, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~I think it's either redundant to the first definition, or just totally wrong Mglovesfun 23:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
I've heard it used basically like that. Synonyms include (deprecated template usage) piffle and (deprecated template usage) details, details. Dunno how one would set about citing it. —Ruakh_TALK 04:12, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well (deprecated template usage) meh is really just a generic little onomatopoeia, right? I suspect there aren't two distinct definitions for this. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:02, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~colourable~~
~~Rfv-sense: that can be coloured. Not in my dictionaries, but could well be out there. Ƿidsiþ 08:00, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Isn't this just colorable? Do we really need two distinct pages for these? In any case, I can find a few senses on the open web of colourable colouring books, but the only hits in b.g.c. are for colourable (or colorable) graphs, which is "that can be coloured" but arguably a more narrow definition.--Prosfilaes 14:37, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah: "Authors, in general, have denominated the matter which, in these experiments, affords colour, the colouring parts of the vegetable. This matter, however, is not itself coloured, but is only capable of exhibiting colours, by the addition of other matters : and hence we have ventured to call it the colourable, rather than the colouring parts of the plant, by which we merely indicate its property of becoming coloured, but not its actual possession of colour." Farther inquiries into the changes induced on atmospheric air, by the germination of seeds, the vegetation of plants, and the respiration of animals, Daniel Ellis, 1811, pg. 117[148] or "The colouring material is totally soluble in water, and can be extracted from the ligneous matter by repeated decoctions or infusion. It exists in the wood in an almost colourless state, or at least its colour is only a pale yellow, but on coming into contact with air this hue becomes gradually darker, and at last red-brown. There appears to be slow oxidation of colourable matter to form a real pigment." A practical handbook of dyeing and calico-printing, Sir William Crookes, 1874, pg. 333[149]--Prosfilaes 14:47, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We would be much obliged if you could insert the complete citations in the entry in one of the appropriate places, using {{quote-books}} or otherwise conforming to the format. It is one excellent way to contribute to Wiktionary.

We usually have entries for all spellings. If there are no differences in sense etc one of the entries (usually the first common spelling entered) becomes the main entry with the other spellings being alternative spellings. DCDuring TALK 15:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are there citations available for the added senses of "plausible, covert and pretended"? Dbfirs 19:39, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For what little it's worth, they were added from colored, on the presumption they were different spellings of the same word.--Prosfilaes 01:12, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~dead dog~~
~~RFVs for four senses (the first three are nominal, the fourth is adjectival):~~
(obsolete) A thing of little or no value.
This sense already has a supporting citation from "1 Samuel XXIV, 14". Since the Bible is pretty obviously a well-known work, does that mean that this sense passes by satisfying the second criterion for inclusion?

(at a party or similar event) The last bottle of alcoholic drink yet to be deprived of its contents.

A trite or dull subject of discussion or consideration.

(of an idea or topic) Trite or dull.
Given the example sentence provided (He continues to bring up that dead dog plan of his.), this may just be an attributive use of the third (nominal) sense.
It's interesting to note that senses 1, 3, and 4 were previously deleted. The RFD discussion was not archived on the associated talk page. Could anyone shed light upon why this entry was twice deleted with that information (especially considering that the first had that Biblical quotation appended to it)? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 21:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The citation would also support sense 1 as a definition of (deprecated template usage) flea (now added). The application of the "well-known work" rule has always bothered me. It operation together with automatic inclusion of metaphorical senses seems to take us to an absurd conclusion: Every metaphor in every well-known work may provide attestation for a sense of each constituent of the metaphor. I sense countless hours of amusement ahead. DCDuring TALK 23:58, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sense #1 is indeed sufficiently cited, though editors are welcome to add additional uses that derive from the Biblical ones in I and II Samuel. I have added one quotation to support sense #3. --EncycloPetey 00:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~hippodrome~~
~~Rfv-sense:~~
~~A place of entertainment: theatre, circus, dancehall. --Hekaheka 09:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Toblerone~~
A brand name that is to be attested as such under our increasingly-ignored WT:CFI.
Arguably, it has as much potential linguistic interest as a toponym with the same etymological, pronunciation, and transliteration/translation content. DCDuring TALK 12:17, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Etymology added, courtesy of company website. Pingku 13:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Is the Mandarin translation correct? I would have expected more of a transliteration. It looks like a different brand, possibly owned by the company or its Chinese distributor. If so, it would certainly seem encyclopedic to provide a multinational directory of brand names for "equivalent" products. Most multinational brands make significant efforts to "localize" their products, so that, say, a European Coca-Cola is not identical to, but is reminiscent of, the current US version (which is probably not absolutely uniform in the US. DCDuring TALK 17:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm that Coke is not absolutely uniform in the U.S.: around Passover time, they put out a version that doesn't use any corn syrup. But it's still the same product; details of composition might be relevant to an encyclopedia, but not IMHO to us. —Ruakh_TALK 19:42, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~RE DCDuring "As an international dictionary, Wiktionary is intended to include “all words in all languages”." This passes under line one. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~How are these? They compare things to a Toblerone shape (which more people understand than the term triangular prism) --Soleil levant 09:18, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
2002, Richard Bangs, Ed Viesturs - Richard Bangs, adventure without end
Below us the white granite and quartz of the most sacred of Inca sites sparkled, its Toblerone-shaped walls and deserted craters stretching over seventy acres.

April 9 2005, Sydney Morning Herald - The battered face of the Sphinx
You don't have to climb every mountain, just choose one: Kilimanjaro. The volcano stands out from the Tanzanian plains like a Toblerone triangle with a bite out of the top. But the mountain is far from sweet. It is high and, after the gentle slopes lull you, hard to climb. Climbing it takes from five to eight days, but if you reach the top you'll feel as strong as a lion
~~There's also evidence of the phrase one one's Toblerone as rhyming slang for one one's own --Soleil levant 09:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~print disabled~~
~~Supposedly a noun (yet without a plural?). Nothing in Books for "a print disabled". Equinox ◑ 17:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~antihunger~~
~~"The lack or absence of hunger." Can this really be what it means? Equinox ◑ 18:13, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
I would think that if anything, it means anti-hunger, describing an action or policy directed against hunger. --Hekaheka 14:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
anti-hunger gets more than 80,000 Google hits and they (the first 20 or so) seem to support my guess.
~~--Hekaheka 14:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~antifeminism~~
~~"a belief in the superiority of men over women" Equinox ◑ 18:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~California license plate~~
~~Zero books or Usenet hits containing also the word tattoo.—msh210℠ 19:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Failed.—msh210℠ 19:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~fucky~~
~~"sexually enticing"; fuckier, fuckiest. Equinox ◑ 19:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
I added one quote from a RHCP song. It's not very good though. I'll hunt some more down sometime. Just poke me to remind me if there's been no progress in a couple of months. --Rising Sun talk? contributions 09:45, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~AWB~~
~~Rfv-sense: AutoWikiBrowser. Probably not citable. -- Prince Kassad 11:03, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
It's WMF jargon. It doesn't have to be citable. --Yair rand 22:52, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Where's that policy (not sarcastic, I really wanna see it). Mglovesfun (talk) 22:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an official policy, AFAIK. --Yair rand 23:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really like the WMF jargon entries. I prefer what we've done at (deprecated template usage) IRC, where there's a special link to a relevant page that doesn't pretend to be part of the everyday dictionary entry; perhaps we could do something like this for those entries in the WMF category, linking to a glossary or something? Equinox ◑ 23:23, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, there is this. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 23:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So it has to be cited outside of WMF projects. I didn't realise this was a fictional universe, but hey. Mglovesfun (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~dazz~~
~~A genre of music with qualities of both disco music and jazz. Equinox ◑ 17:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Can't find any relevant google hits, seems like a protologism. Polarpanda 20:25, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~interesting conditions~~
~~I can't imagine this being used in the plural. Examples? Equinox ◑ 22:30, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Indeed. It's clearly not uncountable, either it's a singulare tantum or just the plural isn't attested anywhere. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted, I can't rule out that it's never used in the plural, but I sincerely doubt it. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~first bases~~
~~second bases~~
~~third bases~~
~~These seem to be either singularia tantum or possibly English nouns with unattested plurals. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:31, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Huh? The plurals for all three are easily attested on a quick b.g.c. search. --EncycloPetey 20:09, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not really: google books:"third bases" -"first|second|home and|or third bases" yields, relevant among its first 100 hits, only the three I've now added to [[citations:third bases]] (and one more which Google won't let me see); google books:"first bases" -"third|second|home and|or first bases" yields among its first 110 only the three I've added to [[citations:first bases]]; and the first 250(!) hits at google books:"second bases" -"third|first|home and|or second bases" yield only the three I've added to [[citations:second bases]]. But I think they're all cited.—msh210℠ 16:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~podfader~~
~~"A podcaster who gradually or suddenly stops podcasting." Equinox ◑ 22:49, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
[150] [151] [152] Who are the Wikipedia police? [153] Pingku 20:06, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those first three are not AFAICT durably archived: see WT:CFI#Attestation. (The last I, for one, cannot see.)—msh210℠ 15:29, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~print-disabled~~
~~If were gonna rfv print disabled let's do this one as well. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:49, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~pingping'an'an~~
~~This seems to be simply sum of parts. Googling for "pingping'an'an" (in quotes) gets very few hits that are not two words separated by space or comma. SemperBlotto 10:13, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~nurriture~~
~~nurritures~~
Common misspellings. I doubt it's common, it looks more like an obsolete spelling. I'd rfd it, but non-English words rarely get much of a response on there, so rfv seems better. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~transgender~~
Adjective. The usual wordy encyclopedic definitions that seem to heavily overlap the noun definitions. We need cites to show that this is an adjective for each of the five senses claimed to be adjectives. It is likely that at least some senses are only attributive use of the noun. Also, the senses are wordy/encyclopedic and therefore it is almost impossible to confirm that all aspects of given definition are invoked in a given quotation. DCDuring TALK 09:45, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't a word that's used attributively to modify a noun, an adjective by definition? Or am I missing something here? —CodeCat 14:57, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See [[Wiktionary:English adjectives]].—msh210℠ 15:29, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~I merged all the defs: DC is right, that kind of desire to pick out shades of desired meaning cannot be supported by citations. Ƿidsiþ 06:26, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
I have added a citation showing unambiguously adjectival use. One of the citations (1998) seems to be a mention, not a use. The 2010 NYTimes citation could be read as attributive use of a noun. DCDuring TALK 11:57, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~fat-ass~~
~~"(pejorative) A jibe used on someone disliked or regarded as lazy." Not the usual sense (second in our entry) of somebody who is fat. Equinox ◑ 10:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
I think it just means a generic insult, like dickhead or something like that. If that's the case, I'd claim clear widespread use. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "lazy" sense seems OK to me. I think of it is having the three senses, in declining order of aptness and specificity: fat, especially....; lazy; used as general pejorative. The last seems the most questionable/hardest to attest in print, but I wouldn't challenge it. DCDuring TALK 14:10, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The sense of lazy would come from the implication that someone who does no work lacks exercise and hence becomes fat. It's rare, but plausibly used. —CodeCat 14:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's a generation thing, but it doesn't seem rare at all to me. It was popularised on the TV show South Park I think. Definitely keep IMO. ---> Tooironic 22:17, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly in widespread use. It is hard to nail down which of the three senses I perceive is meant at any one use, but my memory of the instances suggests that all three are possible. I would want to have to attest these from text-only sources since one could not readily differentiate sense 1 from the other two. DCDuring TALK 00:49, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~rohingyalish~~
~~Nowt in Books and Usenet. Equinox ◑ 12:19, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
But seems to be real - see [154] as an example. SemperBlotto 16:33, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia says yes, too. Perhaps it's just rare, hence hard to attest. But not because it doesn't exist. Mglovesfun (talk) 06:35, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~If we do keep this, entry name might need capitalising. Equinox ◑ 15:56, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Wiktionary~~
Both senses: (uncountable) "A collaborative project..." and "(countable) Any of the dictionaries resulting from this project". I imagine many people would wish to keep it regardless of citations but it can't hurt to try and find some. Polarpanda 12:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, personally. We don't do website names, and I don't see why ours should be any different, particularly when it's not really in widespread use. Ƿidsiþ 13:01, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It would need to pass WT:BRAND. RFD seems fair as well. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What MG said. DCDuring TALK 14:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some cites possibly meeting the BRAND criteria are at citations:Wiktionary; please have a look. Others can be found at Google News (I've gotten through the first 22 results there, but the 23d looks promising, and there are doubtless more further down.)—msh210℠ 17:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, actually, never mind. None of those is good. I was forgetting the CFI when I was finding them and posting the above.—msh210℠ 14:50, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Shouldn't this be categorized in category:Wikimedia, category:WMF jargon, and use the template:wjargon ? 76.66.193.224 07:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Asteroids~~
~~RFDed, but the consensus was to apply WT:BRAND, so I'm bringing it here hereby.—msh210℠ 15:40, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Deleted. Equinox ◑ 17:02, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~apple tart~~
Rfv-sense: "fart". (RFDed, but consensus was to keep and send here.) If this sense is deleted, the consensus at WT:RFD#apple_tart was to delete the other sense, "a form of dessert tart flavored with apple".—msh210℠ 16:42, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~derp~~
~~rfv-English def following a feedback on this page. I cannot find references to this word being used in this sense anywhere. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 06:45, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Not in the OED online (though that doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't exist). The fact that this entry is the only one by the editor who added it suggests that it might be a case of "see how long before someone deletes it". Dbfirs 15:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Two interjection senses were just wadded, which I'm adding to the scope of this RFV hereby.—msh210℠ 18:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~aeroplano~~
~~Looking for evidence that the Esperanto word aeroplano can be hyphenated after the initial letter as "a-" / "eroplano". --EncycloPetey 20:07, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
If there is any such evidence, it'll be hard to find, especially as hyphenating after one character is bad typesetting even if it isn't formally wrong. But eohyph.tex says "ebligu tranĉon post la vokaloj" (enable breaking after vowels), and all automated Esperanto hyphenation systems a quick Google shows me seem to be derived from it.--Prosfilaes 02:55, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~TVTB~~
~~Italian, likely internet slang for "I love you very much". Will be easy to format, if in use. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~There are many hits at google groups:TVTB, but someone who knows Italian will have to sort out which support our definition.—msh210℠ 16:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~neura~~
Already tagged for cleanup.
Supposed to be a plural of (deprecated template usage) neuron or the (deprecated template usage) central nervous system. I don't think so. SemperBlotto 11:25, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Our Ancient Greek entry gives νεῦρᾰ (neûra) as the nominative plural of νεῦρον (neûron), so at the very least it's etymologically consistent. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:07, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~The definition is "The central nervous system." That does indeed sound like tosh. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:19, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Clocked out and replaced with a (rare) {{plural of|neuron}} entry. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 21:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~turg~~
~~English, supposedly a shortening of dramaturg. DCDuring TALK 00:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Jehovah~~
~~Meaning "Jehovah's Witnesses" (the organisation): "I left Jehovah ten years ago." Equinox ◑ 12:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Never heard Jehovah used that way. The Jehovah's Witnesses normally refer to themselves (the organisation) as "The Witnesses", "The congregation", "The brotherhood", "The society", They hold God's personal name in very high esteem, and use it solely in its primary sense. If an ex-witness says that they "left Jehovah" they mean that literally, which automatically implies leaving the organisation. -- ALGRIF talk 10:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 17:00, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~no-life~~
~~Rfv-sense. "Describing a manner of accomplishing a task at the cost of social interactions." I'll be damned if I know what that means. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Meaningless - I would have just removed it. (Nothing obvious on Google book search) SemperBlotto 08:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
If we had citations, we would probably conclude that this is attributive use of the noun. DCDuring TALK 09:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I think so, but ironically it's hard to refute definitions when they're poor, because it's ambiguous what they mean. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this case the intent of the contributor was to not have the wording be identical to the noun, but probably not to defeat our RfD. Even as poorly worded as it is the sense seems quite close to the noun.

I've wondered about how to address the general problem without speedy deletion. Perhaps we need some process for tagging poor definitions. An alternative is to insert a good definition that captures the apparent intended sense of a badly worded definition and then insert an rfd-sense or rfd-redundant tag. All of this is to make sure we don't miss something and to avoid looking too arbitrary.

Also, shouldn't this be {{idiom}}. Hyphenated words like this can be purely SoP, though this one isn't, IMO. We wouldn't want to have every single non-idiomatic word of the form "no-X", would we? DCDuring TALK 12:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~scarlet~~
~~Rfv-sense~~
~~(slang, Irish) Embarrassed.~~
~~If this means "blushing; red" then surely it's not slang or Irish (specifically Irish, I mean). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~paralitic~~
~~Geordie spelling of paralytic. Hmm. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:31, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~You mean "Template:Geordie Common mis-spelling of ..."? Dbfirs 17:51, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~orphan initialism~~
~~Nothing on Books or Usenet. Equinox ◑ 19:32, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
There is an entry for it on wp - w:orphan initialism. There are also some examples of use on google - e.g.. I think it's a valid entry to include. You can't discern its meaning from the parts. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 03:54, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One web hit from an ordinary website, which we deem non-durably archived, is not very helpful for attestation. I also would argue that in any context in which initialism is understood this is NISOP. I felt misled by the representation that its meaning can't be discerned from the parts. DCDuring TALK 11:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the meaning can be guessed at, but not with certainty. Polarpanda 14:13, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was not able to guess it. The problem is not with initialism, but with orphan: its meaning is not obvious in this case. Lmaltier 21:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the Wikipedia entry is now just a redirect (not my doing!). Equinox ◑ 16:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Equinox ◑ 16:57, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~ALCON~~
Lots of false positives for alcon, so I tried "to alcon re" for no hits on Google except one on the Web. Perhaps there's a better collocation to search for: I'm unaware of how this is used if it is, not having seen it before.—msh210℠ 20:21, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Never heard of it, I too expect that if it is used, it's in a specific context, not just in general use. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah the only Web hit for "to alcon from" (there are, again, no other useful Google hits) show it's military, probably naval. (The U.S. Navy uses similar acronyms a lot.) The Google Books search for alcon captain yields nothing and for "to alcon" ship yields precisely two possibly relevant results, both snippets I can't make much of: [155], [156].—msh210℠ 21:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This appears abundantly in non-durably archived glossaries, this downloadable PDF (apparently of a print document) and in a few OneLook glossaries. "Netlingo" reports it as online jargon. It must be used in rather limited contexts: in the Royal Navy there was (is?) a ship named after the Greek hero w:Alcon and in the US there seem to be perhaps two defense suppliers named "Alcon". The use of the abbreviation would be concentrated in telegraphic communications to ships where brevity had historically been required. As our standards for including abbreviations are virtually non-existent and our practice has been inclusive, we would be breaking new ground by excluding this.

Has anyone ever seen this in text-messaging contexts? DCDuring TALK 11:43, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I too suspect military use. I work as a government contractor and I was seeing this a lot in e-mails... enough that I was curious. I had trouble finding out the meaning, so when I did, I figured I'd add it to Wiktionary (which I'd previously used to find out what v/r meant in the closing of some of those same e-mails). I'm still trying to figure out "r/s." I suppose I could ask the sender, although that might prove embarrassing. Tckma 15:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Texting and IMing may be bringing about a revival of old-time telegraphic abbreviations of all kinds.

In the context you mention, I'd bet on "respectfully submitted" for r/s. Unfortunately, the only source of online communication that we use for attestation is Usenet in which "respectful submission" seems, umm, uncommon. Also, punctuation is hard to search for on Google. DCDuring TALK 16:01, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~state of the art~~
Rfv-sense: distinct legal sense. No OneLook reference lemming has a separate legal sense. Also the wording seems amateurish as it incorporates a specific time reference, whereas I expect that the time reference is almost always derived from implicit or explicit context. DCDuring TALK 14:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is largely a correct definition. A patent that is challenged as having been obvious at the time the application was submitted (obviousness being grounds for overturning the patent) is reviewed in light of the state of the art at the time the application was submitted, which courts often abbreviate be referring only to the state of the art. bd2412 T 20:57, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why are there no lemmings with us on this? DCDuring TALK 22:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Beats me, but here are some citations from Supreme Court cases. The first explicitly states "at the time". The second doesn't use such a qualification, but is in the context of patent law, can only be referring to the state of the art when the application was made (developments thereafter being irrelevant to patent validity). The third uses the phrase twice but only qualifies it in the first usage, and not immediately after the phrase:
Le Roy v. Tatham, 55 U.S. 156, 180 (1853):

The apparatus, essential to develop this property, would at once suggest the material parts, especially in the state of the art at the time.

Yale Lock Mfg. Co. v. Berkshire Nat'l Bank, 135 U.S. 342, 372 (1890):

Judge Lowell held claim 3 to be invalid on the ground that, if it was a claim irrespective of any particular means for carrying it out it was void as a patent for a principle, independently of the state of the art; and that, in view of the state of the art, it was void.

R.R. Co. v. Dubois, 79 U.S. 47, 65 (1871)

The only remaining assignment of error is, that the court declined instructing the jury as requested, that in considering the question whether the plaintiff was or was not the first and original inventor of the improvement described in his patent, they might and ought to consider the evidence in the cause in relation to the state of the art of building and setting piers known at the time of the alleged invention of the plaintiff. ... While, therefore, evidence in regard to the state of the art was proper to be considered by the court in construing the patent and determining what invention was claimed, it had no legitimate bearing upon the question whether the patentee was the first inventor.

Cheers! bd2412 T 00:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My first problem with the definition is that it seems that in use the appropriate time frame of reference would necessarily either be explicit or implicit in context. If, in a court case report or law-review article, there were two different unqualified "states of the art" under discussion, it would presumably be the more-recently-referred-to one that would be the reference, not necessarily the "legal" sense. Ie, the date is not guaranteed to be limited. In the overall context of patent law the specific time frame of our legal sense is simply the most likely to show up. It doesn't really seem inherently distinct, which is, I think, why we are alone on this.

My second problem is that, if the default assumption of a specific time frame is the only differentiator between "plain or garden variety" and "legal" "state of the art", why are the definitions worded differently in any regard other than the specific time frame. The existence of two definitions with somewhat different wording forces the user to look for some other distinction where apparently none exists. DCDuring TALK 00:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can see how this would be hard to distinguish from the other definition offered. bd2412 T 02:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~dernier cri~~
Rfv-sense: French. Is this really used to mean state of the art in the context of products, business methods, academic science and technology, etc? In its English application it is solely used in reference to fashion, style, fads (ie, pejoratively/sarcastically, including in technical contexts). I think of it as close to the English idiom (deprecated template usage) last word or the possibly idiomatic (deprecated template usage) latest thing. DCDuring TALK 14:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~I created this a bit quickly with the intention of re-reading it later. I'd be unsurprised if I were wrong or inaccurate. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
The use in French seems to be exactly the same as the use in English. Lmaltier 21:01, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As a native french speaker, I can say that this phrase is used in the technological domain almost exclusively. FroschmannGilles 00:06, 13 July 2010
To FroschmannGilles. Don't you use it in fashion?! --Anatoli 04:54, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is how the online Larousse defines the expression :

“se dit de ce qu'il y a de plus récent, de plus perfectionné, de plus à la mode (peut s'employer en apposition sans article) : Il a acheté un téléviseur dernier cri”.

Which means:

“said about what is most recent, most sophisticated, most fashionable (can be used in apposition without article)”

--Actarus ^{(Prince d'Euphor)} 10:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~isolation~~
~~Rfv-sense "The state of one country not being allied with other countries". Isn't this isolationism? SemperBlotto 15:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
No, isolationism is the policy or desire of a country to not be allied with (or, also, antagonistic to?) other countries, or, I think, the philosophy behind that policy. We only have the former (the policy, not the philosophy) at [[isolationism]]. The nominated definition of isolation sounds right to me, but of course citations rule.—msh210℠ 15:55, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't this redundant to the other meanings, though? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear that #1 applies to diplomacy, and even if it was, redundency isn't necessarily a bad thing. Purplebackpack89 18:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is misleading. "Neutrality" is the state of not being allied in diplomatic sense. Isolation is something more severe. It's being alone in the sense that there are hardly any friendly relationships with anyone. E.g. Finland and Sweden are neutral countries, but North Korea is an isolated country. --Hekaheka 06:03, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~It is just an application of sense #1, this should be an RFD probably. - [The]DaveRoss 00:53, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
This is why we need to start using subsenses. Senses three, four, and five are all subsenses of sense one. It makes sense to define exactly what the word means in various jargon contexts, but it should be made clear that these are context specific instantiations of the primary sense. Sense two is, I think, redundant and unnecessary. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~spose~~
~~Rfv-senses~~
supposed
In the example, it just seems like the /d/ and following /t/ merge into each other

ending a conversation, taking one's leave.
Seems redundant to sense 1 of the entry. A common sense solution would be to have one definition: Lua error in Module:parameters at line 95: Parameter 1 should be a valid language code; the value "suppose" is not valid. See WT:LOL.. unless either of the other two can be cited. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why you're RFVing the "supposed" sense. There are loads and loads of hits at google books:"spose to" in support of this sense. (But yes, it should use {{eye dialect}}.)—msh210℠ 18:11, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because I usually RFV then check, so that's a clear pass. Thinking about it, the third one is listed as a verb. Is it? Mglovesfun (talk) 18:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind checking before RFVing rather than after? It saves others' time and effort (and your own, assuming you currently do check after RFVing and not rely on others to do so).—msh210℠ 18:34, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All the forms seem attestable. I think that one {{eye dialect}} should cover all except "supposed" as a sense, which I guess is another {{eye dialect}}, and "[many forms of (deprecated template usage) be] supposed", which would be more, probably one for each form. Countless hours of amusement to be had in lieu of working on senses of (deprecated template usage) in. Eye dialect is mostly a time sink. DCDuring TALK 20:02, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"ending a conversation, taking one's leave." This doesn't tell me how to use the word, and the example sentence doesn't help me either. Is it suppose to be like cya or later or something like that? So I think citations at the very least might clarify how to use the word. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the verb section, which I think is a mistake. Or does it mean "to leave, to depart"? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you were in the context of Michigan or Wisconsin, you would know. It is in the air there. DCDuring TALK 16:46, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point, we need a definition any reader can understand. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~gourmet jelly bean~~
"A high quality form of jelly bean, usually smaller and more strongly flavored than the ordinary jelly bean, generally not containing starch and with a flavored coating." Is this attestable with this very specific meaning? It seems to be mostly just a boast of the Jelly Belly company. Equinox ◑ 19:28, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is more than their catchphrase, but it seems NISoP to me: a jelly bean supposedly for gourmets. It is marketingspeak, but long since in ordinary speech. DCDuring TALK 16:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Equinox ◑ 16:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~common noun~~
~~RfV for sense 2: "An uncapitalized noun." O RLY? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Probably wrong according to grammar guides, but citable anyway. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
I'm not so sure. People definitely seem to misuse (deprecated template usage) proper noun to mean "capitalized noun", but looking through Google Books and Google Groups, I mostly only find correct uses of (deprecated template usage) common noun. I do see some claims that common nouns aren't capitalized, but I don't see much evidence of people actually using (deprecated template usage) common noun to mean "uncapitalized noun". —Ruakh_TALK 19:38, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Definition needs work even if it's okay, since such a "common noun" placed at the beginning of a sentence would be capitalised for another reason. Equinox ◑ 20:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Yes, I agree. Words like (deprecated template usage) word and (deprecated template usage) noun are ambiguous, in that they can refer either to tokens or to types. (I think I've got that terminology right.) For an example of their use in reference to tokens, consider a sentence like, "A single sentence can contain several nouns; this sentence, for example, contains five nouns"; here sentence and nouns each count as two nouns, because they appear twice. For an example of their use in reference to types, consider a sentence like, "I learned a new noun today: amelioration!"; here noun refers to the word (deprecated template usage) amelioration in vacuo, not to any specific occurrence of it. Our definition presumably means "a noun [type] that writers don't capitalize", but it risks being understood as "a noun [token] that its writer didn't capitalize". —Ruakh_TALK 20:50, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Classes and instances, in my world! Equinox ◑ 20:59, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Mine as well — I'm a programmer by trade, mostly in Java — but I was trying to use the corpus-linguistics terms. —Ruakh_TALK 18:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~omniomni~~
Apparently a Beckettian nonce; one of the citations is a text about fiction presumably referring to Beckett's character. Can we be sure it means what the entry says? Both of the two senses? Equinox ◑ 20:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~In a word... no... Mglovesfun (talk) 21:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Deleted, nonce, specific character in a dramatic work. Equinox ◑ 16:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~zittern~~
Our entry is from 1913 Webster. It said "(Min.) See cittern", which I have changed to our format. But what is (deprecated template usage) cittern, and can this spelling of it — whatever it is — be attested? Equinox ◑ 21:49, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Hm, it seems to be another form of (deprecated template usage) zither (so (Min.) cannot, as I thought, have meant mineralogy). Equinox ◑ 21:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Closing. Was nominated by mistake because of supposed mineralogy gloss. (The musical instrument sense looks attestable in Google Books.) Equinox ◑ 16:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~marrone~~
Rfv-sense. French, feminine of marron. It's traditional invariable, plus logically the feminine would be (deprecated template usage) marronne. So if it is attestable, I'd tag it with {{very|nonstandard|lang=fr}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, marronne is the normal feminine form, only for the second sense of the adjective, the colour adjective (I've just added it to marron) is invariable in gender. You can find only a few examples of this spelling. Lmaltier 20:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~shoot oneself in the foot~~
Rfv-sense: (idiom) To deliberately self-sabotage. I haven't heard this use and didn't see it in the course of citing the idiomatic sense of "blundering, accidental self-destructive behavior". There are numerous unnecessary citations available for literally shooting oneself in the foot, both accidentally and intentionally. DCDuring TALK 17:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~BTW are the other two senses not identical to each other? If so, why not? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~The first means to sabotage something in one's own interest. The second means to act against one's own interest. The third is to do the same but unintentionally. Pingku 21:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~chlorokinesis~~
~~"The psychic ability to mentally control the movement of plants." Not in Books/Usenet. Equinox ◑ 20:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~atmokinesis~~
~~"The supposed ability to mentally create changes in the weather." Not in Books/Usenet. Equinox ◑ 20:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~sonokinesis~~
~~"The supposed ability to mentally manipulate sound." Equinox ◑ 20:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Viz~~
~~Tagged, not listed. Equinox ◑ 22:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
A job for WT:BRAND. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Equinox ◑ 16:49, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~CBT~~
~~"Current big thing". Nothing much in Books/Usenet. Equinox ◑ 09:51, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~yamp~~
~~A young tramp (slutty girl). Uses Urban Dictionary as a reference. Equinox ◑ 14:08, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Deleted. Equinox ◑ 16:46, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~X Window System~~
~~Specific software product; needs to meet WT:BRAND. Equinox ◑ 14:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Not a specific product, it's a family of products that are related to an original release, waaay back when. The original was released under an MIT licence, which allows redistribution and modification. There is no single manufacturer. There's also a bunch of standardization efforts. 76.66.193.224 07:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Nintendo~~
~~"Any video game system." Appears to have been discussed before (see talk page) but has no proof or citations. Equinox ◑ 18:07, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Deleted. Equinox ◑ 16:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~tow-colored~~
~~Rfv-sense. An English noun? Seems unlikely. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:20, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
p 100: “The colour in question is seen in many other animals, notably in the commonest variety of ferret. Yellow is perhaps the technical term for it, but tow-coloured is more descriptive.” Syn. towy. —Michael Z. 2010-05-05 15:27 z
~~That doesn't support a noun, does it? Equinox ◑ 21:21, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Looks like tow-coloured is used in place of a noun here, interchangeably with “the colour in question,” yellow. But it seems to me that it is shoehorned in for lack of a suitable real noun. I thought I'd quote it here, in case there's evidence that this is common. —Michael Z. 2010-05-05 23:50 z
No hits on the web for a plural. No hits at Books for it preceding is/was/has/could/should/might/may. DCDuring TALK 00:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~antitransubstantiationalist~~
~~I see one or two mentions, but no uses. Ƿidsiþ 17:48, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~froob~~
~~"A player who plays for free." Tagged, not listed. Equinox ◑ 20:18, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~4000 Google Group hits. Seems very neologistic, dunno how citable it is. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:07, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~tail-toddle~~
Not seeing it used. Note incidentally that the source listed s.v. References seems to be saying the word is Scots rather than English.—msh210℠ 18:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to change it into Scots, because it's not English but Scots only, but Mglovesfun took it to the ancient version. What can I do? --Rabbie Barns 15:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As mentioned on your talkpage, you (RB) should add a new section for the Scots word rather than replace the English section with a Scots one. However in this particular case, I think we can simply replace it and mark this RFV as failed re English, since it's clear that the original editor created it in error as English. I've done that now: replaced the en section with a sco one, and kept the rfv tag re the sco entry.—msh210℠ 16:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, is that a common Scottish (or other) English use of ancient to mean previous, no longer in place? I've never heard it, and we don't have it s.v. ancient.—msh210℠ 16:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~symptotic~~
~~"Common misspelling of asymptotic." That's some misspelling! Equinox ◑ 21:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Clearly tosh, just remove it IMO. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Deleted. Equinox ◑ 16:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~firstie~~
"(Internet, slang) someone who makes the first post on a discussion forum." Matches on Usenet seem to be something else, like somebody doing something for the first time / a newbie. Equinox ◑ 21:28, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Gameboy~~
"Any of several hand-held interactive electronic toys." In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I would suggest that all existing citations refer to the Nintendo Game Boy®. Equinox ◑ 21:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~prrp~~
~~the sound of breaking wind Equinox ◑ 22:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Too specific. It's the sound of air going through a gap as in breaking wind. A specific cite with breaking wind is at [157], but others in other contexts are [158] (exact intent unclear from the snippet) and [159] (unclear but perhaps the sound of a Bronx cheer). Not sure we should have this.

But there's a more specific (and attested) sense of "a sound a cat makes": [160], [161] (seemingly a cat, but unclear from the snippet), [162] (rabbit), [163], and [164], [165].—msh210℠ 16:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted. Equinox ◑ 16:43, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Han Solo~~
Changed my mind. This is just a specific reference. It doesn't mean “a person with the qualities of Han Solo,” it just means “Han Solo.” Just like “the Churchill of his generation” means Prime Minister Sir Winston Churchill.
And besides, none of the citations is attributive. —Michael Z. 2010-05-06 01:14 z
The quotes don't have to be attributive, since the entry is for a common noun rather than for a proper noun. Looks like we also need an entry for (deprecated template usage) Han solo. --EncycloPetey 01:27, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Now that is an awesome entry.~~
But the roguish Han Solo is not a common noun. It is the allusive use of a proper name, a pop-culture reference, as a stand-in for a common noun. It has no generic English meaning, only meaning to viewers of Star Wars (Han shot first). Even with the knowledge, the generic meaning is dubious: if you point to a random stranger and say “she's a casanova,” I'm likely to understand. But “she's a Han Solo,” or “he's a Xena” would get a blank stare.
(And “"I know," he answered, pulling a Han Solo” isn't a reference to the character, but to a specific two seconds of a film.) —Michael Z. 2010-05-06 02:56 z
~~Amerikkka~~
~~Amerikkkan~~
~~These were spotted by Squidonius, it would be nice to add some cites given that they have "possibly wrong" triple letters. Conrad.Irwin 14:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~nighttime~~
~~Rfv-sense. Adjective. Is this just the noun used attributively? Most nighttime and very nighttime sound wrong. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Maybe we will surprise ourselves with some cites, but I wouldn't hold my breath. DCDuring TALK 16:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~vest~~
Rfv-sense: A protective sleeveless garment worn over outer clothing. Not quite sure what this is getting at, which isn't covered by the other senses. (Unless it's a form of sense 1, which I just added?) Ƿidsiþ 15:58, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a reference to life vest (redirects to life jacket). Pingku 17:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The contributor could have been looking for a sense that would be suitable for ballistic vest, bulletproof vest, w:Life vest, w:Safety vest, w:Flannel vest, etc. As defined it still wouldn't encompass w:Fishing vest, ranger vest, photographer's vest, w:Scrimmage vest, which are not protective. DCDuring TALK 10:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a sense intended to render this rfv-sense moot. Have I succeeded? DCDuring TALK 16:37, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I reckon. Ƿidsiþ 16:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you think we should only have the multiword terms or that the wording is inadequate, you might well be right. DCDuring TALK 17:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~lemming logic~~
~~Can we find citations that show that this is in use and either an idiom or not? DCDuring TALK 16:59, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Lazy man cites: b.g.c
Happy ending: a novel‎ - Francesca Duranti - Fiction - 1991 - 165 pages

How could a panettone, itself a product of lemming logic, stave off the senseless accumulation of waste, the mad flight of a present without memory and...

The Music of Thought in the Poetry of George Oppen and William Bronk‎ - Henry Weinfield - Literary Criticism - 2009 - 241

... in which one "nation" or "people" has risen up in war against others until it too succumbed to the lemming logic in which it was enmeshed. ...

A Chalice of Miracles‎ - John W. Casperson - Biography & Autobiography - 2008 - 620 pages

But then, applying lemming logic to mass media, why should attention given to a deranged assassin be any different from a deranged religi-bomber who ...

There are piles and piles of groups cites out there too (some of which are quite humorous) but I think it is probably a reasonable keep. - [The]DaveRoss 16:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~importunate~~
~~Verb. No definition given. Presumably it would be related to importune. DCDuring TALK 10:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Call me crazy, but you can't RFV a verb with no definition, so I removed it. Maybe add to WT:REE or mention on the talk page. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK. You're crazy. I'd like to know whether the word exists as a verb. From the cites we can always figure out the meaning. A contributor had put in the verb PoS section without a definition and out of order. It had an {{rfdef}}. DCDuring TALK 10:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think my point was that's not an RFV issue, it's an RFC or Tea room issue. Anyway, that's splitting hairs, so I'll undo my edit. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks real, perhaps dated - see google books:importunated, google books:importunating. Pingku 13:03, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does it have both of the meanings we have for importune#Verb? DCDuring TALK 14:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could only find variations of the "harass" / "plead" sense. The closest to any impropriety was something about a mythological character changing herself into a bird to escape being importunated by Zeus - and we all know what he was like! Pingku 15:41, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The latter might be enough to include the "other" sense. I wonder whether writers added the extra syllable to avoid the negative association of the second sense. I'd like to see what citations make it clear that "importune" has the "solicit for prostitution" or "make improper advances" senses. What exactly are we to make of the "importuning" suitors of Penelope in the Odyssey? Was it "harassment" or "improper advances"? Or is it left ambiguous so the children don't have to be sent away? DCDuring TALK 17:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the downside of rfv'ing something before it actually exists. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:55, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But both the word and the (incomplete) entry do exist. It is only the precise meaning relative to (deprecated template usage) importune that was and remains unclear. What it needs are citations to clarify not merely its existence, but its meaning.

What else should we have done? Deleted it? Some very imperfect entries point up gaps in our coverage. DCDuring TALK 23:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm being picky; personally I'd have used rfc-def, but that is picky. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~One Shot Paddy~~
~~I think we should keep this, if attestable. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:50, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
I went looking for evidence that this doesn't exist (backward arguement, I know), but surprisingly there is some coverage. There is one pro-IRA song that mentions the term in the context of long-range sniping but does not name the rifles, and another mention on a rifle website that specifically mentions the Irish conflict.--Dmol 00:48, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~belaspekta~~
This word literally means bela (fair, beautiful, gorgeous, handsome, fair, etc.) + aspekta, which I am assuming means the attributive use of aspekto, which means aspect, however, none of my print dictionaries have this word in them, and neither do the online sources that I use. Therefore, I request this for verification. Razor flame 22:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed Lua error in Module:affix/templates at line 130: The |lang= parameter is not used by this template. Place the language code in parameter 1 instead., meaning spectacle. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:52, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, actually, that would make more sense, but still, I don't see how this could be a word unless spekto meant looks or something along those lines. Razor flame 22:37, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~man ho~~
I don't see it after a cursory glance of google books:"man ho" OR "man hos". Besides, wouldn't the plural be (deprecated template usage) man hoes? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:23, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~I assumed this was a nautical expression :P --EncycloPetey 16:06, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~So did I. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 01:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Yes, we are getting a lot of dodgy stuff in the wanted list lately. SemperBlotto 16:15, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
This was the sense that SemperBlotto speedily deleted, although I assume that that was the meaning. Would be nice to see the page history of the requested entries page to see who proposed it. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Daniel. added it in this revision. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 01:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Scotched English~~
~~Equinox ◑ 15:50, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Deleted. Equinox ◑ 16:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~fictionalism~~
~~"A term derived from works of fiction." Equinox ◑ 17:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Deletionalistinate. —Michael Z. 2010-05-26 03:03 z
Deleted. Equinox ◑ 16:41, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~zamie~~
~~Jamaican slang for "lesbian". Equinox ◑ 17:46, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
If it does exist, then it's from French les amies where the s is pronouned /z/. I have some Jamaican relatives, although most of them have lived their whole life over here, plus homosexuality is not really the first thing you want to talk about with Jamaicans. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's in Green 1998 (the huge slang dictionary), marked W[est] I[ndies]; and the Dictionary of Caribbean English Usage has "zamie-girl" meaning "lesbian", marked Trin[idad]. But actual uses seem to be vanishingly rare on the web. Ƿidsiþ 06:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~porculus~~
"An item of "pork barrel spending" (wasteful or ingratiatory spending), especially when couched as an economic stimulus." Seems to be only (deprecated template usage) porkulus, from what I can see (though (deprecated template usage) porculus might be something else). Ditto the plural (deprecated template usage) porculi. Equinox ◑ 18:43, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~commère~~
~~Use in English in this (or any) spelling? DCDuring TALK 17:05, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
The OED lists "‖commère", supported by four quotations wherein the word is spelt (deprecated template usage) commère and one quotation wherein it is spelt (deprecated template usage) commere. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~compère~~
~~English, this spelling. If cited, this should probably be an alternative spelling of compere. DCDuring TALK 17:11, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
[166], [167], [168], [169],[170], [171], [172], [173], [174], [175], [176], [177], [178], [179], [180], [181], [182], [183]. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:47, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The OED [2^nd ed.; 1989] lemmatises the spelling with a grave accent for both the noun and the verb. For the noun, it lists (deprecated template usage) compere as an 18^th- and 20^th-Century variant, solely supported by a 1738 citation of an obsolete sense; for the verb, it lists no spelling variants. The 2009 Oxford Paperback Dictionary & Thesaurus lists only the diacriticked spelling. The pronunciatory information given by the OED 1989 for both the noun and the verb is (‖kɔ̃pɛr, ˈkɒmpɛə(r)); without the grave accent the pronunciation which the spelling suggests is /ˈkɒmpɪɚ/. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:59, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's very interesting. It seems then that we can steal a march on them by recognizing that the accentless spelling in overwhelmingly more common on bgc (plurals to eliminate the proper nouns) in the works Google claims are English, excluding any with some common French words. and with at least limited preview: Google count 623.
~~I wonder how the untutored actually would pronounce this, if forced to. DCDuring TALK 23:20, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Of the first twenty hits of your search query, [184], [185], and [186] actually spell it (deprecated template usage) compères; [187], [188], and [189] are scannos for (deprecated template usage) competes; [190] is a scanno for (deprecated template usage) compares; [191], [192], and [193] are French; and [194] misspells it *(deprecated template usage) compéres. That is to say that, according to that sample, over half those hits are wrong, and that, notably, 15% of them should properly be counted as instances of (deprecated template usage) compères, not (deprecated template usage) comperes. I admonish everyone to bear in mind, once again, that Google Books sucks at picking up diacritics. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 00:44, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~para-~~
para-#Etymology 2 All the derived terms shown are actually words borrowed whole from vintages of French or Italian. Thus the entry offers no evidence that this was ever a prefix in English. DCDuring TALK 18:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the OED. The entry states that the prefix is present in many borrowings from French and Italian, viz. (deprecated template usage) parachute, (deprecated template usage) parados, (deprecated template usage) parapet, (deprecated template usage) parapluie, (deprecated template usage) parasol, and (deprecated template usage) paravent. It further states that "English formations are rare", but that (deprecated template usage) parabore, (deprecated template usage) paragrandine, and (deprecated template usage) paravane are examples. AFAIK, three attested coinages are all that are required to verify an affix. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:10, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Excellent. Thanks for the the help. DCDuring TALK 00:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
You're welcome. :-) — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 00:45, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The spelling para-bore seems more common.

I am surprised that the OED says paragrandine was formed in English, as early English citations refer to this "hailstone shield" (or whatever it is) as having been invented in Italy and (deprecated template usage) grandine is Italian.

It seems that the last productive use was (deprecated template usage) paravane (1919), but the sense doesn't fit. A "paravane" is not device for warding off vanes, it is a device equipped with vanes. It seems more like a derivative of (deprecated template usage) parachute, which has been in English since 1785! para-#Etymology 3 contains others like that.

I tentatively conclude that para-#Etymology 2 is obsolete and unproductive.

If you can't rely on the OED, who can you rely on? DCDuring TALK 01:01, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~cooperation~~
~~Rfv-sense X 3. sociology, ecology, mechanics, software. DCDuring TALK 19:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~pyow~~
Rfv-sense. Interjection. Passed rfd (Talk:pyow) but only because it's been moved to rfv instead. Initial question, do the two citations support an interjection, or a noun? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:01, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I created this entry and now agree that an interjection would be "monkey language", not English. I'm going to move the whole lot to a noun sense. Equinox ◑ 12:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
if you're removing animal sounds from Interjection sections, you have a bit of work on your hands.—msh210℠ 15:38, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is in the same category as (deprecated template usage) moo or (deprecated template usage) baa. I think I tried to explain that in a previous discussion about (deprecated template usage) pyow, but haven't got time to find it at the moment! Equinox ◑ 11:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Closing: interjection moved to noun. Equinox ◑ 16:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~neanderthalensis~~
Request verification that neanderthalensis is a word in any language other than Latin. Yes, it is part of a species name, but it in not the name of any scientific taxon. --EncycloPetey 22:30, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You also speedy deleted the Translingual section of (deprecated template usage) erectus. I'd probably favor {{rfd-sense}} in both cases. It seems to be a question of admissibility, not whether the words exist or not. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a simple matter for erectus because it's Latin only. For neanderthalensis I can imagine that the species Homo neandertahlensis might be nicknamed neanderthalensis. I doubt it, but am looking for evidence. Lacking such evidence a conversion to a Latin entry should happen, not deletion, so rfd seems inappropriate. --EncycloPetey 22:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How many of lower case Latin terms have Translingual sections?

If there are many, then once we've established the unlikelihood of anyone citing these by RfVing a few, we can perhaps tag this class of purported Translingual terms en masse and close out the RfVs expeditiously (30 days). DCDuring TALK 22:50, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots that are mislabelled this way, but only a few that might have merit as Translingual entries. This one, and a few that name microorganisms are the only possibilities I know of, and those that name microorganisms might not be used outside of English. --EncycloPetey 22:56, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've readded the translingual form of (deprecated template usage) erectus as a usage note to the Latin entry. Is that acceptable? SemperBlotto 08:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, because it's not a usage note about the word; it's a list of translingual proper nouns that happen to incorporate that word. Usage notes are for grammatical usage. Lists of scientific names by epithet would be better in an appendix. --EncycloPetey 20:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~cadre party~~
Definition seems too vague, describing almost any political party: "A political party that is dominated by an elite groups of activists". I am not aware of any party that can be shown not to fall under this definition. Can the definition as written be supported by quotes? What do citations say it means? DCDuring TALK 22:40, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~lividans~~
The definition essentially says: "This is part of a proper name" and the entry declares it to be Translingual. As far as I am aware, this is never used as a word in its own right, except in Latin. --EncycloPetey 22:48, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See what I have done to (deprecated template usage) erectus (above). If that is OK then you can do the same to this one. SemperBlotto 08:17, 10 May 2010 (UTC) p.s. To find other words that might need the same treatment use "What links here" to (deprecated template usage) specific epithet and (deprecated template usage) specific name.[reply]
~~strict justice~~
~~"The act of imposing unreasonably harsh penalties for minor or trivial offenses." SoP? Not in Wikipedia. Equinox ◑ 18:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~pornoless~~
~~Looks much rarer than (deprecated template usage) pornless. Good luck! Equinox ◑ 22:14, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Citable at Google groups, FWIW. I'll let someone else practice. DCDuring TALK 22:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it? Only one of the hits appears to be from Usenet (i.e. "durably archived"). Equinox ◑ 22:29, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~strawmato~~
~~Almost nothing in Books and Usenet. Wikipedia page was deleted. Equinox ◑ 23:26, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Deleted. Equinox ◑ 16:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Tamagotchi~~
~~A kind of commercial toy. WT:BRAND applies. DCDuring TALK 19:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Like many names such as xerox, sellotape and hoover, it has become a general term for any kind of hand-held electronic pet, not just the specific toy branded as Tamagotchi. Hence it is not really a brand name in the strict sense anymore. —CodeCat 15:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've not heard that and look forward to the usage evidence. DCDuring TALK 15:58, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if it would really qualify as English (I live in the Netherlands), but I've often heard other people refer to their Tamagotchi clones as Tamagotchis (although they were not branded as such). I have no sources to back it up, but the possibility is important enough to warrant verification, I think. —CodeCat 17:31, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is like the currently RFVed (deprecated template usage) Nintendo (for any games console) and (deprecated template usage) Gameboy (for any hand-held). I think it's pretty important that we do provide evidence if we are claiming someone's trademark is widely used to refer to competing products. Personally I'd call the generic "Tamagotchi" a (deprecated template usage) cyberpet. Equinox ◑ 11:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What kind of evidence are you providing at the moment? Polarpanda 22:32, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None, of course. I'm the one disputing this sense of the word! Equinox ◑ 16:24, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~bacalao~~
Chamorro has no C anywhere in its alphabet, so how does this work? It also uses {{ch-noun}} which appears to be an exact duplicate of {{en-noun}}, so it tries to add gender (which Chamorro does not have) and construct the plural by adding -s (which does not work in Chamorro, either). -- Prince Kassad 12:35, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's the reason for not deleting this on sight? That's the only thing I can't figure out. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:04, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You want to delete this on sight? Be my guest. -- Prince Kassad 13:19, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~quantware~~
~~Quantitative software. Equinox ◑ 16:41, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Found one quote - then ran out of time. (Capitalized, it is a software company). SemperBlotto 19:13, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~stratic~~
~~Rfv-sense (noun): "strategic change". Not seeing anything. [195] and [196] use stratics in a sense we don't have and may need.—msh210℠ 18:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~OK - Google books shows this to have a geological meaning as an adjective. Added the best I can do. SemperBlotto 07:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~hara-kiri~~
~~"A self-destructive act" (distinct from sense 2, "suicide or any suicidal action")? Equinox ◑ 11:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~it's just the first two sense used figuratively. I've heard it used like this, I'll slightly rework the definition but leave rfv-sense in tact. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~qyamancha~~
~~Alt spelling of (deprecated template usage) kamancheh. Not in Books/Groups. Equinox ◑ 15:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
It's very, very rare. There does seem to be a painting called "Armenian still-life with qyamancha and flowers" which could debatably be called 'durably archived', but we'd still be two short. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:53, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These sites use this spelling: [197], [198] (durably archived in the name of Meruzhan Khachatryan's oil-on-canvass drawing "Anna with qyamancha"), [199] (durably archived in the name of Vigen Hakobyan's album "Qyamancha"), [200], [201] (durably archived in the name of Meruzhan Khachatryan's 2009 oil-on-canvass painting "Armenian still-life with qyamancha and flowers"), [202], [203] (durably archived in the name of Suren Khorenyan's oil-on-canvass painting "Qyamancha"), &c. It's attestable, but its definition should be changed to be a {{rare spelling of}} (deprecated template usage) kamancheh. For some reason, all the users of this spelling seem to be Armenian or Georgian, even though it's a Persian instrument whose name is Persian; perhaps that should be reflected in an additional context tag. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 19:54, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are two letters for k in Armenian: one is (deprecated template usage) կ (k) = [k], the other is (deprecated template usage) ք (kʻ) = [kʰ]. When transliterating informally, like the painters and musicians in your links did, we often use Latin k for the first, and q for the second, as if q were somewhat more aspirated. Qyamancha then is a rendering of Armenian (deprecated template usage) քյամանչա (kʻyamančʻa).

PS. The instrument is not just Persian: it's also Armenian, Georgian, Greek, etc. You must have seen w:Kamancheh, but there is also w:Kemenche. Same instruments really, but separated there because of political POV-pushing. --Vahagn Petrosyan 21:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How very interesting. Could you explain all that in an etymology section in (deprecated template usage) qyamancha please? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 21:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Ah, I see you already have. Is this change OK? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 21:15, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Sure, I added the rest of my lecture there. Jesus, we are one badass dictionary: where else can you find such stuff? --Vahagn Petrosyan 21:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~It's why I edit here. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 21:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~digital print matrix~~
~~I don't think that the two usages of this that I could find correspond to the definition or, indeed, to any single definition. DCDuring TALK 18:36, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
"The digital state from which a print art image is instanced (output) with original intent." I'll be damned if I know what this means. Is intent a mistake for content? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~break~~
Rfv-sense
4. Template:transitive Of a bone, to fracture accidentally.
~~Don't break your fingers playing basketball.~~
— specifically the "accidentally" part, which is the only thing to distinguish it from
3. Template:transitive Of a bone, to cause to crack under physical strain.
~~Don't try to break his neck.~~
~~—msh210℠ 20:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
The "unintentional" aspect just seems to be a common-sense normal implication of the subject and the possessor of the object of "break" being the same. I could imagine that there might be some language somewhere that had different a verb for my breaking of my bones versus someone else's breaking of my bones. I don't see why this distinction, even if actual, should generate a different sense in English. Intention seems simply fundamentally irrelevant to this verb's meaning. DCDuring TALK 20:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All the translations we show are identical, except for French, which has a reflexive of the same verb for the "X broke (X's) bones" case. DCDuring TALK 20:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would merge these definitions. You can, of course, break your fingers unaccidentally. The extra French translation is moot, as French has reflexive for many similar things (je me suis blessé le pied [literally, I injured myself the foot] = I injured my foot) --Rising Sun talk? contributions 20:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More importantly, the definitions are wrong -- they say "Of a bone", which would indicated an intransitive meaning ("his femur broke in the scrum"), but in fact the usexes are transitive and not of bones at all, rather of people or other agents. Ƿidsiþ 12:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but another issue. If I'm the one to merge these, or otherwise act on the result of the discussion I've here initiated, then I'll fix that problem, too. Thanks for pointing it out.—msh210℠ 14:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, some of the confusion here is attributable to the usage examples. I don't think that the sole usage example for garden-variety nouns, verbs, adjectives, or -ly adverbs should ever be of anything other than a canonical sentence. An imperative serves to make the grammar a bit less transparent. (Imperative forms can be needed to illustrate interjection-type usage, of course.) DCDuring TALK 15:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, there's another redundant sense:
2. Template:intransitive Of a bone, to crack or fracture through a sudden physical strain, such as a collision.
Don't slip and break your leg.

Then his fifth metatarsal broke.
~~These three should be merged into two (one transitive and one intransitive) IMO.—msh210℠ 16:17, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~axe murderer~~
~~"any incredibly dangerous person." I can imagine something like "he's not exactly an axe murderer", but is that not the literal sense really? Equinox ◑ 21:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
I'm glad you brought this up somewhere. Seems like there's some lexical value in this term, I wasn't so sure what to do with it --Rising Sun talk? contributions 11:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any citations that show this sense only in a negative, as in Equinox's example don't constitute attestation evidence. We need examples expressed in positive form. A canonical-from sentence is best, if one can be found. DCDuring TALK 16:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Funny how you wouldn't suggest that someone is a "knife murderer" or a "gun murderer". I think "axe murderer" refers not only to someone who uses an axe to kill (which is a particularly conspicuous and unwieldy weapon, suggesting a killer who uses it to have a rather insane disregard for the practical consequences of using one), but someone we just think is crazy enough to use an axe to kill. bd2412 T 17:28, 23 Mays 2010 (UTC)
Absent positive evidence of the sort suggested by DCDuring, it seems like this belongs in a usage note or qualifying phrase. This term clearly is used in a different way than other "X murderer" compounds, but the difference in usage doesn't seem to extend to a difference in sense: "not exactly an axe murderer" or "some kind of crazy axe murderer" doesn't really suggest a meaning other than sense 1. -- Visviva 18:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it's interesting that the difference BD2412 describes extends to the verb axe-murder. Where google books:"axe murdered" gets a plethora of relevant hits, google books:"knife murdered" seems to yield only chance collocations. Since the nonhyphenated verb is also attestable, we might reasonably question whether "axe murderer" is axe murder+-er rather than axe + murderer. -- Visviva 18:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That would make it an agent noun. bd2412 T 01:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~hit the ball twice~~
~~Rfv-sense: noun. Any cites for 'a hit the ball twice' or 'the hit the ball twice'? Two cites we already have justify the adverb. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:24, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Sigh Facts, did you really have to remove the adverb? That now means if the noun fails RFV, this entry will be deleted. Also, I don't see how your citation justifies a noun, any more like "rule 2: hitting a six" justifies a noun entry for hitting a six. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I just rfv-sensed the adverb as well, so both can be discussed. Facts707 11:16, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, didn't mean to frustrate you. It just appeared very obvious to me that the entry was a (deprecated template usage) rule, hence there was no need for the adverb. Apparently you don't see it that way, so I'm happy to discuss it here with others. Facts707 11:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rfv-sense: adverb. The adverb appears to me to be an attributive use of the rule "hit the ball twice". Thus, in (deprecated template usage) cricket, the (deprecated template usage) rule is "hit the ball twice" and the (deprecated template usage) ruling is "out, hit the ball twice", "out 'hit the ball twice'", "out Hit the ball twice", "out (hit the ball twice)", etc. Facts707 11:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Clearly (very clearly) we disagree on what the citations actually support. Try comparing:~~
The batsman was out happily

The batsman was out hit the ball twice
~~It seems to describe the way of being out, in the same way that happily does. That said, we need more input. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~out hit the ball twice~~
~~Noun. Surely this is both an adverb, and SoP (although that's an rfd issue). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Definitely sum of parts (and someone's making a dog's breakfast of the base entry). SemperBlotto 11:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Can you explain the rationale for your comment "making a dog's breakfast of the base entry"? That's a pretty strong criticism to have no explanation. Facts707 11:19, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first citation seems more in the nature of a mention than a use. In any event, it offers little to suggest how the term might be actually used on a cricket field by an umpire. Google news might be a better source. From that source, I have learned that this call has been made only 20 times since 1906 in first-class cricket, which suggests that both terms are likely "rare".

The 2003 citation does not support "noun" as I read it. Substituting the definition into the citation yields "The striker is [a ruling ...]", This doesn't seem a sensible reading. It seems to me that this is an adjectival phrase headed by "out". That would make "hit the ball twice" an adverb in this usage. But in the cases where "hit the ball twice" is used without "out" it seems to me to be an ellipsis for "out hit the ball twice" and thus also an adjective. DCDuring TALK 11:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you're a New Yorker, it's comparable to a baseball entry for out caught - describing the baseball being caugh on the fly by a fielder. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:48, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I inferred from the citations: adjective. This is just a question of English grammar, isn't it? Cricket umpires do speak English, don't they? The semantics doesn't override the grammar. DCDuring TALK 14:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we do have struck out and strike out, but possibly only because those terms are also used as metaphors for other common events. Facts707 11:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We also have foul out as both a noun and a verb for both baseball and basketball. Facts707 12:03, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I could cite "a foul out", "the foul out", and "foul outs", all of which scream "noun". Can anyone cite either of these in parallel constructions? In baseball, both "foul" and "out" are used as adverb and noun, foul can be used as verb, and out can be used as adjective (predicate only). I read "foul out" as a combination of two nouns. But, as for comparable expressions for compound terms involving "out", baseball umpires and sports announcers don't say *"He is 'fouled out'" or *"He is 'out fouled'". DCDuring TALK 14:56, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Ottoman Empire~~
~~See WT:CFI#Names of specific entities. Is this a toponym? How should it be defined? How does one know when the definition is attested? DCDuring TALK 16:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Does it matter? I don't see any difference to Roman Empire, Soviet Union or any name of state for that matter. The borders tend to vary over time. --Hekaheka 09:25, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~windmill~~
~~Rfv-sense: "Of a rotating part of a machine, to become disengaged and rotate freely". Is this distinct from the other rotational sense? --EncycloPetey 06:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
I believe this sense is intended in the sense of a cogwheel in a machine coming loose from the mechanism and being sent off spinning in a random direction. Think for example of a helicopter blade that becomes detached from the helicopter and spins into the air for a while before crashing down into something. That's certainly not the 'normal' sense of a windmill's operation... —CodeCa t 09:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is quite common in aviation to describe a propeller disengaging and spinning in the airstream. I believe most aircraft have a system to prevent it, as the windmilling blade can cause vibration and drag.--Dmol 10:03, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, the usage examples show that the first sense is transitive and the second intransitive. I've heard the second sense more than the first. DCDuring TALK 11:02, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that "to become disengaged" is necessarily part of the definition. Again in aviation, it's common to describe the rotation of a turbine engine's compressor fan as windmilling when the movement is being caused solely by the surrounding air stream (e.g. surface wind when the aircraft is parked on the ground, or the movement of the aircraft through the air with an engine shut down in flight) rather than by the gas generated by fuel combustion – but nothing is "disengaged". -- NixonB 18:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~crowdsourcing~~
~~Rfv-senses 2 to 5 - seem to be not much different from the first. Shouldn't the first definition just be expanded a little? SemperBlotto 09:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
I'd happily delete 2 and 3, but 4 and 5 seem a bit different. They should be here at RFV (where I think they will fail). Any objections to straight deleting 2 and 3? Mglovesfun (talk) 10:00, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if the contributor wants us to sort out the "definitions" offered by various sources. Sense 2 is from WP. Sense 1 includes all the others. Who performed a task previously is immaterial to the definition. For example, the task might be one never performed before, as a not-for-profit organization compiling a new set of linked online reference works. In principle, there could be pay for some or all of the crowd, as in crowdsourcing to one's employees. DCDuring TALK 11:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm the one who added those. The important difference between {1,4,5} on the one hand, and {2,3} on the other, is that 2 and 3 make no reference to the amount of compensation. This seems to me to be more like what you would expect the word to mean by analogy with the word "outsourcing"; that is, it means merely employing the crowd, with no implicit judgment about fairness. However, in some quarters the word "crowdsourcing" seems to have acquired the negative connotation of exploitation. For example,
"one name you may have heard is called crowdsourcing. crowdsourcing is a system where you get a lot of suckers and yahoos and rubes, and you get them to do a lot of work for you, and then you take all that work that they gave to you and you sell it back to them, and you make a lot of money and these guys all get screwed over, and it's really fantastic, and it's the best kind of business ever, and if you've read books like wikinomics, or other kinds of wiki economics books, this is the kind of model that they're trying to sell, that there's a sucker born every minute, and if you can get them to work on your site for free, ha ha ha. I think that's possibly the worst thing I've ever heard. I really think that's a terrible system, I hate the term crowdsourcing, it's one of the ugliest terms yet invented on the internet." -- 10:55 of Evan Prodromou's talk on Wiki Commercialization
So, {2,3} are the only definitions in the list which provide a sense of the word when it is not connoting exploitation, but merely employment of the crowd. It seems to me that there are at least two sense of the word, one exploitative and one not. Btw, {3,4,5} are from http://p2pfoundation.net/Crowdsourcing
I guess I'm supposed to find more uses of the non-exploitative/having-nothing-to-do-with-cheapness sense?
"First identified by journalist Jeff Howe in a June 2006 Wired article, “crowdsourcing” describes the process by which the power of the many can be leveraged to accomplish feats that were once the province of the specialized few." -- http://www.amazon.com/Crowdsourcing-Power-Driving-Future-Business/dp/0307396207
"...and the word they invented, crowdsourcing, was defined as the tapping of "the latent talent of the [online] crowd"" -- page 4 of http://www.amazon.com/reader/0132244799?_encoding=UTF8&ref_=sib_books_pg&qid=1276076938&query=crowdsourcing#reader_0132244799 We Are Smarter Than Me: How to Unleash the Power of Crowds in Your Business (Hardcover) by Barry Libert (Author), Jon Spector (Author), Don Tapscott (Foreword)
"Simply defined, crowdsourcing represents the act of a company or institution taking a function once performed by employees and outsourcing it to an undefined (and generally large) network of people in the form of an open call. This can take the form of peer-production (when the job is performed collaboratively), but is also often undertaken by sole individuals. The crucial prerequisite is the use of the open call format and the large network of potential laborers. (2006a: 5)" quote of Howe via Crowdsourcing as a Model for Problem Solving, DC Brabham, DOI: 10.1177/1354856507084420.

and, the source of sense 3 isn't "durable" media, but it is a direct quote from the blog of the person who coined the term, which should count for something.. "I like to use two definitions for crowdsourcing:

The White Paper Version: Crowdsourcing is the act of taking a job traditionally performed by a designated agent (usually an employee) and outsourcing it to an undefined, generally large group of people in the form of an open call.

The Soundbyte Version: The application of Open Source principles to fields outside of software." -- http://crowdsourcing.typepad.com/
~~Bayle Shanks 09:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~sex-up~~
~~Nothing for "a sex-up" in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 12:36, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~woontytump~~
~~Molehill. Nothing in Books. Equinox ◑ 12:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Creative invention or joke. Deleted SemperBlotto 21:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
I don't think so. (deprecated template usage) want is a dialectal word for mole, and (deprecated template usage) tump is a mound or molehill, so it sounds plausible to me –– bit of a weird spelling, mind. I see hits for (deprecated template usage) want-tump and (deprecated template usage) wonty-tump. Ƿidsiþ 22:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~transphenomenal~~
~~Apparently from a translation of Sartre. Independent use? DCDuring TALK 17:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
It does seem to be a (deprecated template usage) word - but what the hell does it mean? The (deprecated template usage) definition doesn't mean much to me. SemperBlotto 21:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's existence is definitely attestable, but possibly in more than one sense, going back to 19th C at least. I would need to work up to this, but it seems like a long run for a short slide. We could use someone familiar at greater depth than WP offers with the Idealists of the 19th C for one sense and someone who knows Sartre for another. The term does not appear in WP. It appears once in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (article on Sartre). DCDuring TALK 00:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of hits: google books:"transphenomenal"--687 hits. I find many hits from which a link to Sartre is unapparent, thus seem independent. I am not eager to add attesting citations myself, but the term looks attestable. --Dan Polansky 12:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The definition now reads "Having its being not reducible to its being perceived." The being of a thing, I estimate, is the essense of the thing, meaning the set of all monadic predicates that hold true of the thing. Example monadic predicates would be "cat(x)", "white(x)", "living(x)", holding of a white cat that is still alive. It is quite plausible that the truth-values of some monadic predicates holding of a real-world concrete entity such as a cat or an electron cannot be determined by observation. These could be tagged as "transphenomenal", although it is not clear why they would not be tagged as "noumenal". In any case, the contrast set could include "phenomenal", "transphenomenal", and "noumenal". This is a mere estimate, though. --Dan Polansky 12:35, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've already demonstrated a high level of aptitude for the task: you make it seem to easy, as if it were second nature to you. DCDuring TALK 15:34, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The late w:Anthony Flew's A Dictionary of Philosophy only uses the word in this article on Sartre, from which one could infer a definition of "having its character (nature?) not completely revealed in the totality of its manifestations". I don't know how this relates to other usage by philosophers. DCDuring TALK 16:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added citations which suggest Kantian origins. I think there is a fairly clear line Kant>Hegel>Fichte/Schilling>Husserl>Sartre. The citations don't clarify the definition for me. DCDuring TALK 14:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re origins: the putative etymon seems to be no older than the English term (possibly younger). It appears in commentaries on Kant starting in the 1880s, but I cannot find the German term in Kant, nor even the English term in any translations. It appears to be the sort of word invented by latter-day interpreters in order to confuse the uninitiated. -- Visviva 19:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~fish~~
~~"(of a drag queen or transsexual) Resembling a biological woman. Girl, yo chick was lookin fish tonight." Equinox ◑ 17:24, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Irish~~
Rfv-sense (adjective): (informal, derogatory, dated) Nonsensical, illogical.
I am fairly sure that this is based on the fairly common collocation "Irish logic", which I take to be "a type of logic typical of or attributed to the Irish." It is not always derogatory and does not seem especially dated. I doubt that this is ever used as a true adjective or, indeed, used in the sense given except in the expression "Irish logic" or its synonyms.
Is it a true adjective? See Wiktionary:English adjectives.

Is it ever used in this sense except in "Irish logic" or synonyms thereof?

Is there any usage that could not be included in a definition limited to "Typical of or attributed to the Irish"?
There are a large number of demonymic stereotypes that provide widely used pejorative senses of virtually every demonym. We seem quite arbitrary in how we treat these. As descriptivist adherents to "all senses of all words in all languages" we would seem compelled to have such senses, but we don't. Can we simply finesse the matter by having "Typical of or attributed to the X" for any demonym "X"? DCDuring TALK 17:21, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I know this one. I may be difficult to cite because of the other meanings that will be used in texts a lot, but I've used it and heard it used. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a question of presentation. I feel faced with a choice between the most natural way of presenting pejorative (and certain other) senses of demonyms and avoiding fanning flames of hostility and ethnic defensiveness. We need not make every pejorative sense explicit if we show a sense of "relating to the X people, their culture, and language(s)". If someone has a pejorative view of the "X people, their culture, and language(s)", then the non-evaluative sense arguably includes the pejorative associations they have. The shifts in the way the word "black" has been used by both blacks and non-blacks is interesting, but it seems more encyclopedic than lexicographic. Similarly, with the implicit racism in the (dated) expression "That's damned white of you, Thomas!". It seems to me that there is a long appendix on the sociolinguistics of demonyms and ethnic slurs. Any particular nuances for a given demonym seem more like usage notes material than definitional material. DCDuring TALK 15:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Provided I (or anyone) can cite it, this seems very different from "from or pertaining to Ireland". It can refer to concepts as well as people, an "Irish idea", and "Irish suggestion". Now... I just note to prove it. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:06, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The OED has this meaning as a separate meaning to the other ones. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:50, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What would you expect from those stereotyping Edwardian logophilic Gaelophobes? I wonder whether they see fit to include "perfidious Albion". DCDuring TALK 19:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hoping this is a joke rather than a shot at Oxford. Anyway it's turning out to be a bastard to cite, as there are so many uses of Irish to mean 'relating to Ireland or the Irish people' that finding three citations is gonna be hard. Let's be honest here, RFV is about whether entries are cited, not citable. I'd like to see this kept as good faith, but we'll need more opinions than just mine. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~runcible~~
Entry used to point to (deprecated template usage) runcible spoon as the only use (and that page seems to confirm it). A month ago, User:Kuraimizu added the three current senses. Do they exist? Are they attestable? Equinox ◑ 17:53, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I don't know, but runcible hat gets 477 citations from b.g.c. [204]. --EncycloPetey 19:08, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't checked all 477, but of the first page of ten at least eight are referring to Lear.—msh210℠ 15:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~ratelessly~~
~~"In a rateless manner" (but it's not clear from (deprecated template usage) rateless what that means). Only one match in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 21:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
I could not find citations that are independent of the 2 non-independent ones at bgc at Scholar. I found none at all at News or Groups. We are at the top of the Web hits (~160 total). The web hits are consistent with what I found for "rateless" at WP. I found our definition even less comprehensible than what WP had.

From w:Fountain code: "The term fountain or rateless refers to the fact that these codes do not exhibit a fixed code rate." The actual wording of the definition of (deprecated template usage) rateless is left as an exercise for the reader. (ie, I don't have any understanding of what would in the numerator and denominator of a "code rate". I doubt if I could say more than a sentence about w:Category:Coding theory, which seems to be the context, part of mathematical communications theory.) DCDuring TALK 00:00, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Kong~~
~~Adjective: "Very large; as if King Kong sized." Equinox ◑ 19:44, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~luna~~
~~Both English senses. The editor who created this had some other odd ideas. --EncycloPetey 01:38, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
The moth is fine. The (deprecated template usage) lunette sense seems wrong to me. SemperBlotto 07:31, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A confusion with lune? Pingku 11:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~alluring~~
~~Rfv-sense: noun, "The action of the verb to allure." Is this citable as a noun rather than just a gerund? Mglovesfun (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Does the existence of an attestable plural, (deprecated template usage) allurings, help? Equinox ◑ 16:14, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~That seems to be the best way to show it, either countable singular use, or plural use. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:22, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~If you're saying this is attestable, let's keep it. You know your stuff. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~I ~~will add~~ have now added citations to the plural entry. Equinox ◑ 17:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~halfalogue~~
~~Only in one news article so far. Protologism, I think. Equinox ◑ 16:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
But, requoted in many blogs about it. People are catching on to the word "halfalogue" quite easily. WikiWilliamP 12:16, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a debate, we're looking for reliable evidence of use. It gets a month, and if it fails and is deleted, it can be reentered at any time provided it is cited per WT:CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:27, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The coining article hasn't been published yet. Any coverage wouldn't seem to be "independent", as I understand the term as used in WT:CFI. There would seem to be no chance that the word would be includable before May 19, 2011, based on our "spanning one year" clause. DCDuring TALK 14:55, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~sapiens~~
~~"of, or relating to the species Homo sapiens". How sapiens is a chimpanzee? Equinox ◑ 16:16, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Not at all. Chimps are either (deprecated template usage) paniscus or (deprecated template usage) troglodytes. However, I'll see if I can add a Translingual section. SemperBlotto 06:49, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EP has consistently followed and enforced the practice of displaying epithets used in taxonomic names only as Latin. These epithets apparently usually don't have an independent existence in multiple languages, which would be required for a Translingual section. DCDuring TALK 15:12, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Sapiens" is used as an invariant English noun meaning Homo sapiens. I don't know whether it ever appears in a context where Homo sapiens hasn't appeared before. If it only appears in such a context, having an entry for it is arguably like having as definitions for "Arthur" "King Arthur", "Chester A Arthur", etc. There are usages after "too", "very", and forms of "become" that are consistent with it being a true adjective. Some, but not all, of the adjective usage seems like mere wordplay. In addition, the usages all seem to suffer from the "Arthur" problem. DCDuring TALK 15:34, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~thaum~~
"(science fiction, fantasy) A basic unit of magic; a fundamental particle, the magical equivalent of the atom." I think this is only in Terry Pratchett's Discworld universe and thus fails the CFI on fictional worlds. Can anyone prove me wrong? Equinox ◑ 16:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pratchett is the only author I've ever seen use it. It's not listed in the Oxford Dictionary of Science Fiction. --EncycloPetey 19:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh well, I suppose I shall have to add Appendix:Discworld to my list of things to do (It doesn't get any smaller). SemperBlotto 13:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Tarantinan~~
~~Doesn't seem to meet CFI per the usual Google sources. Equinox ◑ 01:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~machicolated~~
~~The citations established that there is such a term, but do not establish that it is an adjective rather than the past participle of the verb machicolate. DCDuring TALK 01:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language suggests three tests of adjectivity, reprised at User:Visviva/POS testing#Ed. Needless to say, the data set is rather sparse; nonetheless the data seems to support adjective status.
Adjectives take un- in the sense of "not" rather than reversal. B.g.c. gives two unique hits for "unmachicolated", both of which appear to clearly mean "not machicolated": google books:unmachicolated

Adjectives are gradable: "highly machicolated", "a more machicolated and Otrantine residence"

I was unable to find any case of unambiguous use with the telltale verbs seem, appear, look and remain, but am inclined to attribute this to the sparseness of the data. -- Visviva 19:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the citations show existence and this is a question of grammar rather than attestation, can we now consider this passed?—msh210℠ 19:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
unmachicolated and citation added. DCDuring TALK 19:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Transwiki:Dicl~~
~~Not found in flute dictionaries. Goldenrowley 05:18, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
google books:+"the|a dicl" OR +dicls vietnamese|vietnam gives no relevant hits.—msh210℠ 19:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RFV failed. Entrydeleted. Goldenrowley 03:10, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~aerosonator~~
~~Nothing much in Books. Equinox ◑ 16:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~It comes from a NASA dictionary of aerospace stuff. Doesn't seem to have been used outside of that. SemperBlotto 21:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Sharks~~
~~Four senses, all proper names of teams, need to meet the brand criteria.—msh210℠ 19:06, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
The brand CFI is only for “a physical product.” But wouldn't it be easy to attest Shark as n. “member of the San Jose hockey team?” —Michael Z. 2010-05-26 02:56 z
~~cabre~~
~~To fly upside down. (Does he mean (deprecated template usage) cabré?) SemperBlotto 21:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Never heard of it, but that IPA doesn't look like English to me. Maybe it's enPR, but it's not IPA. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
I found a WWI aviation use that is not consistent with the sense given:
In vain I have opened the throttle wide; the machine cannot fly at the right angle of incidence. I must descend, and to do that it is necessary to change my course—a very difficult manoeuvre, with the machine cabred as it is and so near the ground! I have hardly touched the rudder bar preparatory to redress in case of a skid when I see a little hunting plane making straight for me. Instinctively I cut off the ignition, running the risk of crashing on to the ground but the little monoplane passes over me with a vertical leap! The pilot salutes me, ironically, as he goes by—imitating with his arms my heavy flight, tail down.

There is nothing about this or the preceding text describing takeoff that suggests the plane is flying inverted. Note that the usage was italic. DCDuring TALK 00:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our entry at cabré seems right, but much of the usage seems to be without accent. DCDuring TALK 01:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~lesser-flamingo~~
~~I see no evidence of this attributive form in usage. Equinox ◑ 21:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~lesser-spotted-woodpecker~~
~~I see no evidence of this attributive form in usage. Equinox ◑ 22:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~on the spectrum~~
Autistic. I just want to verify this because it doesn't immediately produce lots of Google Books matches, and supposed autistics are well known as an attention-seeking group on the Internet. Might be protologistic. Equinox ◑ 00:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I say sum of parts, it means on the austism spectrum with the word 'autism' elided. It refers to being on a specific spectrum, Delete IMO. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree if it's always used in the context of autism. If citations show use like "I don't know what to do with my son any more. (He's on the spectrum.)" in a general parenting (not specifically autism) newsgroup, then keep.—msh210℠ 18:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite sure I understand, sorry. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If on the spectrum is used to mean "on the autism spectrum" and the autism spectrum is not identified anywhere as being the spectrum referred to, then it's not SOP.—msh210℠ 18:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That said, google groups:"on the spectrum" -autism -autistic gives no relevant hits.—msh210℠ 18:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we want to exclude all contexts where autism is mentioned -- it would be rather odd for this term to be used elsewhere -- just contexts where a phrase like "autism spectrum" or "autistic spectrum" is used prior to the first use of "on the spectrum." B.g.c. seems to have disabled their more sophisticated search features, so finding these cites is more of a pain than it should be. -- Visviva 14:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we don't want to exclude all contexts where autism is mentioned. My original comments (18:16, 25 May 2010 (UTC)) were not properly thought out, and I apologize. My later comments (18:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC) and 19:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)) are more reasonable, I think: we want to exclude all contexts where the spectrum in question is identified.—msh210℠ 14:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re the cites added: The 2002 Gilpin quote uses "on the autism/Asperger's spectrum" immediately above in the text, so doesn't help. The 2006 grandin quote has the same problem. The 2009 Robison quote, from a blog, of course is no good. The 2009 Koegel quote, though it clearly identifies itself as referring to autism, can probably be considered good, as it is using "on the spectrum" without referring to the autism spectrum anywhere.—msh210℠ 19:44, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~bibliotaph~~
~~Is this a dictionary-only word? SemperBlotto 06:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Apparently not. (Cited and struck.) Ƿidsiþ 07:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~txto~~
~~Passed and RFD request on the grounds it may be citable. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~wreckreation~~
~~—msh210℠ 19:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Batman~~
Rfv-sense prop. n., “A resourceful, sinister, serious or intelligent man.” —Michael Z. 2010-05-26 02:52 z
~~asswipe~~
~~"(British|informal|vulgar) Toilet paper, especially in the plural." Hard to imagine a British-only word with ass (not arse) in it. Citations? Equinox ◑ 08:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~It's in the OED, and so is (deprecated template usage) arsewipe ("especially in the plural" is wrong though).~~
~~snorasaurus~~
~~Equinox ◑ 11:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~scolionophobia~~
~~Fear of school. Only in word lists? Equinox ◑ 12:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Debatably should be scholionophobia anyway. But let's cross that bridge when we come to it. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Wouldn't it be (deprecated template usage) scholiophobia (without the (deprecated template usage) on), since the (deprecated template usage) scholi- bit comes from the Ancient Greek (deprecated template usage) σχόλιον (skhólion), in which (deprecated template usage) -ον (-on) is just a case ending, which would be omitted in concatenation? Properly formed, the word should be (deprecated template usage) σχολι- (skholi-) + (deprecated template usage) -o- + (deprecated template usage) -phobia. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 00:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~One citation for scholionophobia, didn't look very hard, though. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 00:07, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~-ishness~~
Do three example of this exist where it is not Lua error in Module:affix/templates at line 130: The |lang= parameter is not used by this template. Place the language code in parameter 1 instead.? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Agree. -ness makes a noun of the adjective-making -ish. Pingku 20:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~beavage~~
~~Seems to be in use, but certainly a neologism. Might pass our CFI, but if so, only barely. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 02:05, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~exitate~~
~~Not in my (limited) Latin dictionary. SemperBlotto 07:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Looks like a misspelling of excitate / excitāte to me. See page excito, conjugation. Curious 20:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~kunstleroman~~
~~I've only ever seen this as (deprecated template usage) Künstlerroman, and I say this is a misspelling. Is it actually used like this, with a single R? Ƿidsiþ 09:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Perhaps not very common, but I can see book usage: [205] My inclination is to use "common misspelling of". Equinox ◑ 09:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Me too – done. Ƿidsiþ 12:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~section~~
~~Rfv-sense: To commit, as for mental health reasons (after various sections of legal acts regarding mental health). Which sense of the verb "commit"? --Hekaheka 12:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~None of the ones we have, but our page for commit is pretty bad. I will try and flesh it out later today. Ƿidsiþ 12:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~softkill~~
~~Tagged, not listed. Equinox ◑ 16:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Euroleague~~
~~Seems to require attestation as a brand name.—msh210℠ 17:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~tuefit~~
(County Durham) the lapwing. Possibly Topcat tosh, unfortunately County Durham's a pretty small area so trying to cite this is gonna be tough even if it does exist. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Harry Hun~~
~~Top Cat. "(British, derogatory) a name used to represent the German people." Equinox ◑ 17:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
I have no idea what you mean by "Top Cat", but there are bgc hits for this phrase, though they seem to refer to your typical German (as if Harry Hun were his name) rather than the Germans generally.—msh210℠ 17:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~kleeper~~
~~Top Cat. "(Northern England) the oystercatcher." Equinox ◑ 17:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~barny~~
~~Top Cat. "(British) the barnacle goose." Equinox ◑ 17:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~boglet~~
~~Top Cat. Two senses, animals in Welsh dialect. Equinox ◑ 17:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~woggy hen~~
~~Apparently only in Birds Britannica. Equinox ◑ 17:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Google Books, Groups, Scholar and News get a combined zero hits with this meaning. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These are all by User:Top Cat 14, most of whose contributions were reasonable. I meant to investigate this batch at the time, but got sidetracked. I can't now verify any of them. SemperBlotto 07:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~grollog~~
~~Apparently only in Birds Britannica. Equinox ◑ 17:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Google Books, Groups, Scholar and News get a combined zero hits with this meaning. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~userbox~~
"A simple, standardised box placed on a webpage to indicate the user's proficiencies or preferences." Nothing on Books, and nothing among the English-language Usenet hits that are among first fifty hits at google groups:+userbox.—msh210℠ 17:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's got three citations now. Equinox ◑ 17:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None of them count. See Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2008-04/WMF jargon, where the decision was "Citations in the context of Wikimedia projects do not count for the purposes of CFI.", and where the vote clearly indicated its purview "include[s] citations from non-WMF material which derive from or are about WMF".—msh210℠ 18:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But see Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-06/WMF jargon accepted when it meets CFI. DCDuring TALK 15:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a shame. I didn't realise that. I think stuff that's widespread enough to get into published material not published by WMF should count for citation purposes. It's a bit crazy that we're trying to cite something without referring to it directly. I was gonna post a similar message about Tsolyáni which failed in part because the citations actually referred to what the word meant, instead of a 'generic' or 'figurative' meaning. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:07, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The uses are "dependent" if you want more specific jargon - while it would fit into a glossary about Wikipedia, if it's not used outside the one community, we aren't interested in it (according to CFI which requires "independent"). We should have lots more appendices for different organisation's jargons and a way of linking to them nicely, I do agree. Conrad.Irwin 11:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you could argue the same about flush and straight and their poker meanings. Finding citations for these two would be ridiculously easy. Now if you want to find citations that support the senses but without referring to poker, it's impossible, right? See WT:VOTE. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Providing we can accept these citations, this is a pass. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-06/WMF jargon accepted when it meets CFI seems to settle the matter. DCDuring TALK 15:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Passed. Striking.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~RBM~~
~~(British, birdwatching) red-breasted merganser Equinox ◑ 17:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Seems ok at a glance. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~petch~~
~~"(Lancashire) the black-headed gull" Equinox ◑ 17:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~frankenword~~
~~Via somebody on the Feedback page: [206] It does not seem very attestable, but newspapers might help. Equinox ◑ 12:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Jongian~~
Makes perfect sense, but would be nice to see a quote. Of the three visible results on Google Books, two are scannos for (deprecated template usage) Jungian. Ƿidsiþ 12:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cited. Equinox ◑ 20:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Lovely. Ƿidsiþ 09:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~synthacaine~~
~~Plausible enough that I didn't delete it on sight. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Weird. It looks as though it might be a brand name. Equinox ◑ 20:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~forage~~
Rfv-sense. Adjective, "Of or pertaining to forage or foraging." Is this the noun used attributively? The current citation doesn't help IMO, as the meaning is much too ambiguous. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'd say it's forage cap that might merit an entry. It's a generic term for various military caps intended for field use. --Hekaheka 14:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~ggnore~~
~~"Abbreviation for “good game (gg), no rematch.”" --Yair rand (talk) 17:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
gg no re seems to be the usual form. Equinox ◑ 20:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~sans~~
~~Rfv-sense: Adjective meaning "lacking, without". Isn't that the preposition sense? --EncycloPetey 05:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
RFV failed, sense removed. Yes, I think so. —Ruakh_TALK 11:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~raupples~~
~~I'm not seeing anything on Google books, but, as a regional term, it might not be in there even if it does exist. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 06:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
No Google hits of any kind that I can find. Closest I can find is Raupple, a rare surname. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:07, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We might have to await the next volume of Dictionary of American Regional English. DCDuring TALK 12:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~pseudoscientific~~
~~I'd like to see both definitions verified. They seem iffy and possibly like original research to me. __meco 09:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
The first definition - Of, relating to, or employing pseudoscience - has widespread long-term use. Hundreds of book hits, going back to the late 1980s. (The only variation is the alt hyphenated spelling, but this is not the issue you have raised). Easily verified.--Dmol 10:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But don't forget that this is not Wikipedia. We expect ALL entries to be original research - not just copied from other dictionaries. SemperBlotto 14:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added two citations for the first sense. There is a sort of grey area, though: is it pseudo+scientific (i.e. resembling, but not actually, science) or pseudoscience+ific (employing pseudoscience)? In practice they are almost the same. Equinox ◑ 18:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The OED says "From (deprecated template usage) pseudo- + (deprecated template usage) scientific, after (deprecated template usage) pseudoscience", which seems a good compromise. Ƿidsiþ 14:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the citations is that they don't actually document the specific definition. My particular issue is with the word employing. I was arguing on a Wikipedia talk page the position that employing the theory of either science or pseudoscience can not be labeled scientific or pseudoscientific per se. __meco 09:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~fliver~~
~~Alt spelling of (deprecated template usage) flivver. Can't find evidence. Equinox ◑ 18:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~zizi~~
~~Rfv-sense: French, vagina. I thought it was just penis, fr:zizi seems to agree. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~casuist~~
~~Rfv-sense: pejorative. Tagged, not listed here. DCDuring TALK 14:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~June 2010~~
~~untyreable~~
~~Does not appear to exist in the sense given. Possibly appears once in some version of Shakespeare for (deprecated template usage) untirable. Equinox ◑ 15:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Failed. Sense removed.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~scree~~
Rfv-sense: verb
I can find plenty of evidence for this processing being called (deprecated template usage) screeding, that it uses (deprecated template usage) screed boards, and that once complete the concrete is described as being (deprecated template usage) screed. This suggests that it would be logical for the verb to be "to scree" to but I haven't been able to find evidence of it on bgc or ggc. Thryduulf (talk) 16:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at this bgc search for some distinct verb collocations, I found 2 new verb senses (added), one citation that fits the definition, a few scannos for forms of screed#Verb, and numerous scannos for forms of screen#Verb. DCDuring TALK 12:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~syun~~
~~Obsolete (deprecated template usage) scion. Equinox ◑ 19:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
It's in the OED as being used in the 15th and 16th centuries, although none of their citations uses it and I can't find any examples on the web either. Of course most books from that period have not been digitised. Ƿidsiþ 08:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Searching google books:"syun" shows that no one will bother to cite this. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 01:03, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Among the first 250 bgc hits (no, I didn't look at all of them, only at the results pages), I only see two that do not appear to be transliterations or names. The first is [207], where it's being used to mean "soon, early", in accordance with the other of those two hits: [208].—msh210℠ (talk) 17:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~lag~~
~~Rfv-sense: (Internet) bad connection, loss of connection, causing a delay. DCDuring TALK 10:41, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Cited. Very common in gaming circles. Equinox ◑ 11:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But the definition and usage note implies that it is used in gaming to mean delay in a sense distinct from sense 1 "latency". The quotations don't make clear a distinction. In fact, the third suggests there is no difference. I could as easily create a distinct sense for control systems engineering or economics. DCDuring TALK 11:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A gamer might say "there was a lot of lag" or "too much lag". Can sense 1 be used uncountably? Equinox ◑ 15:24, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. Good point. I tried splitting sense 1 into countable and uncountable. That might be overkill, but we get reports that countability is a troublesome issue for language learners. Perhaps we should make a point of splitting countable and uncountable variants of the most common of senses. DCDuring TALK 17:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So is this an rfd-redundant now? If so, I say merge.—msh210℠ 15:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~sophophobia~~
~~Fear of learning. Plausible, but apparently only in word lists. Equinox ◑ 16:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~I got 1½ valid quots. thanks to google books:"sophophobia". — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Easily attested with the help of Google Groups. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:26, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
RFV passed. Thanks for the cites, Doremítzwr! (Though I prefer (deprecated template usage) phobosophy, personally.) —Ruakh_TALK 23:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, interesting; however, note that, whereas (deprecated template usage) sophophobia is the fear of learning, (deprecated template usage) phobosophy is the fear of abstract knowledge or philosophical thinking, which makes the latter far more truly antonymous with (deprecated template usage) philosophy. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~marmiting~~
~~Kept at RFD and sent hither.—msh210℠ 16:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
RFV failed, deleted hence. —Ruakh_TALK 23:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~hommage~~
~~Alt spelling of (deprecated template usage) homage. Hard to find evidence in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 16:40, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Looks good now IMO. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
I changed the etymology and definition: it's not an alternative spelling of homage, but rather a use of the French word (usually by pretentious film critics..), and is generally pronounced as such. Ƿidsiþ 11:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RFV passed. Thanks for the cites, Visviva! —Ruakh_TALK 23:13, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~apothecary~~
~~Rfv-sense: a drug-store or pharmacy. Never heard it. Ƿidsiþ 08:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~That would be an apothecary's. SemperBlotto 08:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Note fr:apothecary shop which passed an RFD. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:58, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
I've added three cites. The 1919 cite doesn't quite match our definition — it makes a point of distinguishing an apothecary from a drugstore — and the recent cites don't support our Template:obsolete tag; but all three support a general sense (deprecated template usage) apothecary. —Ruakh_TALK 20:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~I think apothecary is basically obsolete in the US, though of course intelligible to international sophisticates such as ourselves. DCDuring TALK 23:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
The person sense isn't obsolete, as I've heard it used in popular television shows. Friends (not too long ago, I guess) had an episode that featured an "apothecary table", which was mentioned over and over. I'd consider the person sense archaic, but not obsolete. However, as a "pharmacy/drugstore", I would agree that it's obsolete in the US. --EncycloPetey 02:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Checking COCA, it isn't exactly obsolete, but it only occurs once in the spoken material. It seems to be used a great deal attributively (80/159) usually in reference to antique items or non-US or historical situations. Much of the non-attributive use has the same historical and non-US pattern. Our register/usage tags don't quite capture it. DCDuring TALK 03:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest calling it dated, rather than obsolete. I just finished a book circa 1950 that mentioned it. Don't we use obsolete for those words not used for over 100 years.--Dmol 07:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No one has ever said the person sense is obsolete. We label it now historical, which seems perfectly fine to me. Well, I added the label, so I would think that. Ƿidsiþ 08:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also think "now historical" is fine for the person sense. As for the place sense, as far as I can tell: (1) it's basically an error; (2) like the person sense, it's "historical" or "now historical"; (3) unlike the person sense, it's grown more common over time, because back when the person sense was more common, people actually knew the word's proper sense, so the error was less likely. (I note that "worked at an apothecary" gets several times as many Google-hits as "worked at a druggist" and "worked at a pharmacist" put together, even though "Worked as an apothecary" can't even begin to compare with "worked as a druggist" and "worked as a pharmacist".) —Ruakh_TALK 10:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RFV passed, but tagged "nonstandard" and "now historical", per my last comment. —Ruakh_TALK 23:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~city~~
~~Rfv-senses. Both adjective senses, both badly written, and seem to be the noun used attributively. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
RFV failed, sense removed. —Ruakh_TALK 11:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~jrf~~
~~I've been on a few French chatrooms in the past ten years or so, I've absolutely never heard of this. Google Groups might be a good place to start. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:18, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Seems to be tosh. Can't find anything on this, anywhere. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~It think it must be a protologism. Nobody knows of it. Delete. —Stephen 07:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Speedily deleted by Mglovesfun. —Ruakh_TALK 23:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~遊戯王~~
~~Japanese for the Yu-Gi-Oh series. I can't imagine another use for it than just a brand name. Ultimateria 19:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~uglyprinter~~
~~Nothing in Google book search. SemperBlotto 15:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Google has 12 hits for this and Google Groups has 5 edits - but they seems relevant. I'm a bit curious about the book reference at the bottom, as that might give use one use. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RFV failed, entry deleted. I looked through the Usenet hits, and none seemed to be in quite this sense. (In general, they were all different nonces on the model of (deprecated template usage) prettyprinter.) —Ruakh_TALK 23:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~heat~~
Rfv-sense: one or more guns. In response to effort to put burden of proof on those who argue that "pack heat" is an idiom because "heat" is this sense does not exist apart from "pack". The goals of this verification will be to show that "pack heat" is not a set phrase, using modification and coordination tests and our usual corpora: bgc, news, groups, COCA and BNC. This will go through rfv to harness the argumentation process to providing citations that are a lasting part of the entry. DCDuring TALK 19:02, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~See Wiktionary:English set phrases. DCDuring TALK 19:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Cited by you, a few hours after you created this section. It looks good to me. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 17:53, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~microtomed~~
~~Rfv-sense: Needs to be shown to be an adjective. See Wiktionary:English adjectives. DCDuring TALK 09:27, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Three citations added. SemperBlotto 09:35, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those cites don't show traits that distinguish adjectives from past participles. Past participles can be used in the attributive position. See Wiktionary:English adjectives for the tests ("too X", "very X", "more X than", "become X"). DCDuring TALK 13:34, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~mortal coil~~
Rfv-sense: the physical body of man (containing the spirit inside), based on misconstruction of coil in the Shakespearean quote as meaning "helix, spiral" rather than "tumult, disorder". Is there clear indication that this misconstruction is widespread in actual use? DCDuring TALK 14:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like either of our definitions. For me, mortal coil means "the land of the living" or something. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:21, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shakespeare's sense was apparently more or less SoP: the literal sense of (deprecated template usage) coil and a metonymous use of (deprecated template usage) mortal. I'd be happy with any citations that clearly illustrate the misconstructed modern sense, preferably through use, but mention might be required. The original contributor provided a folk etymology in a note, now under Etymology, which shows one path to the misconstruction. DCDuring TALK 16:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether it's in widespread use, as it appears in a well-known work. However, the Shakespeare is often referenced in literature, and is even used as the title of several books and a play. --EncycloPetey 16:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it matters. The issue is whether we keep or revise the sense.

You can't be suggesting that any phrase in Shakespeare (or from KJV or the Aeneid) (not just any word in the normal sense) automatically merits inclusion as it is from a well-know work? DCDuring TALK 17:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not suggesting it; we already do that. The presence of a space as a character seems to freak people out in a way that I don't fully understand. We wouldn't reject a phrasal verb, just because it's limited to Shakespeare. A collocation with a unique and idiomatic meaning is a collocation regardless of where it appears. If "mortal coil" in Shakespeare is not mere sum of parts lexically and grammatically, then we ought to include it by CFI. CFI explicitly defines "terms" to include multi-word expressions like post office, and explicitly states that usage in a well-known work meets our attestation criteria. So, we have precisely what I'm saying spelled out in CFI. I've no need to suggest anything. --EncycloPetey 02:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What freaks me out is the potential for enormous increase in the number of entries cluttering this place. Consider the effect of this taken together with our new-contributor-unfriendly approach, the poor quality of many of our entries, and our ambition to include any possible lexical entry and to do so not in the fullness of time, but now. What is it that will lead us to higher quality? I wonder sometimes why translators are willing to put so much effort in translating against the sometimes century-old wording of our English definitions. (I suppose it's useful practice. That poor-quality definitions need to change means that there will be only more and more opportunity to practice translating the reworded senses.)

The interaction of our "well-known-work" attestation exception and our lack of discrimination about phrasal entries would lead us to allow entries of any collocation from Shakespeare. We do not even limit ourselves to constituents. Thus we could have "to die", "die, to", "to die, to", "to die, to sleep", die, to sleep, to sleep.

The rules that we operate under are hopelessly underspecified. To depend on "common sense" or laziness alone to prevent the addition of such low-value entries flies in the face of human experience. The absence of well-specified rules or a process for constructively harnessing the energies of new users lead us to depend on an amazingly narrow contributor base. DCDuring TALK 14:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To die, to sleep; / To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub; / For in that sleep of death what dreams may come / When we have shuffled off this mortal coil, / Must give us pause: ...

To me it brings to mind an image of a knotted mess created by the random weaving together of the threads created, measured and cut by the Moirae. Pingku 16:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's enough to bring one to understand why some believe that Shakespeare needs to be translated from EME to Modern English and that those who read Shakespeare in translation often understand better than those who study it in the original (ie, native English speakers). Shakespeare's "coil" is a false friend in modern English. DCDuring TALK 17:39, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See also w:mortal coil#Schopenhauer's speculation. At least if I'm a complete idiot about this, I can lay claim to good company. :) Pingku 11:34, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To the extent I had a meaning of this in mind, it was the now-seeking-citations sense. Citations would help us determine just how widespread the misconstrued meaning is and how early it emerged. DCDuring TALK 12:13, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~I'm intrigued about from where/when the etymology might have derived. Pingku 13:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
In Shakespearean scholarship, apparently there are many who believe that in what I call the misconstrual: that it is a metaphor, perhaps of a moulted snakeskin or of entanglements as from a rope. Apparently there has been until recently been some dialect usage of the term in the "tumult" sense. But no one seems to have any good ideas where the dialect usage came from. Samuel Johnson suggested (deprecated template usage) kulleren. (We have a Danish (deprecated template usage) kuller.) DCDuring TALK 15:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the Victorian era books attempting to record English regional dialects include coil in the sense of "tumult, fuss, noise". Particularly meaningful is it being recorded in Warwickshire, which includes Stratford-on-Avon. DCDuring TALK 16:30, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~toys in the attic~~
~~Really? Mglovesfun (talk) 14:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Yup. DCDuring TALK 16:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cited, but rare in print. Stephen King has used it three times! Equinox ◑ 16:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. DCDuring TALK 17:49, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nice work. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~cryptex~~
~~Only in one fictional universe (Da Vinci Code). Equinox ◑ 23:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 21:41, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~t9n~~
What stops this being an abbreviation of (deprecated template usage) thistledown, (deprecated template usage) transaction, (deprecated template usage) trencherman, (deprecated template usage) trepidation, and (deprecated template usage) tribulation? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 00:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that nobody uses it that way. You might as well ask what stops (deprecated template usage) PTA from being an abbreviation of pink tickling arms. Equinox ◑ 21:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We just need those three quotations. I don't see why, without evidence, this term could be assumed to be an abberviation for (deprecated template usage) translation over any other nine-letter, t-initial, n-terminal word, given context. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
t9n means translation because that's what people intend it to mean. Just like how people use i18n to mean internationalisation and l10n to mean localisation. Whether it could possibly mean something else is completely irrelevant, as it is only used in that one sense. It's not any different from any other term in that way, really. —CodeCa t 22:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
None of this is the issue. This term needs to be attested in three independent, durably-archived sources, spanning at least a year. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 00:40, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RFV failed, entry deleted. Equinox had added one cite — IMHO borderline, because it's using the phrase "the t9n tools" to refer to translation tools found in a file named t9n.zip, but I would have accepted it as one of three cites — but I couldn't find any other durably archived uses, only mentions. I've moved that cite to Citations:t9n. —Ruakh_TALK 21:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~A2600~~
Searching google books:"A2600" +atari only shows (deprecated template usage) a2600 used as part of a web address, viz. http://www.zophar.net/a2600.html. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:41, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Should we have this kind of designation anyway? There are zillions of them, and they are pretty much brand names. A1200, CBM64 and CPC464 all spring to mind within a few seconds. Equinox ◑ 19:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really should be in RFD. I don't think it should pass there though.--Dmol 10:08, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RFV failed, entry deleted. If anyone had cited it, an RFD might have become necessary, but no one did, so it's moot. —Ruakh_TALK 21:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Brueckelyn~~
Searching google books:"Brueckelyn" yields zero hits; however, google books:"Breuckelen" brings up a lot of seemingly pertinent hits. Perhaps the page title is misspelt. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There may not be many sources for it, but it is plausible that it is a misspelling of the original Dutch name, once the Dutch moved out. How many English speakers do you know that can make sense of such a name? :P Whether it is a common enough term to warrant inclusion in Wiktionary, though, is another matter. I don't think it is. —CodeCa t 21:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, it may be a misspelling, but there isn't much value in retaining a rare misspelling of an obsolete spelling. Though, of course, that isn't the point; it doesn't seem attestable per the CFI. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 00:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 21:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~typhlobasia~~
~~Looks like a list word.—msh210℠ 18:54, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
What's the etymology of this term? The first element is (deprecated template usage) typhl- (from the Ancient Greek (deprecated template usage) τυφλός (tuphlós), tuphlos, "blind"). However, I could only find three terms in the OED that end in (deprecated template usage) -basia, viz. (deprecated template usage) platybasia (back-formed from (deprecated template usage) platybasic, wherein the (deprecated template usage) -bas- element means "base") on the one hand, and (deprecated template usage) abasia and (deprecated template usage) dysbasia (where, in both of which, the (deprecated template usage) -basia element means "walking", and derives from the Ancient Greek (deprecated template usage) βάσις (básis), basis, "step") on the other. Any idea whence, if anywhence, the (deprecated template usage) -basia element heralds? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 21:40, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Latin (deprecated template usage) bāsiō, maybe. Nadando 21:43, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
That makes sense: (deprecated template usage) [etyl] Ancient Greek (deprecated template usage) τυφλός (tuphlós) + (deprecated template usage) [etyl] Latin (deprecated template usage) bāsi- (stem of (deprecated template usage) bāsiō and its derivation (deprecated template usage) bāsium) + (deprecated template usage) [etyl] English (deprecated template usage) -ia (suffix forming abstract nouns). That derivation would also explain why There’s a Word for It!: A Grandiloquent Guide to Life gives the pronunciation "TIF-luh-BAY-zee-uh": a Latin *(deprecated template usage) typhlobāsia would consistently be pronounced *[(ˌ)tɪfləˈbeɪsɪə] in English, so TAWFI's pronunciation is only slightly anomalous (in the "zee" bit). Is that etymology plausible enough to be given in the entry, do you think? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 00:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~I've gone with that. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 02:59, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Well, I'm glad you've found an etymological explanation, but this looks like a pretty clear delete to me. Nadando 04:48, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Agreed, although establishing an etymology is not a wasted effort: it will be included in the listing for (deprecated template usage) typhlobasia in Appendix:English dictionary-only terms. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 01:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RFV failed, entry deleted. (Note to Doremítzwr: I haven't added it to Appendix:English dictionary-only terms, but you should feel free to.) —Ruakh_TALK 21:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~lip~~
~~Rfv-sense: both adjective senses:~~
labial, produced using the lips

insincere, murmured merely trough the lips
~~I don't think that any true adjective sense can be shown to exist. See Wiktionary:English adjectives. DCDuring TALK 22:35, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~acupuncture~~
~~Rfv-sense, is/was this used in a sense other than the Chinese medicine? Conrad.Irwin 23:36, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Yes, probably. And may I just say, books like this make me uncommonly glad to live in the 21st century. I think there is also a modern extension of the Chinese medicine sense to refer to any sort of comparable needle-prickery, but that can probably be rolled into the earlier sense. -- Visviva 04:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~ingenuitous~~
~~Really (rfv-sense)? Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 02:32, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Joke. Deleted SemperBlotto 07:13, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~=wô~~
French meaning whoa! Early search results only turn up a pinyin syllable (Tooironic?), but if it's a credible dictionary I think we should keep it, as it's going to be very difficult to cite. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Any result for this as a pinyin syllable is an error, since pinyin does not use the circumflex. The correct pinyin is probably wǒ. bd2412 T 18:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
RFV failed, entry deleted. —Ruakh_TALK 19:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~something~~
Rfv-sense: something#Noun, an important person, a somebody. Usex shown is not consistent: He looks a something behind that big desk. Making the definition consistent with the usex would make the RfVed sense "important person, somebody". DCDuring TALK 14:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your objection. Are you saying that the indefinite article must be removed? If so, we'd have to make that change for every common noun on Wiktionary. --EncycloPetey 15:01, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this case the meaning differs IMO according to whether it is used with the indefinite article. Is the definition supposed to be for "He's really something" or "He's a real something" or the sense in the usage example, with which I am not familiar? Is this usage even possible in the plural? It is not as if this is "just like" a normal noun.

CGEL doesn't even accept the analysis of the "pronoun" senses as true pronouns, calling it a "compound determinative". The differences in categorization stem from the fact that some of the usage characteristics derive from each the elements from which it is formed, the determiner "some" and the noun "thing". And unlike a true pronoun, it (and similar terms) is not used anaphorically or deictically. DCDuring TALK 16:22, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a badly written erroneous definition for "something suprising or incredible" - that concert was really something. IMO "he looks a something" is a euphemisitic version of "he looks a <generic vulgarity>". It seems to contradict our sense, not reinforce it. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:09, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~overreplacements~~
To call this rare is an exaggeration. I found one Web hit. No hits at bgc for hyphenated form out of 285 hits for "over replacement". OTOH, who would doubt that the plural is formed with an "s"? DCDuring TALK 18:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~huippumikroskooppinen piidioksiditulivuorikonioosi~~
Finnish tbot entry for pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanoconiosis. Possibly a protologism added as a translation here, and a full entry at fi:. But isn't silly enough to merit immediate deletion, IMO. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. As the English original is a nonce word, the Finnish translation is even more useless. It is used only in connection with the English original in order to open its purported "meaning" to the Finnish reader. This is the only context in which the "adjective" huippumikroskooppinen is used. In addition to being a nonsense translation of a nonce term, it is a sloppy translation, and does not deserve to live. --Hekaheka 17:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted on Hekaheka's say-so (and an absence of cites).—msh210℠ 17:10, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~gilder~~
~~Rfv-sense: Dutch coin (a guilder) is this an alternative spelling, an archaic one, an obsolete one, a misspelling or what? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Definitely an alternative spelling, perhaps archaic (but then so is the term 'guilder' itself nowadays). Influenced no doubt by the verb gild. Google books does have a few references for 'Dutch gilder' in reference to the coin. —CodeCa t 17:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~dogwash~~
"(slang) A project one does in place of another, higher priority task, e.g. washing the dog instead of paying bills. An act of procrastination that alleviates guilt by creating the illusion of productivity." This is one of the words from Eric Raymond's Jargon File, which in general are quoted a lot but rarely used. Equinox ◑ 17:36, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Never heard this - is it hogwash? Dbfirs 07:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~queen bee~~
Rfv-sense: A remote-controlled aircraft used in target practice. On a cursory check, only seeing this as Queen Bee. I'm not sure whether we should have the latter. (Brand name perhaps? Hard to tell.)—msh210℠ 18:14, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~The quotation is definitely of de Havilland Queen Bee [209].~~
~~The OED says "usu[ally] with capital inital" -- though one of their citations does show it all lower-case. Ƿidsiþ 10:37, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
I found another plane called Queen Bee. It appears that it was design of a Californian small but innovative firm Bee Aviation, but never entered serial production. I don't find any evidence of the word meaning "remote-controlled target plane" generically. --Hekaheka 13:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~algerine~~
~~To prowl with the intent of burglarizing. Cites needed to get proper context for this. Also missing senses, etymology. DCDuring TALK 14:27, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Capitalized, it means "of or pertaining to Algiers", with special reference to pirates according to the OED. SemperBlotto 14:31, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Bgc has mostly mentions in the verb sense: 2 from Victorian British dialect glossaries (Wales and Cheshire), one from Notes and Queries. The meaning is not at all clear from the quotes reported. It might mean something like "to sneak around like a thieving Algerine". DCDuring TALK 15:44, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~qajq~~
~~Equinox ◑ 20:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~I got the spelling from Russian Wikipedia, but it seems unattestable. Looks like an amateur transliteration. I deleted it. --Vahagn Petrosyan 20:40, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Tweebuffelsmeteenskootmorsdoodgeskietfontein~~
~~Afrikaans: a fictional town. I can find only mentions, not uses. Equinox ◑ 23:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Arean~~
Definition says, "Of or relating to Mars". I went looking for citations to clarify the entry as to whether it pertained to the deity or the planet, but could not find any b.g.c. English citations. Nor does this appear in the original OED or Oxford's sci-fi dictionary. Please help! --EncycloPetey 00:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The deity should properly be Ares. We may be missing deity-related senses for Martian and martial. Pingku 12:06, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We now have one 1894 quote relating to the planet. --EncycloPetey 16:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Schiaparelli, or perhaps translations of Schiaparelli, used the word around that time. I'm not aware of any other instances of it.

Sorry, I thought the tag was a request for citation, so I deleted it after supplying the cite.

BTW, although it looks like a homonym for Aryan, it possibly was intended to be ə-REE-ən. I doubt we can know. kwami 23:26, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was both a request for clarification and a request for citations. To meet WT:CFI, Wiktionary requires three durably archived citations per sense. Alternatively, a single usage in a "well-known" work, or single use in a peer-reviewed journal will also suffice. If you can find it in an astronomy journal, that would be enough for the astronomic sense. I wasn't very successful in my own hunt, but I don't have easy access to great astronomical resources. I'd look in my copy of Cosmos but I haven't seen it since I moved. It's the sort of word I can imagine Sagan using. I didn't find it in Edgar Rice Burroughs either.
~~So, the question at this point is whether the word also pertains to the Greek deity, since we have a Nature citation for the astronomical sense. --EncycloPetey 23:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
I found two more citations for the planet sense (from SF) and split the senses. Just one for the deity sense - I'd thought it would have been easier than it has proved. It seems also to be a surname and there is another deity, "Na Arean", (and variants) who apparently gets a mention in Cosmos (page 25 in someone's copy.)

My favourite scanno is "Arean square inches." Pingku 13:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since you were able to find that, can you dig up anything more on Mimantean? I have one (as 'Mimantian') from Socrates, but other than that only blogs and the JPL website, which only mentions the word, so I haven't used them as refs. (JPL Hulles BadAstronomy. It would seem from our rules that blogs are good enough for the 3 citations, but it would be nice to have s.t. that's been published.)
As for Atlantean, I've seen at least one dictionary claim that the -ian spelling is used for 'of Atlantis' and the -ean spelling for 'of Atlas', but I don't know how robust that is. kwami 19:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
JPL (first link you cited) has a usage as well as a mention of 'Mimantean': "This is puzzling because Mimas is closer to Saturn than Enceladus, and the Mimantean orbit is much more eccentric (out of round) than the Enceladean orbit." I'm not sure that counts though, because of the mention. Pingku 01:52, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, good catch. How did I miss that?

How would the mention be a problem? In the CFI link EncycloPetey provided, we even have an example with a mention inside a usage. kwami 06:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just a feeling that if every time you see a word used it has had to be defined first, you haven't proved it's not a neologism or a nonce word or something similar. Perhaps my concern is not widely shared. In any case, it's probably not a problem in this case. Pingku 10:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~I think it's cited now. Pingku 15:58, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~borrow~~
Rfv-sense: "To lend." This seems quite plausible to me, but when I try likely searches, I don't find any really compelling cites. (For example, searches for "borrowed him a" only pull up hits that, for all I can tell, mean "borrowed a […] for him".) —Ruakh_TALK 02:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm finding a small handful of mentions of this sense, mostly in books about errors in English usage, but have found only one "iffy" use. I looked for the same phrase you did, but used the past tense with varied pronoun combinations. --EncycloPetey 03:05, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Definitly exists as such, as an error for lend. Can we mark it as such, or use a usage note.--Dmol 04:22, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Much more common is the usage of lend to mean borrow, but we don't record this mis-usage. Perhaps a usage note saying that the two verbs are sometimes confused would be appropriate. Dbfirs 07:21, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dbfirs. The trouble is that we're trying to RFV a sense that is incorrect, but that does not take from the fact that it exists.--Dmol 10:02, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On COCA I found no hits for the RfVed sense, but a perfect illustration of the double-transitive use you found, which I have added as a separate sense with the quote and context tags. DCDuring TALK 09:29, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've now cited this sense, I think adequately - all are uses of the phrase "borrow me your" though so I'm not sure if we should add something more for variety? There are lots of mentions in books about English usage, all of which regard the sense as non standard, and all the uses I've found are from dialogue. I'd be tempted therefore to mark it "nonstandard" and perhaps also "principally in dialogue"? "Dialectal" is a possibility, but it doesn't occur only in a single dialect - I know it from south west England and one of the cites is from Milwaukee. Thryduulf (talk) 10:29, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Use of lend with the meaning of borrow is standard Scouse in Liverpool, England. I still think that we should just note that the two verbs are often confused. Dbfirs 12:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~prut~~
Is this an adjective? I can't think of any cases where this can be used as such. The sense itself is not wrong, but this would not be considered an adjective. It would be a compound. —CodeCa t 11:07, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~accident~~
~~Rfv-sense: (obsolete) Unusual appearance or effect, used in Chaucer, per Webster 1913. Was this used in this sense in Modern English? DCDuring TALK 11:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Perhaps Modern English renderings of Chaucer? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:15, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Perhaps the Philosophy sense is related? Pingku 15:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~FWIW, I don't find this sense in Shakespeare using my Shakespeare Lexicon. I'm also not finding it in Milton's works. --EncycloPetey 22:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
The OED has "A casual appearance or effect, a phenomenon" citing Chaucer's Clerk's Tale "Non accident for noon adversité Was seyn in hir", and has three subsequent cites up to 1765, but marks this sense as obsolete. Dbfirs 16:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks. I'd take their word for it, but we could use the citations. It is difficult to find citations for a specific uncommon sense of a common term using Google alone. DCDuring TALK 16:49, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~verse~~
Rfv-sense: (slang) To compete or battle against (The undefeated boxer is going to verse another boxer.) Never heard of this, any dictionaries saying yes? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~I've never heard of it either, and haven't looked for usage, but it would seem a logical formation from (deprecated template usage) versus. Thryduulf (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~numeral~~
~~Rfv-sense: A word or symbol representing a number. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Cited; seven quotes spanning 65 years. --EncycloPetey 22:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Beautifully cited. Thanks EP. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 22:45, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~pleuvable~~
~~(French.) Rainable? Equinox ◑ 12:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
That word is absurd (what the hell could it mean?) and does not exit. Immediate delete. --Actarus ^{(Prince d'Euphor)} 12:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are looking for verification because languages include and included things beyond any one individual's ken. There are very few people whose on-sight deletions we accept. DCDuring TALK 12:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are no valid attestations of the word. For the good reason that pleuvoir (“to rain”) is intransitive and impersonal. Can you pleuvoir something? Of course, not! That's why I'm asking for deletion. --Actarus ^{(Prince d'Euphor)} 13:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily deleted. I see there are only four Google Web matches, they aren't all in French, and the most promising is a linguistics book that has the word asterisked as an intentionally erroneous construct. Equinox ◑ 13:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good job, Equinox!--Actarus ^{(Prince d'Euphor)} 13:10, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If something comes here, our process provides for it to remain here for 30 days. I suppose that if the nom "erred" in placing it here, there is nothing to prevent correction with an explanation, such as that provided. The low number of raw web hits (single digits, say) would be strong evidence of likely unattestability.

It would be more difficult with the purported English gloss: rainable. There are abundant raw bgc hits (let alone Web hits). I have not found a OneLook dictionary that has it, of course, and all of the first 100 bgc hits are scannos. As rain is a transitive verb, morphogically there is nothing to prevent "rainable" from having a sensible interpretation, however unlikely or rare it might be. ("We can all agree that cats and dogs are not really rainable?") I could not speak with equal confidence about whether "pleuvable" is as plausible in French. I wonder whether Google has had much success in getting French libraries and newspapers to offer material for scanning. DCDuring TALK 16:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~anti-immunotoxicity~~
~~"Immunity to an immunotoxin." Only seems to be in one paper. Equinox ◑ 12:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~I see a hit in Phyomedicine, which WP says is reviewed. (I'd assume so anyway, as it's a journal published by Elsevier.) That's sufficient.—msh210℠ 16:22, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~qual~~
The 1992 quot. definitely doesn't support the sense given, and I'm not too sure about the 2000 quot., either. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:46, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've commented out the 1992 quotation. (It really can be removed, but I didn't want to be so bold.) I've added three good ones IMO to the citations page: please have a look.—msh210℠ 17:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aye, they look good — especially that 1993 quot.; I'm happy to pass this in its present state. As for that 1992 quot., it should be in support of (deprecated template usage) QUAL, whither I've now moved it. Thanks msh210. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 21:24, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~mince~~
~~Rfv-sense two verb senses:~~
(countable) A short, precise step.

(countable) An affected manner.
~~And one noun sense:~~
~~(transitive) To affect; to make a parade of.~~
~~I can't seem to find any of these senses on OneLook, nor can I find examples of usage on Google. ---> Tooironic 23:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
I assume that you meant noun senses from the valid verb. The OED records this usage ("An instance of mincing speech; a mincing walk") citing: "She always wore flat heels so she didn't have that mince like most girls.", J Fowles, 1963 and Shaw's "Stage smart speech, which, like the got-up Oxford mince and drawl of a foolish curate, is the mark of a snob" from 1897. I don't know if this helps. Dbfirs 16:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~corfs~~
According to the OED, the plural of (deprecated template usage) corf is (deprecated template usage) corves. (deprecated template usage) Corfes was used in the seventeenth century, but never *(deprecated template usage) corfs. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 08:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~play~~
~~Rfv-sense: (copulative) In a game or game-like setting, to maintain a posture of being.~~
Play nice, children.

I had added this more than a year ago. An anon expressed skepticism at Talk:play. I have added nice#Adverb "(colloquial) Nicely", and incorporated "play nice" as a usage example. DCDuring TALK 11:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMO this is not different from the usual definition of play. Walk straight can mean "walk while straight, i.e. with a straight back", but I don't think we should have a separate sense of walk for it. The adjectives/adverbs (nice, straight) should have such senses, as you say you've added, DCDuring.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:09, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~thyselves~~
~~I don’t believe this can be a real word. Thy is singular, like my, and there is only thyself and yourselves. —Stephen 16:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
It's out there (with 1,220 b.g.c. hits), though they seem to be faux archaïque usages; this should get a {{non-standard}} tag. Note, also, (deprecated template usage) myselves, (deprecated template usage) himselves, (deprecated template usage) herselves, (deprecated template usage) itselves, (deprecated template usage) ourself (>¼M hits!), and (deprecated template usage) themself (etymologically unsurprising, given the use of singular (deprecated template usage) they and the precedent set by (deprecated template usage) yourself). — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 19:42, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer the entry to be deleted but that's me. If it's kept with {{non-standard}}, it should have usage notes. --Anatoli 05:14, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Under the assumption that thou = you, it's not strange that people construct 'thyselves' by analogy of 'yourselves'. However 'strange' that appears to some people, if it is used often enough it is still worthy of inclusion. Wiktionary describes, it does not prescribe. —CodeCa t 09:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are definitely enough (potential) citations. It's not archaic: "non-standard" seems right. Pingku 13:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cited IMHO, and rewritten. I found that most cites are trying to pluralize still-common sayings, such as "physician, heal thyself" (now "physicians, heal thyselves") and "know thyself" (now "know thyselves"), or snowclones based thereon ("X, heal thyself", or even "X, Y thyself"). —Ruakh_TALK 16:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, there are also a fair number of hits at google books:"thine own selves". From a quick glance-through, I'd hazard that most of these are basically legitimate (making the point that every person has multiple "selves" — though I still doubt that any of the authors would ever say "myselves"), but several also seem to be using "thy" as a plural. —Ruakh_TALK 16:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Passed. Thanks, citer.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:12, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Koriese~~
No evidence that this word, or the constructed language it refers to, is widely used. Also exists in Turkish Wiktionary with alternative spellings, and it's unlikely that any of these can be verified. Snigbrook 01:08, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I recall that someone entered a large number of words here under the name Koryese about five years ago. The contributor, Special:Contributions/148.244.150.58, refused to discuss or offer any evidence for the existence of Koryese, but it was obviously related to the Turkic languages. After he finally finished and left, I deleted all of the words. So now it is explained that it is a constructed language. It still is not mentioned on Wikipedia anywhere. —Stephen 06:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~hug~~
~~Sense: "A crushing embrace." What does this really mean and do we actually use the word like this? ---> Tooironic 13:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Sounds like a bear hug. I note also that the 1st def and the def of embrace are circular. Pingku 13:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As written, it's redundant to .1 An affectionate close embrace. Such an embrace could be crushing yet effectionate. I'd just delete it, but hey, why not try and cite it now it's here. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~pellegenda~~
Rfv-sense - English.
Not in the OED. Nothing English on Google books. SemperBlotto 13:30, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not surprising, it is a nearly obsolete term – I’ll see if I can find a good reference for you. Sg647112c 13:59, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If need be, please move this page to my sandbox rather than deleting it, so that I don’t have to rewrite it once I find a proper reference. Thanks! Sg647112c 14:02, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The OED has two close relations, but spelt (deprecated template usage) perlection ([210]) and (deprecated template usage) perlegate ([211]); you may have more luck searching for *(deprecated template usage) perlegenda. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 18:49, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have a subscription to the OED, but both words that you reference seem to have the same root in the Latin verb perlegere (or its altern. form pellegere). From what I've looked up, perlegate is a verb meaning "to read through" and perlection is a noun describing the action of reading through - pellegenda (or perlegenda, as you suggest) is a noun describing that which is to be read through. Sg647112c 14:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The OED has perlegate (rare and obsolete with one cite from 1593), and perlection (rare, but with cites from 1485 to 1990), but no pellegenda or perlegenda, and the full OED specialises in obsolete words. It does occasionally miss words of course, but they are likely to be very rare and thus might not meet our CFI. Can you find three cites? Dbfirs 16:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~kiss~~
Current definition for noun sense #2 says: "A candy or sweet wrapped in paper with twisted ends". Is any candy wrapped with twisted ends called "kiss" or is it some specific type of candy that just happens to be typically wrapped this way? --Hekaheka 16:12, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The specific brand is Hershey's Kisses. Equinox ◑ 17:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a generic: google books:"chocolate kiss". That said, I don't know whether it was a trademark first and became used as generic, or if it has always been generic. I think it refers not to a candy wrapped in paper, but rather to a candy shaped as though someone has kissed some viscous substance and the result has hardened. In other words, that sense I think exists; whether the sense up for verification also does remains to be seen.—msh210℠ 17:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~פסח~~
~~Rfv-senses: verb, Template:Hebr, "limp", and noun, Template:Hebr, "a passing over".—msh210℠ 16:41, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Oxford English Dictionary~~
~~Shorter Oxford English Dictionary~~
Both passed RFD pending verification.—msh210℠ 18:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
&
The current definition: "A comprehensive dictionary of the English language published by Oxford University Press, considered something of a gold standard for dictionaries. Abbreviated OED."
Quoting WT:RFD#Oxford English Dictionary, February 2010: "A proper noun and a trademark of a copyrighted commercial product. CFI (remember that?) would require that it be shown to have attributive use. Move to RfV. DCDuring TALK 09:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)"
There is no longer any requirement of attributive use, AFAIK. So what should be verified about this term? Certainly not that it exists, right? Which section of CFI is to be applied to this term? Is this for WT:CFI#Brand names? --Dan Polansky 07:21, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what verification would we have to do for other book names, like Hard Times or The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Science? We need to verify this to the same standards. Equinox ◑ 09:46, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like a brand name to me. Even if it is not so construed, I would like to see that it has entered the lexicon as something other than a name of a specific entity. We could always use this as the test case to allow all proper nouns to be entries without any inclusion criteria whatsoever other than attestation. DCDuring TALK 10:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At Equinox: A request for verification is only a request for attestation of the term, in doubt that the term or its sense exist. Other reasons for deletion than unattestability should be filed to RFD; such one reason is a term's being sum of parts. OTOH, the discussion of the inclusion of the name of a specific entity may lead to considering a particular tentative inclusion criterion that requires certain sort of quotations, such as those provided by EncycloPetey and mentioned below. But, in principle, this is for RFD, as the existence of the term is not in doubt, merely the term's being worthy of inclusion.

The lack of formal voted-on criteria for inclusion of names of specific entities should not mean that voters in RFD cannot use tentative criteria in their deciding whether a name should be kept. To the contrary, each voter who explains his vote provides a tentative, even if sketchy and incomplete, inclusion criterion in his explanation. --Dan Polansky 09:52, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Dan, this came here from RFD. Equinox ◑ 21:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
i've added 2002 and 2005 quotes that demonstrate use besides that of the original referent. I don't see that this can be an all-encompassing test case for proper nouns, as proper noun include many, many kinds of items. I would not apply the same criteria to Angola that I would apply to Oxford English Dictionary. --EncycloPetey 19:46, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that this meets WT:CFI#Brand names. It certainly must, as it is a part of the definition under challenge that it is published by a commercial enterprise. If someone can propose another sense that fits the citations offered or others, let it be done. DCDuring TALK 22:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Specifically, the 1983, 2000, and 2002 quotes explicitly refer to the product type or its attributes ("dictionary", "index", "define") I'm not sure about the 2005 quote ("order"). We would seem to need more of the surrounding text the verify satisfaction of the condition: "The text preceding and surrounding the citation must not identify the product to which the brand name applies, whether by stating explicitly or implicitly some feature or use of the product from which its type and purpose may be surmised, or some inherent quality that is necessary for an understanding of the author’s intent.". Finally, the very inclusion of the word "dictionary" in the brand name would seem to make it impossible for the term to satisfy the condition, similar to "Nestea" or "Quaker Oats" or "Wonder Bread" or "The Daily News". DCDuring TALK 23:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Spider-Man~~
~~Spidey~~
~~Both were kept at RFD pending verification.—msh210℠ 18:20, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~peace~~
Rfv-verb sense. I've never heard of the word peace being used like this, and searches for the word used in this manner in almost every major dictionary has yielded no results. Therefore, I request attestation be provided so that this word can be verified as a real word. Thanks, Razor flame 20:51, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~intentional walk~~
Rfv-sense. The verb "to intentional walk". The example uses "intentionally walk", however I suspect this might be attestable as a nonstandard variant. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cited, using five of Google Groups' six Usenet hits for "intentional walked". (The sixth is from the same newsgroup as two of the others, and didn't seem to add anything special.) But overall it does seem to warrant some sort of "rare" or "nonstandard" tag. —Ruakh_TALK 12:27, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Passed. Thank you, citer.—msh210℠ 17:31, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This one is pretty ugly. I should elaborate; as a lifelong baseball fan I can say with certainty that while the noun is (deprecated template usage) intentional walk the verb form is (deprecated template usage) intentionally walk. What you found on Google groups and on Usenet are people who don't really understand how English works. - [The]DaveRoss 21:43, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a "set phrase", the noun being used as a verb. This happens quite often, albeit usually with single word nouns, not two words nouns like this! This is why I suggested a {{nonstandard}} tag. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. If it makes sense for a pitcher to "walk" a batter (verbing the noun "walk"), then it can make sense for a pitcher to "intentional walk" a batter (verbing the noun "intentional walk"). It's not how I would say it, but I'm sure there are many people who understand how English works, but who nonetheless say things differently from how I would. —Ruakh_TALK 22:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(deprecated template usage) Walk, being a transitive verb, should be modified by adverbs. If a pitcher walks someone in an intentional manner, they have been walked intentionally. When (deprecated template usage) walk is used as a noun it should be modified by adjectives. If a there is a walk which was thrown intentionally, it is an intentional walk. In the baseball rulebook it is called an intentional base on balls, which is not helpful to us. I am not saying we shouldn't include it, but since there is ample writing on the subject of baseball in periodicals and in books, can't we find a few cites which are from edited and published work? - [The]DaveRoss 19:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Or just edited, at least? Or written by someone with two names? There's only one really good example here, showing that it was deliberate. For all we know, the others could all be written by the very same person. Not that I believe that, necessarily, though I would say independence is nonetheless suspect. DAVilla 04:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(Unstriking due to contention about the attestedness.) The 1991 quote from "clarinews" (a username, I strongly suspect, that actually represents a service of ClariNet) is actually seemingly by UPI (yet Google News isn't pulling it up, which makes me wonder). The 1994 Jonathan Schmitt quote is from an .edu account, and the e-mail username is schmittj, so it's probably his real name. That's two independent cites, if you like that analysis. And the other hits almost certainly represent at least one more person. :-) —msh210℠ (talk) 17:18, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Restruck after some investigation. Also removed the "rare" label as it's anything but. DAVilla 06:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Sarcosí~~
No b.g.c. hits (with the í s), nobody in [212] Ancestry.com , unknown in any Wikipedias. It might be a new term for w:Nicolas Sarkozy for all I know, but it's not a surname.--Makaokalani 13:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~[213] [214] It is used and it's a surname. --Diego Grez 22:53, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
OK, the first two citations refer to Nicolas Sarkozy. The third one is for Alain Sarcosí, a Facebook member. You can call yourself anything in Facebook. A surname means an official name in documents. I'll change the definition to mean Nicolas Sarkozy.--Makaokalani 13:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~figgins~~
~~Seems like tosh.—msh210℠ 17:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Very hard to cite even if it isn't tosh, as all the Google Book hits I'm seeing are for Figgins - are there are thousands of them. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:42, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~cacuminous~~
~~Can we find three independent uses of this term being used of a tree? I think not. DCDuring TALK 23:24, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~But I found an 1834 quote that pertains to mountains. It may only be the "tree" tag that is questionable, and I have removed it. --EncycloPetey 23:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~MGTOW~~
"Men Going Their Own Way - An antifeminist/libertarian political movement." It has no Wikipedia article and no mentions in Google Books; I suspect it is something minor and non-notable. Equinox ◑ 23:33, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~shit~~
~~shit#Adjective~~
~~I don't think this can be shown to be an adjective. See Wiktionary:English adjectives. DCDuring TALK 02:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
But it's comparable! Survival of the shittest. Equinox ◑ 02:38, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think I am wrong. The entry formerly had shittier and shittiest as the comparative and superlative, which made me pull my gun. But on mature reflection, I think it was one of my most shit decisions. DCDuring TALK 03:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
cited IMHO. I have atoned by copiously citing true adjective use, though I haven't matched and am not sure I can match the quotations to the senses we have. DCDuring TALK 04:23, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
shittier and shittiest are of course the comparative and superlative of shitty, not of shit... —CodeCa t 09:03, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think shitter and shittest are ok, I seem to think I created fr:shittest in 2008 or 2009. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Shitest" and "shitest" seem attestable, too. I wonder if these are relatively more common in the UK. I like to think that's why this bothered me. Wouldn't be easy to determine from our Google sources. DCDuring TALK 16:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added [[shitter#Adjective]], with commented-out URLs of four b.g.c. cites (found via searches for "shitter than" and "even shitter"). I'll try to add the cites themselves sometime this weekend. —Ruakh_TALK 18:07, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

shiter and shitest are probably forms of (deprecated template usage) shite, which is pronounced differently (to rhyme with white). Equinox ◑ 08:59, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That might well be the superior hypothesis, but we don't yet have evidence one way or the other. How would be get regional evidence? Not likely from "News". Would need to appear in cite with UK spelling, idiom, or grammar. DCDuring TALK 11:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~shittiest~~
~~shittier~~
Rfv-sense inflected forms of shit#Adjective. I have found attestation for "more" and "most" forms of "shit". I don't know what evidence might convince us that these were forms of "shit" but I'm leaving open the possibility. DCDuring TALK 11:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
These are the superlative and comparative forms of (deprecated template usage) shitty, not of (deprecated template usage) shit. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 19:18, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~penaunt~~
~~Has this been used in Modern English? It was used in Chaucer per MW1913. DCDuring TALK 17:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~snower~~
~~Not seeing it.—msh210℠ 18:22, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Perhaps a synonym for a snow cannon and snowmachine? —CodeCa t 21:37, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

now cited I believe. Thryduulf (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if I'd pass it on those citations. Two of them seem legit, while two seem to be confusions concerning snow-blowers, items which blow away snow. At the very least, those two don't appear to support the def given. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 12:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The citations seem like independent recoinages (See how easy.) based on the morphology. Also "snower blower" and "blow snower" seem more like wordplays than words. DCDuring TALK 14:05, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added several more cites. One is mention-only, but I included it because I think it reinforces DCDuring's accurate statement that these are independent renonces. (Easy, indeed!) Though I have no idea what the 1979 cite means. —Ruakh_TALK 14:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the 1976 sense is "one who is good at 'snowing'; a seducer." See also snow job. DCDuring TALK 14:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~dieselpunk~~
~~Tagged, not posted.~~
Cited, IMHO. DCDuring TALK 11:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems dubious to quote USENET.Wolfkeeper 22:09, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We use Usenet and not other online groups because it is "durably archived" and findable. They are never my favorite source. DCDuring TALK 22:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~guntritude~~
~~Looks like a hoax, but I've been wrong before. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:53, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Almost certainly a hoax, nothing on Google web, news or books.--Dmol 09:56, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
m8
~~"(Internet slang, text messaging) Mate" --EncycloPetey 21:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
The first page of hits at google groups:"his m8" includes, among others, these three cites: [215] [216] [217]. —Ruakh_TALK 21:54, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Six cites added spanning 9 years, including two from text messages quoted in books. I trust this is sufficient? Thryduulf (talk) 22:20, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A load of these got speedy deleted earlier. They could be restored and moved here, as they weren't "protogisms", but they might be rather hard to cite per our CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:37, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If by "these" you mean internet slang/text message abbreviations, then given how trivially easy it was to cite (deprecated template usage) m8 I think you'd be surprised at how many are citable. If this isn't what you mean, then I don't know what you are referring to and so cannot usefully comment. Thryduulf (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EncycloPetey (forgivably IMO) deleted about ten, maybe fifteen internet/text message slang entries yesterday. I shall restore them and bring them here, using Special:Logs. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~T-BERD~~
~~A brand name of a very specialized project. Trivialist 23:11, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~t-bird~~
~~Slang for brand name of specialized equipment. Trivialist 23:13, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~unlike~~
~~Verb sense. Obviously a neologism, but perhaps one which meets our criteria. -Atelaes λάλει ἐμοί 01:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
I have added and cited a sense "dislike", which I discovered in the course of attempting to cite the senses originally challenged. Accordingly, the RfV is now two rfv-senses. I am skeptical that there are two separate attestable senses. I expect that we will have to use usenet to attest to the RfVed senses or a merged sense. DCDuring TALK 10:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I found only one mentiony citation from William Safire. There might be something on usenet, but not for forms "unliked" or "unliking". More creativity required in searching. DCDuring TALK 11:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~resofincular~~
~~"resembling a wire hanger"; this seems to be a word found only in dictionaries. --EncycloPetey 01:17, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
As you say, the only hits on Google Books are collections of words — including one by Harper's magazine. According to someone on Wordnik (on of the few intelligible Google hits), apparently investigating this on his or her own, it was coined by a Harper's writer as a joke in the December 1976 issue. Because I can't find *resofinculum, *reso-, or *finculum (except as an improper scanning of vinculum), I'm inclined to believe it was indeed made-up. — Beobach972 18:17, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~heat dump~~
~~Rfv-sense - verb. I can find plenty of "heat dumped" and "heat dumping" in Google books, but none of them relate to this verb. SemperBlotto 11:25, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~runaway~~
~~Rfv-sense X 2:~~
out of control.

who has run away.
~~These senses correspond to noun senses. I don't think this can be shown to be an adjective. See Wiktionary:English adjectives. DCDuring TALK 17:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
I'm not sure I understand. Do you mean that in "a runaway train", that runaway is not an adjective? I would also argue the same for "a runaway bride". I rather suspect that the noun derives from the adjective. --EncycloPetey 19:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it is possible that this was at one time used as a true adjective, but is used as one no more. Online Ety Dict puts the noun as having attestable use by 1547. DCDuring TALK 20:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re EP's comment: AFAICT when a noun follows another to refer to an object that is primarily in the class denoted by the second noun but also in that denoted by the first, which also has members outside the class denoted by the second, and the primary intent of the dual terminology is to point out that the relatively unusual case that a member of the second class is also of the first — like with runaway bride and runaway train if runaway is not an adjective — then the stress goes on both terms, perhaps slightly stronger on the second, but never stronger on the first unless especially emphasized: an apprentice lawyer, a sword walking stick, etc. The same holds true here, which leads me to tend to accept that runaway may be just a noun. see also [[Wiktionary:English adjectives]].—msh210℠ (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The OED isn't quite sure either. It puts (and adjective) in brackets and claims that the usage is attributive use of the noun, or as an adjective (though all of the cites seem to be attributive noun usages in my view). Perhaps we should just add a usage note to the noun senses that some attributive usages can be considered adjectival. Dbfirs 08:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I take it that OED has the notation at the top of the headword (or at the inflection line). Visviva had long ago suggested that we need some such treatment.

What has slowed me down is uncertainty about what would be effective in preventing users from adding an adjective PoS section notwithstanding what appeared in the noun section. I think the best place for some notation would be the inflection-line for the noun. The alternative of having an adjective section that directs users to the noun section would be more effective, but uglier. Part of the problem is that we have trained users to find PoS sections in alphabetical order, placing Adjective at the top of each language section. DCDuring TALK 10:31, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:guerrilla and sense 3 of guerrilla for why nothing this simple may work. DCDuring TALK 00:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've also added an RFV tag to the noun sense "An object or process that is out of control." (This raises an interesting conundrum: phrases of the form "runaway ____", meaning "out-of-control ____", are readily citeable, but what happens if we can't find any unambiguous-noun or unambiguous-adjective cites?) —Ruakh_TALK 22:07, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cited IMHO. But, interesting conundrum. I am inclined to credit grammar before semantics. I would posit that all senses (which seem more fluid than grammar) have license to flow into the syntactic slots made available by any one of the senses. DCDuring TALK 01:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Catalano-~~
Nominating my own creation. Catalanophile is definitely citable, but rare. Catalanophone is somewhere between very rare and uncitable. Do three verifiable terms using Catalano- as a prefix exist? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See w:Catalanophobia. DCDuring TALK 14:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Created Catalanophobia, so that's three. How rare is Catalanophobia? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Passes as it is. We don't really have rules to deal with affixes, three valid derived terms seems sensible, but that's not equivalent to 'three valid citations' per CFI. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~extent~~
"(computing) An individual database extension." This is not familiar to me. What is a database extension? I wonder whether it could be a garbled attempt at the other computing sense I just added (which can be found on Wikipedia too): "(computing) A contiguous area of storage in a file system." Equinox ◑ 09:50, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~ungh~~
~~An alternative spelling of (deprecated template usage) ugh. Equinox ◑ 12:56, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~I should think ungh more often represents a sound uttered by someone being hit in the stomach, having something shoved down his throat, or similar. – Krun 13:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~juice joint~~
~~Not in any OneLook reference except Urban Dictionary. DCDuring TALK 14:11, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Bgc reveals dictionaries that define it as a speakeasy. Citations:juice joint has some ambiguous quotations: The Mezzrow and Nest quotes clearly mean bar (tavern) — or some kind of bar. The Ridley quote seems to be referring to ~~a place to~~ an opium den (well, the modern equivalent). The Brown quote, I just don't know. And there are many bgc hits that refer to a place that sells juice (y'know, like orange or mango). It's probable that we're missing appropriate senses s.v. juice and that this is SOP, given its wide range of meanings.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC) 19:27, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, the modern kind selling fruit juice is most often called a (deprecated template usage) juice bar. Equinox ◑ 19:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but [noun] joint is used to mean a place that sells [noun] for consumption on the premises. See google books:"meat and potatoes joint" or "spaghetti joint", for example.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Added (deprecated template usage) juice. DCDuring TALK 20:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That "juice" begins with Lua error: Please specify a language code in the first parameter; the value "dʒ" is not valid (see Wiktionary:List of languages). makes it a priori one of the slang terms for liquor most likely to combine with "joint". Is that alliteration a reason to include or exclude a collocation? Other alliterative collocations with nearly as high to much higher Mutual Information scores on COCA are "jook"/"juke, "jazz", "java", "gyp" (and "jaw"). DCDuring TALK 20:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, this becomes an RfD question. DCDuring TALK 21:07, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Depends if the definition is accurate. It says a nightclub, not SoP IMO. If it's any joint (bar, nightclub, pub, etc.) that sell alcohol, then it's SoP. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At COCA nine of ten hits relate to fresh juice-selling establishments; one to a kind a hand-rolled crack- and marijuana-enhanced cigarette. Nothing at BNC. DCDuring TALK 00:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re SOP: I don't think this could be considered SOP, since there are two or three possible meanings, one of which was not immediately obvious to me. I would have sooner assumed this was smokeable marijuana before guessing it was a speak-easy. --EncycloPetey 19:36, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I mention above, this seems to have various meanings, of which the one entered and challenged is at best barely attestable. It's use with joint seems to be quite as relatively infrequent as the use of "juice" to mean "liquor". DCDuring TALK 19:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~terrid~~
Rfv-sense "awful,10 times worse than terrible". Believable (à la terrible, horrible, terror, horror, horrid) but AFAICT appears only as an example of a word that could have been formed but has not been. (We are, however, missing a Middle English sense found in Wyclif's Bible: google books:"terrid thee".)—msh210℠ (talk) 18:28, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tosh. Deleted SemperBlotto 18:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. We're still missing the enm, though.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:33, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
From context, it's clearly a past participle; and other major translations (both Jewish and Christian) use "rebelled". The OED Online has an obsolete, rare, transitive verb (deprecated template usage) terre, with two senses: "To cover with earth" and "To throw on the ground." I'm guessing that Wyclif is using this verb, in the latter sense. Terrid itself appears only once in the OED Online, as an alternative Wycliffite translation that in other editions is plastrid. I think that supports the case that terrid is a Wycliffite past participle of terre. —Ruakh_TALK 01:12, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~navy~~
Rfv-sense. Belonging to the navy. Seems like the noun used attributively. I don't think you can say this warship is navy (excluding the color, of course). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:41, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. This looks like attributive use of the noun, and I can think of no counterexamples. --EncycloPetey 19:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MG's test is not conclusive. One could say "Jack is navy through and through." See Wiktionary:English adjectives. DCDuring TALK 20:30, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per DCDuring, I didn't tag it with {{rfd-redundant}}, so if it's here we should try and cite it. How, well, that I don't know. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~black-catting~~
~~No bgc hits for "black-catted him" or "black-catting him". if correct, presumably needs moving to [[black-cat]].—msh210℠ (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
suggest for deletion. Term derives (Google) from Royal Naval helicopter display team called the Black Cats (who fly Lynx helicopers). Black-catting seems to be carrying out close manoeuvres in the air - and perhaps outdoing others in similar activities. —Saltmarsh^{απάντηση} 17:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~allorgasmia~~
~~Tagged, not listed. Equinox ◑ 15:36, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~special move~~
~~"A move, usually in fighting games, that involves forces of nature or paranormal powers instead of physical force." Convince me. Equinox ◑ 22:16, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
If citable, and I think it might be, it would be a more specific case of sense 1. If you think of Mortal Kombat and Steet Fighter, a fireball isn't physical force like a punch, but I'd be happy to integrate that into sense 1, thus making sense 2 fully redundant. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:03, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a sensible (special) move! Dbfirs 07:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~power weapon~~
~~Equinox ◑ 22:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~yammery~~
~~What? It's defined as an adjective but the example shows a noun. Not much on Google Books. Equinox ◑ 22:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~vuvuzelist~~
~~Equinox ◑ 00:21, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Found three cites: two from the same day in 2010, and one from 372 days earlier. So I believe this is now cited. CFI, gotta love it. :-) -- Visviva 00:50, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Hmm, seems good enough. It seemed like a World Cup fad word. I suppose it's just moderately rare. Cited, closing. Equinox ◑ 01:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~vurp~~
~~Vomit burp. Equinox ◑ 01:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~ludographys~~
~~Shouldn't this be ludographies? B7T 03:20, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Yes. Fixed. SemperBlotto 08:12, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~little white truth~~
~~Usage? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:25, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Well I can find plenty of evidence of use on the web, but only two durable archived uses [218] and [219]. I don't think they support the definition given though. Thryduulf (talk) 12:01, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~compositional~~
~~Rfv-sense: "The sum of its parts." I cannot find quotations for this sense, but maybe I am looking in a wrong way. --Dan Polansky 12:24, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Cited, tagged as {{linguistics}}. -- Visviva 20:43, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~παππάς~~
~~Other than the surnames are is this noun version used? A brief search with Google only turned up Παππάς. —Saltmarsh^{απάντηση} 13:20, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Query withdrawn - the word's existence is confirmed —Saltmarsh^{απάντηση} 15:28, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~scriggle~~
~~Rfv-sense "to scribble, jot", not seeing it.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:57, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
I can see it. Check out here, here and here. I'd like to add them to the article, but am not sure how to go about it --Mat200 18:03, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! I'll not add those (as Google won't let me see enough of the book for me to feel comfortable that it's not fooling me about the book's meta-information), but I'll rescind my request. Striking.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:10, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~archaic~~
Rfv-sense: "(of words) No longer in ordinary use, though still used occasionally to give a sense of antiquity." Having a hard time seeing how to verify this as distinct from sense 1 ("of or characterized by antiquity"). I suppose we would need something like a use of "archaic vocabulary" to refer not to obsolete words but specifically to a preexisting body of words regarded as archaisms. Or something that would specifically avoid referring to a modern usage of a little-known obsolete term as "archaic", reserving that term for archaisms already established in speech. Alternatively, perhaps this could be converted to a usage note on the ways the term is documented in various dictionaries? -- Visviva 20:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The challenged definition is quite similar to one of the senses given in each of MWOnline, RHU, AHD, Collins Pocket, Encarta, etc. DCDuring TALK 22:14, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Seems comparable to #Irish above. It exists but it could take dozens of hours to wade through all the other uses of archaic to fin it. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:05, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~attachment~~
Rfv-sense X2. Can the first three senses be distinguished meaningfully? Are they inherent in the word itself? (The 2nd and 3rd senses seem included in the first. Is this an RfD-redundant sense problem?)
A strong bonding towards or with.

A cloying type of dependency.

A relationship that is not in the best interests of one or both of the participants.
~~-- DCDuring TALK 08:16, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
I would say that 1 is certainly different to 2 and 3, given that it is neutral, where 2 and 3 are negative. I would say 2 is too specific, can mean just "a dependence, especially a strong one" not necessarily just a "cloying" one? I don't think we need 3 at all - is attachment ever used in this sense without an adjective (or context) explicitly saying that the attachment/relationship is not a good one? We could add the word "relationship" somehow to def 1 though. Thryduulf (talk) 09:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think I am bothered by the inclusion of valence in the definition itself. Does the word carry that assessment itself or is it derived from context (or the speaker's or hearer's experience)? In the case of a word like risk, I am quite familiar with the need to make an analogous distinction, but I don't see it in this case. Perhaps citations will help me see the light. DCDuring TALK 09:39, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~shiggidale~~
~~"Sure; certainly." Not attestable from Google Books/Groups. Equinox ◑ 11:02, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Bible~~
~~Rfv-sense. (disputed usage) Biblical. Seems like the noun used attributively. Also, what is disputed about it? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:08, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
I would say that when it is used in the phrase "Bible verse" it is the noun being used attributively, but when it is being used in the phrase "Bible times" it is not. If anyone can guess why I think this I would love to know. - [The]DaveRoss 19:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I just went and asked Kreskin. I figured, if anyone knows why, he will. He said you differentiating them because in "Bible verse" it's a verse of the Bible text, whereas in "Bible times" its the times of the Bible story, i.e. the referent of the Bible text. Isn't he amazing?—msh210℠ (talk) 19:36, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~-lessness~~
Not a suffix AFAICT. Just a word ending in -less then suffixed with -ness. Why not -ingly for jokingly or mockingly? Anyway, are there any words ending in -lessness where the -less form does not exist? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (unless there are such words, of course, in which case regular keep). IMHO this is not as clear a case as -ality or -osity (where the form is not obviously predictable from the parts), but still, the lack of *-lessity or *-lesshood suggests to me that this might be worth including. Or at least, I think we need something. With words that collocate this way — for example, verbs that use specific prepositions to construe their objects — we indicate that on the definition line or in example sentences (or both); but neither approach seems to work for suffixes. Maybe a usage note at [[-less]]? Or maybe [[-less#Derived terms]] should also include words where (deprecated template usage) -less isn't the last suffix (e.g. by listing "reckless, -ness, -ly" rather than just "reckless")?—Ruakh_TALK 17:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~I think a usage note at (deprecated template usage) -less would cover it. Equinox ◑ 18:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~woodland~~
~~Rfv-sense: "Of or pertaining to a creature or object growing, living, or existing in a woodland ". Seems like attributive use of the noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:46, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Yeah, no more adjectival than office in office block. Equinox ◑ 21:48, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Delete, as above. Pingku 13:37, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not really a vote. We are just waiting for someone to show that it is used as an adjective. See Wiktionary:English adjectives. I suppose we could interpret the vote as a vote for deletion ASAP after the 30 days an RfVed item is supposed to get. In which case, I agree. DCDuring TALK 16:24, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Pingku 12:25, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~plox~~
Although this has four quotations, one isn't durably archived for our standards (I can't access it to verify it) and two of the others aren't for this spelling. I've had a short look and I can't find any additional durably archived uses in this sense ("Plox" is apparently the name of a sci fi character, and part of the scientific name for a plant). Almost all the uses are in what appear to be random blocks of gibberish in spam messages. Thryduulf (talk) 11:39, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Well challenged. DCDuring TALK 12:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~There are plenty of uses here. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Actually there aren't - there are lots of raw hits, but not many uses. There are a few apparent uses that are not durably archived and so can't count towards verification (usenet is durably archived, google groups aren't unfortunately). Of the durably archived uses, there are two that I'm not certain what sense they're using the word in [220], [221], and so aren't very good for demonstrating usage. There is one where it is the only word in the message and so impossible to tell whether it has the meaning attributed to it in our entry or not. A couple of messages where it appears be being used as something like a metasyntactic variable or other placeholder, several messages that are not in English, and oodles of messages where it's used in what appears to be a string of gibberish in spam messages (typically in the alt.sex hierarchy). All the other instances, down to page 23 of hits, are actually for Plox in three senses - the name of a character from Star Trek, the handle of a contributor to the thread in question, and the name of a plant. The latter of these might meet the CFI but I've not looked to see. If you're seeing something I'm not then go ahead and cite the entry, but I don't think you'll find the requisite three durably archived uses based on my experience. Thryduulf (talk) 21:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, it is perfectly transparent that SHOW OF HANDS /r/ PLOX! = "[A] show of hands, /r/, please!" (in which "/r/" refers to 4chan's requests forum) and that Moar Bag Space Plox Kthnx = "More bag space, please." ((deprecated template usage) more is frequently misspelt (deprecated template usage) moar on purpose; (deprecated template usage) bag space refers to World of Warcraft inventory slots of some kind; and (deprecated template usage) kthnx (usually (deprecated template usage) kthxbai: [222]), whilst literally a txtspk-style contraction of "OK, thanks, bye", means virtually nothing in that context). More CFI-satisfying uses can be found from these four hits. From my research, I conclude that the uses of (deprecated template usage) plox and (deprecated template usage) Plox as the names of a plant and of the Star Trek character are misspellings of (deprecated template usage) phlox (w:Phlox) and (deprecated template usage) Phlox (w:Phlox (Star Trek)). — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~mageirocophobia~~
~~Another phobia. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 17:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
The OED has (deprecated template usage) mag(e)iric(s), (deprecated template usage) mag(e)irist(ic), and (deprecated template usage) mag(e)irology, (deprecated template usage) mag(e)irological, (deprecated template usage) mag(e)irologist, all of which ultimately derive from the (deprecated template usage) [etyl] Ancient Greek (deprecated template usage) μάγειρος (mágeiros), whence I would take this phobia's name to derive. The (deprecated template usage) -oc- bit stumps me, though; however, I wouldn't prescribe *(deprecated template usage) mag(e)irophobia (which'd probably mean "the fear of chefs" or something) in its place. The reference in the entry points to this quiz, which gives eleven more phobias, viz. (deprecated template usage) ablutophobia ("the fear of washing or bathing"; from the (deprecated template usage) [etyl] Latin (deprecated template usage) ablūt- (the perfect passive participial stem of (deprecated template usage) abluō) + (deprecated template usage) -phobia), (deprecated template usage) agliophobia [sic] ("the fear of pain"; from the (deprecated template usage) [etyl] Ancient Greek (deprecated template usage) ἄλγος (álgos) + (deprecated template usage) -phobia), (deprecated template usage) aichmophobia ("the fear of needles or pointed objects"; from God-only-knows-where), (deprecated template usage) ailurophobia ("the fear of cats"; from the (deprecated template usage) [etyl] Ancient Greek (deprecated template usage) αἴλουρος (aílouros) + (deprecated template usage) -phobia); (deprecated template usage) bathmophobia ("the fear of stairs or steep slopes"; from the (deprecated template usage) [etyl] Ancient Greek (deprecated template usage) βαθμός (bathmós) + (deprecated template usage) -phobia), (deprecated template usage) chorophobia ("the fear of dancing"; from the (deprecated template usage) [etyl] Ancient Greek (deprecated template usage) χορός (khorós) + (deprecated template usage) -phobia), (deprecated template usage) tonitrophobia [sic] ("the fear of thunder"; from the (deprecated template usage) [etyl] Latin (deprecated template usage) tonitrus + (deprecated template usage) -phobia), (deprecated template usage) ecclesiophobia ("the fear of church"; from the (deprecated template usage) [etyl] Ancient Greek (deprecated template usage) ἐκκλησίᾱ (ekklēsíā) + (deprecated template usage) -phobia), (deprecated template usage) gymnophobia ("the fear of nudity"; from the (deprecated template usage) [etyl] Ancient Greek (deprecated template usage) γῠμνός (gumnós) + (deprecated template usage) -phobia), (deprecated template usage) ichthyophobia ("the fear of fish"; from the (deprecated template usage) [etyl] Ancient Greek (deprecated template usage) ἰχθύς (ikhthús) + (deprecated template usage) -phobia), and (deprecated template usage) methyphobia [sic] ("the fear of alcohol"; probably from (deprecated template usage) methyl + (deprecated template usage) -phobia); I wouldn't regard such a source as particularly authoritative. As for direct attestation, the only legitimate use of an English word with this spelling that I could find was this one, though it seems to have nothing whatsoever to do with cooking (no matter: I'll add it to Citations:mageirocophobia). It is likely that this term will fail RFV. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 19:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~nomophobia~~
~~Rfv-sense: the fear of mobile phones. There's some stuff on the citations page, but no fear of mobile phones. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 19:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
I split by etymology. Also, the most common sense mentioned is fear of being out of mobile phone contact (variously due to loss of phone, signal, credit/minutes). I found almost no support for a sense of fear or dislike of mobile phones, but I didn't look very hard. DCDuring TALK 20:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:English words suffixed with -phobia should give you a list of potential neologisms. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~porn~~
Rfv-sense "(countable, informal) A pornographic film."
The user tagging this left an edit summary indicating that it is specifically the countability that they find dubious. Thryduulf (talk) 09:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Perhaps it's based on the plural form pronz that you often find around the internet. —CodeCa t 11:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
The plural is easily attested via b.g.c, also based on the edit summary I am not sure that the tagger knows what they are talking about; what do they mean by stating that "a porns" doesn't make sense? "Some porns" does make sense though, and is in common usage. - [The]DaveRoss 19:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~In that sense porns is really a synonym of porn, hence a plurale tantum. —CodeCa t 12:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~parallel irony~~
~~Sounds like an invention of Wikipedians. Not mentioned in linked Wikipedia article. Equinox ◑ 09:35, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~datlash~~
Allegedly English. Two quotations are provided. The first may be good (I'd love to see it in print, to see whether it's italicized), but the second is a list of transliterations, not English words. The only bgc result is italicized (i.e., a transliteration).—msh210℠ (talk) 19:18, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
no useful hits on a ggc search either - two results that might be in this sense, one quoted so probably a mention rather than a use, and the other appears to be "datlashim", but neither are durably archived and neither are accessible to me so it's academic what sense they're in anyway. I've also done a google news archive search, btu all the uses are pay-per-view hits from the Jerusalem Post, and as that's where one of the existing two come from they wont show independence even if I could see them. Thryduulf (talk) 21:48, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~association~~
~~Two first senses are defined as:~~
The act of associating.

The state of being associated.
~~Aren't these a bit too general? Do they apply with every sense of "to associate"? Should they be divided into several, more specific senses? --Hekaheka 06:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Most dictionaries at OneLook handle it as we do, more or less. This is a general aspect of such terms. I would not want to define each and every derived term of a polysemous word with each sense of the polysemous word. Sometimes efforts along those line may be necessary.

Do you doubt that we could find 3 uses for each of these? It seems you would like the definition improved. Perhaps {{rfc-def}} or {{rft}} or {{defn}} or {{rfdef}} would fit you request better. DCDuring TALK 15:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I raised the question because we sometimes separate the senses with split-hair precision, whereas this entry in its current form takes a more wholesale approach. It's perhaps only my problem, but as there's no one word in Finnish that would cover all the senses of "to associate", I needed about a dozen words to cover each of the two senses that I tagged. There's no doubt about it being possible to find three quotes for each. I just wanted to verify that the definitions are clear and specific enough. If everybody else is happy with them, I'm happy. --Hekaheka 17:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~software~~
Rfv-sense: adjective: like software. The first 100 hits at google groups:"very|too software" include but one adjective hit ([223]), and that's in a different sense.—msh210℠ (talk) 06:17, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~unwriggle~~
It is rare, and I don't think it usually means what is given here. Consider: "unwriggled his stone feet, and stood up"; "You rip off that golden paper and unwriggle the wire" (okay); "he unwriggled from the small car" (intransitive, to exit by wriggling); "Swish curtains or unwriggled forefront of rich opacity" (adjective, perhaps meaning "unwrinkled"); "her white, unwriggling bum looked plumply impervious", "curls a satisfied smile around its unwriggling mouthful" (adjective, not wriggling). Nothing for "unwriggles". Equinox ◑ 11:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two positive hits for the sense we have are [224] and (figuratively) [225]. Another is the golden-paper one you mention, Equinox. That's three, though I'm too tired to want to bother formatting them at the moment.—msh210℠ (talk) 11:36, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm now defending my new article. Are these ones OK? Although, I'm not sure what the situation is in number 2. Old Bill Swyer's been coiled up in a serpent for a long time? It seems fanciful to me. --Mat200 11:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1987, Henrietta Garnett, Family skeletons:
You rip off that golden paper and unwriggle the wire. Then push up the cork with your thumbs and give it a little twist and try not to let it go off.

1988, Thomas Hardy Society, The Thomas Hardy journal:
we been a-trying to unwriggle old Bill Swyer from his serpent now for many a year.

2001, alt.drugs.psychedelics, Counting Comets:
He was actually almost unwriggled when we came to finally untie him. He was beating us up alot before this.
~~jolifs~~
~~bastissements~~
~~Self nomination. Seems to be a bad plural of (deprecated template usage) jolif - only (deprecated template usage) jolis. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:58, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Adding bastissements. In this case, bastissemenz doesn't seem to be attestable either. Hopefully Google Books has something to say - or I can pop into Uni. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:54, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jolifs is ok (just less common than jolifs). Bastissements seems wrong, no Google Book or French Wikisource hits. The dictionary I use gives all its citations in the singular, apart from one which has the plural bastissemens. Google Books gets a further two hits for bastissemens which seems to be Middle French/Early Modern French. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:46, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~man~~
"A professional person. We'll have to call a man in to fix it." I don't think this is a specific sub-sense of man but just a use in context. It's also a bit odd that the definition says "person"; if a woman were called to fix the broken thing, would she still be a "man" in this sense? Can anyone verify? Equinox ◑ 15:00, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
MWOnline has a sense "(often in combination) a man belonging to a particular category (as by birth, residence, membership, or occupation)" (as well as other senses we don't have). In the usex it seems to be an admission of ignorance as to the appropriate person to call (in-house maintenance staff, outside repair service? which trade, skill, skill level?). DCDuring TALK 15:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~phase~~
~~Rfv-sense: (intransitive) To become stunned or shocked. (We do not have this sense s.v. faze.)—msh210℠ (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~I've only ever heard that used in a transitive sense, though I can't vouch for one spelling over the other. --EncycloPetey 20:03, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~quadfecta~~
~~Rfv-sense - situation. I believe that it is a type of bet. SemperBlotto 09:23, 30 June 2010 (UTC) (similarly (deprecated template usage) trifecta)[reply]~~
~~diphthong~~
~~Rfv-sense. Ligature. I think that's what it means by "joined vowels". Mglovesfun (talk) 10:06, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~spaghetti junction~~
~~Moved to WT:RFD#spaghetti junction~~
~~bid~~
Rfv-sense "The announcement of a goal" (as distinct from "The attempt toward a goal", which is the following sense: this is one is specifically the announcement). It gives some usexes, which I think belong to the following sense.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~July 2010~~
~~measurage~~
Rfv-sense: measurement. The citations I have found seem to support use in English solely with regard to some kind of toll or duty, apparently based on estimated physical volume. DCDuring TALK 00:08, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Tartuan~~
~~Apparently not in Books or Groups. Equinox ◑ 08:26, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~untracked~~
~~"Rendered immobile or unmaneuverable." Is this an over-specific implication from "Of a tracked vehicle, such as a tank or earthmover, having lost a track"? Equinox ◑ 09:33, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~tap~~
~~Rfv-sense. To force a submission in combat sports. You can make someone tap, you can tap (submit, tap out) but this I don't know. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
The caption to the lead photo of this story at Sherdog.com, a well-known MMA site, reads: "Fabricio Werdum taps Fedor Emelianenko". — Dale Arnett 02:18, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So it does, so that would be one citation, if we accepted it as "durable". Mglovesfun (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~comprehensivity~~
~~Rfv-sense - the information-emitting propensity of a system, analogous to emissivity. Nothing obvious on Google book search. SemperBlotto 15:58, 2 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~The (new) user who added this questioned whether comprehensivity was a synonyms for comprehensiveness, which is what our definition says right now. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~nutella~~
~~A brand name. Needs the appropriate attestation. DCDuring TALK 01:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~And it should be Nutella with a capital N. The definition implies that there is a generic spread named after the original.--Dmol 01:57, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Never heard of it as a common noun. Could we just accept three lowercase cites? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
3 lowercase French cites for the French entry as it is. DCDuring TALK 17:24, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~bring up~~
Rfv-sense: "To stop a vehicle; to park." The usex given ("He brought his Ferrari up to the side of the road") seems to actually be bring + up to ("Against; next to; near; towards: Go up to the counter and ask").—msh210℠ (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~cmeo~~
~~"Crying my eyes out".—msh210℠ (talk) 22:17, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~tentigo~~
~~an erect penis --Volants 12:08, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
It's valid in the SOWPODS Scrabble dictionary, which is made up of lots of different dictionaries. Therefore I can't look it up without knowing which of those dictionaries it's in. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Chambers '88 gives "priapism; morbid lasciviousness," if that helps. Pingku 16:11, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~adhesion~~
Rfv-sense: A feeling of attachment (e.g. an infant to its parents). This seems like a calque of a non-English sense of a similarly spelled term. I can't find a reference that has this. DCDuring TALK 12:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~chork~~
~~Chopstick-fork hybrid. Equinox ◑ 15:07, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~tish~~
~~"Template:vulgar excrement. An anagram of shit; tish is found in poetic contexts or in forums where the word "shit" is mechanically censored" --Volants 17:15, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~toepoke~~
~~verb "# Template:football To kick hard and far with the toes", noun "Such a kick". --Volants 17:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Added one citation each for verb and noun. Seems to exist, but might be too rare. Equinox ◑ 17:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW we used to use this lots and lots when we were kids, but orally. So if it is attestable it could be toe-poke or toe poke I suppose. Perhaps North of England slang, dunno. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~token offense~~
~~"# Template:sports The meaningless, minimal offense shown by an athlete or team while they are being dominated by an opponent." --Volants 17:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
It's poorly worded so we need a new definition, so we'll have to write the definition then cite. Plus it seems quite SoP (token + offense). Delete IMO, or find some citations and start from scratch. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. SOP even if attestable. Move to RFD. bd2412 T 00:35, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to WT:RFD. DAVilla 06:21, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~traino~~
~~In Australia "train station" --Volants 17:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~true mixed~~
~~"# Template:curling An event format where the teams must have two men and two women, played in alternating positions." --Volants 18:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~northern mixed~~
~~"# Template:curling An event format where teams must have at least one person of the opposite sex on the team. " --Volants 18:24, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~ATAPI~~
~~Advanced Technology Application Programming Interface. Not the usual expansion. Equinox ◑ 20:00, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~near-blind~~
Obviously this would not meet our idiomaticity requirement, except that it claims to have a precise definition in terms of specific vision tests. I'm bringing to RFV because I can't find any such definition anywhere (nor any use that exemplifies that as opposed to the SOP definition).—msh210℠ (talk) 06:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Nonsense from beginning to end. Even claims to be a verb. Deleted SemperBlotto 06:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~jinky~~
~~Tagged anonymously but not listed.—msh210℠ (talk) 07:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
I've added the following three quotations from online newspapers. Are they valid? I don't like the third quotation from John O'Groat Journal, but that's just because I've never heard of that newspaper before. --Mat200 09:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
1999 Irish Independent - Bell rings warning over Leslie
He's also quite jinky off his feet. He steps through tackles and offloads there are no frills. He brings other players into the game.

2006, Telegraph - Tevez must sharpen up before axe needs to fall
Coming out second best then, he then tried a jinky dribble from right to left, only to find McCann standing in his way again.

2007 John O'Groat Journal - Millbank Man o' Steel event brings season to a close
Darren was the smallest on the pitch he is certainly not fazed by the bigger lads and his jinky runs regularly stretched the opposition to the limit
Online papers are not durably acrhived. Have these same articles appeared in print, in papers that are in libraries somewhere?—msh210℠ (talk) 11:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this question is for me. I have no idea if they appeared in print, sorry. Do you have any idea how I can find out? I'll hazard a guess that the Irish Independent and Telegraph appeared in print. Can we use nicknames as valid references? I'm thinking about the Celtic footballer Jimmy Johnstone, nicknamed Jinky, because of his zigzaggy runs down the wing. --Mat200 13:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A bit of online research will often tell you. (Of course, microfilm works, too, but I have only once resorted to that AFAIR.) The 1999 Irish Independent cite was in print: [226]. (The only information I got from that that's not at [227] is that the article was on page 20, FYI.)—msh210℠ (talk) 15:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re Johnstone: Yeah, google news archive:"jimmy johnstone" "jinky because|for" might help demonstrate that that's really why he was called that.—msh210℠ (talk) 15:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Severnside~~
~~Adjective. Tagged anonymously but not listed.—msh210℠ (talk) 07:47, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
An IP just removed it. I'd be tempted to put it back, it looks plausible. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would you believe that SB had his first job interview after leaving school at the "Imperial Smelting" works on Severnside. He didn't get the job. (this entry is fine) SemperBlotto 09:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The entry now lists it as a proper noun. It was the adjective sense that was RFVed and then removed (by the same anonip).—msh210℠ (talk) 11:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~shrinker~~
~~Rfv-sense: something that shrinks (intransitive). Tagged anonymously but not listed.—msh210℠ (talk) 12:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
I'm sorry for not adding quotations when I first created this entry. I found some then, but trying to find them again has proved difficult. I apologize again - from now on I'll try to add quotations when I create each entry, so it will be easier for everyone involved. --Mat200 13:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cited I think. Not a very common sense. A few more cites of the same type are available. Possibly should be specialized to "persons who are shy and retiring or mousy". Added two specific (sub)senses of the transitive-derived sense in fairly common use. DCDuring TALK 13:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~sprinkly~~
~~Rfv-sense: suitable for sprinkling: tagged anonymously but not listed.—msh210℠ (talk) 12:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
This is another definition I found when casually browsing, which sadly I can't find again. Finding three quotations would be even more difficult! Maybe we can just have that definition deleted from the entry? --Mat200 13:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It presumably will be if no one cites it sufficiently within thirty days.—msh210℠ (talk) 15:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps this would be better at RfC. I've added some senses and slightly changed one, but a proper citation search would be beneficial. I'm also dubious about "resembling sprinkles," whatever that might mean. Maybe one of my additions would cover it. :) Pingku 15:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Solar~~
~~Capitalized version of (deprecated template usage) solar (lacking a headword like all of this editor's work) SemperBlotto 13:57, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Not sure how to search for this, but at the very least there are no relevant visible hits on Groups or Books for "solar or solar", "solar nor solar", or "solar not solar".—msh210℠ (talk) 14:59, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nor "Solar with a capital S". Equinox ◑ 11:36, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~"Solar" in "solar divinity" is occasionally capitalised. (See, e.g., [228].) Perhaps when it is intended to refer explicitly to the (a?) deity? Pingku 12:50, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~French~~
~~"(informal) risqué, racy, bawdy." Not sure the given citation backs it up. Equinox ◑ 18:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Seems to be the same sort of thing as French letters, it sounds plausible although I don't know if I've ever heard it outside set phrases. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~sugardaddie~~
~~This spelling (as opposed to sugar daddy) is turning up mostly URLs rather than usage of the word. --EncycloPetey 20:01, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Yeah, it's a Web site. I speedied it when it was first created yesterday. Equinox ◑ 08:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Sd305 evidently spells the word this way. Is he connected with the website? I suggest that we just redirect to the correct spelling, or replace the entry with deliberate mis-spelling of. Dbfirs 11:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've found what appear to be two independent uses of "sugardaddie"
Lua error in Module:quote at line 2659: Parameter 1 is required.

Lua error in Module:quote at line 2659: Parameter 1 is required.

Along with 4 for "sugar daddie" [229], [230], [231], [232]. Although given that these are all the hits that don't refer to the website I'm guessing it's not exactly common. Thryduulf (talk) 13:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Another, but I can only see a "snippet": [233]. I did replace it with {{rare}} {{alternative spelling of, but the newbie reverted me. (Since it's used in what appears to be a Ruth Rendell-edited book, I didn't like to consider it a misspelling.)—msh210℠ (talk) 16:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so it might just be a rare alternative (rather than a mis-spelling). I suppose there are lots of these diminutive forms that can be found of we search for them, but we don't even have daddie, and that's much less rare, with 22,200 bgc hits. Dbfirs 16:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~wisteria~~
Rfv-sense "wistful, nostalgic remembering". Nothing relevant among the first 100 hits at google books:"wisteria about|over|for" -plant -flower -blossom -bloom, nor among all the Groups hits for the same. Also no Groups/Books hits for "bout of wisteria".—msh210℠ (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~prehung-door~~
~~Equinox ◑ 18:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Cited IMHO. But, lexically, prehung seems to be the entry, if not replacing prehung door/prehung-door, then supplementing them. Numerous modifiers can appear between prehung and door and other collocates such as "unit" replacing door. Furthermore, prehang/pre-hang seems to be a fully inflecting back-formed verb from "prehung"/"pre-hung". DCDuring TALK 23:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~mythic~~
~~1. "awe-inspiring"; 2. "heroic". Equinox ◑ 19:02, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
I don't know if those are the best defs, but yes, there is some sense in which (deprecated template usage) mythic means "larger than life" rather than "not real". See e.g. google:"has become a mythic". —Ruakh_TALK 19:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~pull~~
~~"Initiate combat with an enemy character in an online game." Equinox ◑ 19:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~when you're up to your neck in alligators, it's easy to forget that the initial objective was to drain the swamp~~
Not in any Google Books. A previous RFV was (wrongly?) closed under the assumption that a cleanup request was what was intended. Equinox ◑ 20:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"neck+in+alligators"+"drain|draining|drained|drains+the|a+swamp"&aq=f&aqi=m1&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai= This bgc search suggests that there is a construction with the key elements "neck in alligators" and "[drain] the/a swamp". My own approach is always to go for the shortest well-defined lexical unit, which would seem to be up to one's neck in alligators. If some variant of the proverbial expression were included as a usage example, we would have maximally helped users IMHO. DCDuring TALK 00:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"armpits in alligators" seems more common. Peptonized 19:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And even more so: "ass in alligators", but also "ears", "elbows", and "waist" and even "eyebrows", "anatomy", "tutu", and "nose". Perhaps the "lemma" form should be up to one's something in alligators, with redirects and/or usage examples from the most common (ass, neck, armpits, ears, elbows, and waist). DCDuring TALK 20:30, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~wa lao~~
~~"(Singapore, vulgar) Unhappiness at an unexpected or unpleasant situation." I don't think the references are very reliable. --Volants 09:52, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~We also have wah lau and wahlau. One of the links was dead and one of the links was Urban Dictionary. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:05, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~supramillion~~
~~Equinox ◑ 12:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
well [234] is a durably archived use of "supra-million". [235] is one for "supramillion". There are others as well for the non-hyphenated spelling but I'm not completely sure of their independence to the latter. Someone else may have more luck - my firefox is very broken suddenly (it segfaults within seconds of laoding, everytime) and so I'm having to use the non-ideal knoqueror with no js support. Thryduulf (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~altamel~~
~~Equinox ◑ 15:15, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
The problem with copying verbatim from a 199 year old dictionary is that the English is so out-of-date that you can't understand it! I think there was another Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue entry that failed RFV this year. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~windward~~
Verb. The two senses given are not worded for verbs; the Dana citation used "to windward" as a prepositional phrase, not an infinitive and is now under the noun PoS. "Windwarding" may be attestable. DCDuring TALK 22:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about the noun? Does that require an RFV? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:45, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dictionaries have it. DCDuring TALK 00:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~gat~~
Rfv-sense: An Irish slang sense, gat#Etymology 3, meaning something like tomcat#Verb. Claimed only as gatting, gating. No ety. Other forms, esp. base, need to be attested. DCDuring TALK 20:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help with the Irish, though I suspect it is just a variant of gadding. I was surprised to find that we don't have the only sense of the word that I know - gat as a variant of got - the past tense of the verb to get. Is this usage now rare other than in dialect? e.g. And Abraham gat up early in the morning Genesis 19,27 Dbfirs 09:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~aller-~~
Is there a pressing reason why the etymology is listed the way it is? It seems more likely to me for it to be simply the old genitive plural of 'al', as in the German aller. Sources would be nice. —CodeCa t 10:25, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what needs verifying? RFV is specifically for attestation, as long as you're not denying that this exists the best place would simply be the talk page, and tag it with {{attention|nl}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~namesake~~
I've checked three paper dictionaries and can't find evidence for this entry being correct. If Freddie is the grandson of Frederick, then, according to this entry 1) Freddie is the namesake of Frederick and 2) Frederick is the namesake of Freddie. Can someone shed some light on this for me? Thanks. Haus 12:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think (2) clearly sees widespread use. (1) is attestable also, though: [236], [237], [238], etc. (Of course, those could be instances of the other ("A person, place or thing having the same name as another") sense. I don't know an easy way to rule out that possibility on a search.)—msh210℠ (talk) 15:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All persons with the same name {full name, given name, surname, nickname) are in an equivalence class with respect to the shared name. One of the uni-directional variations undoubtedly had preference when the supposed source phrase "for the name's sake" was intelligible. MWOnline has one sense with an especially including the RfDed sense. BTW, see OneLook for convenient access to many online dictionaries and glossaries, including AHD, RHU, MWOnline, Encarta, and Online Etymology Dictionary. DCDuring TALK 20:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanations. I'm now convinced the entry is accurate. Although I reserve the right to raise an eyebrow if someone were to say that Kim Kardashian is Kim Jong Il's namesake. Haus 07:27, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Kim Kardashian is not the namesake of Kim Jong-Il. The North Korean leader's name is actually, 김정일 (according to Wikipedia), with Kim Jong-Il being the Romanisation (and in any case "Kim" is the family name). Similarly Michael Schumacher and Michael Portillo are not namesakes, as the German name (deprecated template usage) Michael is not the same as the English name (deprecated template usage) Michael, even though they have the same spelling and similar etymology. Thryduulf (talk) 11:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think most folks would buy these distinctions, which only linguistic theorists and certain philosophers could love. I wonder whether KimK and Kim Jong-Il are related. DCDuring TALK 11:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying then that Michael Douglas and Douglas Hurd are namesakes? I certainly wouldn't regard them as such. Thryduulf (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I hypothesize that most folks would actually view the namesake relationship within a naming convention as applying only among names of a given class (given names, first name, surname, patronymic, etc), though some may use the term more broadly. I think most lexicographers attempt to word definitions so as to finesse the need for such precise delineation of sub- and sub-subsenses. DCDuring TALK 13:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Now you have really confused me! You're saying appear to be saying that:
Michael Douglas and Douglas Hurd are not namesakes as they share neither a given name nor a surname

I agree they are not namesakse

That Kim Kardashian in Kim Jong-Il are namesakes, presumably as they share a first name(?)

I disagree - they share neither given name nor a surname - the "Kim" in the Korean's name is a romanisation of his family name "김"

That Michael Schumacher and Michael Portillo are namesakes because they share a first name

I disagree - the names are cognates (they are both descended from Hebrew) and coincidentally have the same spelling, but they are not the same name.

As I read what you've written to be self-contradictory, what do you actually mean? Thryduulf (talk) 17:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to be jesting about over-extending the concept across naming systems, just as I would be loathe to call "w:Red Bull" (beverage) and "w:Sitting Bull" namesakes. Sorry for not making that clear. DCDuring TALK 18:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~put that in your juice box and suck it~~
~~—msh210℠ (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~second guesser~~
~~Rfv-sense "Someone who angrily questions decisions of the manager of a team". The only novelty of this sense versus the other is "angrily".—msh210℠ (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Looks like a newbie mistake to me, delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~fragus~~
I don't find this in Latin through the Medieval period, and it's unlikely to have the given meaning based on similar roots. The verbs (deprecated template usage) fragor and (deprecated template usage) frangō mean "break, fracture", not "bend". The Latin for "joint" is (deprecated template usage) articulus. --EncycloPetey 00:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~familism~~
~~I can't see any evidence for this. SemperBlotto 15:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC) - also familistic[reply]~~
Sorry? 57 700 Google hits (including Merriam-Webster). Lmaltier 20:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are they durably archived and consistent with the sense in the entry? In any event, the definition is under challenge. 30 days should suffice for valid cites. DCDuring TALK 20:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The definition that involves high importance of the family relative to the individual, but some of the usage suggests that it is the importance of the family relative to the community (or the nation). That would be worth resolving. DCDuring TALK 21:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~pabulation~~
~~only in really old dictionaries --Volants 18:59, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~This looks like a candidate for Appendix:English dictionary-only terms. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 13:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Rwandeses~~
I haven't spent too long looking, but I can't find any English uses (or mentions) of (deprecated template usage) Rwandeses. The plural of (deprecated template usage) Rwandese appears to be invariant, which is the standard for English words with the (deprecated template usage) -ese suffix. Note that (deprecated template usage) rwandeses (with a small "r") appears to be a very easily attestable Spanish word that google translates as "Rwandan citizens". Thryduulf (talk) 01:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy-deleted. This was created by an inflectobot based on [[Rwandese]] having {{en-noun}}, and {{en-noun}} was added to [[Rwandese]] by a WF sock with the edit summary "cats" (since the entry had previously been uncategorized.) If anyone thinks this form really meets the CFI, they can re-create the entry and we'll have a proper RFV, but bot-edits don't require the benefit of the doubt. —Ruakh_TALK 16:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Pete~~
Rfv-sense: A bicycle accident normally requiring some medical attention. Generally applies to accidents by individuals or groups with a track record of bicycle accidents. --Volants 09:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Joke entry - removed. SemperBlotto 07:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~bullocks~~
~~Rfv-senses. "Tesicles" and "an expression of frustration". Presumably an variation on (deprecated template usage) bollocks. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
I have heard (deprecated template usage) bullocks used as a euphemism for (deprecated template usage) bollocks before. A notable sort-of example is the The Beautiful South song Don't Marry Her where "grab your sweaty bollocks" was bowdlerised to "grab your Sandra Bullocks". Anyway, both cited now I think. Thryduulf (talk) 22:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good IMO. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thinking about it, should these senses be a separate etymology to the plural of (deprecated template usage) bullock? Thryduulf (talk) 09:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~triumphalism~~
~~Rfv-sense: Excessive expression or demonstration of glee at the defeat or failure of a rival; brazen gloating. vs "Attitude or belief ....". DCDuring TALK 14:57, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~technology butler~~
"A member of a hotel's staff who helps guests with computer-related tasks such as connecting to the Internet." Not in Google Books; Wikipedia article lacks sources. Equinox ◑ 16:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~shuffle~~
~~Rfv-sense: (noun) To get lost in the shuffle: to lack attention when you deserve it. Seems confused. Am I missing what the contributor is trying to say. DCDuring TALK 01:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Incomprehensible. Delete. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~nonette~~
~~I see no evidence that this is used for (deprecated template usage) nonet in English. Ƿidsiþ 06:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Grove Music Online has it as French only. SemperBlotto 18:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~EANAB~~
~~"Equally Attractive Non Alcoholic Beverage". Mglovesfun (talk) 08:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~ex-Scientologist~~
~~"A former Scientologist who acts to expose the inside workings of Scientology." Equinox ◑ 15:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Analogously, however, see anti-Witness and non-Witness. DCDuring TALK 17:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hm, I don't see the analogy. Equinox ◑ 15:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The term might have meaning, even a "POV" meaning, within the context of Scientology that it does not for others. DCDuring TALK 16:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~hothouse~~
~~Is this a true adjective? See Wiktionary:English adjectives. DCDuring TALK 11:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~camach~~
~~This entry seems to be a joke.Matthias Buchmeier 15:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Total rubbish. Also the word on Russian wiktionary. SemperBlotto 15:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~publie-crapaud~~
~~WTF? SemperBlotto 15:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Could perhaps be another hoax by the recent creator of (deprecated template usage) rase-dents? The IP addresses are not identical though. Equinox ◑ 15:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I thought - deleted SemperBlotto 16:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~antique brass~~
~~A colour, apparently. Equinox ◑ 15:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~rdr~~
~~Redirect. Is this common enough to be attestable per CFI? Mglovesfun (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~Turing syndrome~~
~~"In mediated interactions (e.g., online, on the radio) repeatedly being mistaken for a machine rather than a human." Equinox ◑ 11:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
Hmmm. The single b.g.c result does not support it, but looks like a deliberate mistake for Tourette syndrome. After some tweaking I found this context:
It was right by the high school, none of whose records are available any longer; they are of course completely private but between you and my physician, I think that child is autistic. Or maybe he just has that Turing syndrome. Anyway it's true that sometimes a convulsion of sheer pleasure, like the one you're producing in me right now, will have the effect of making your speech radiantly, exposingly allegorical: "umm, excuse me, I'm looking for the aristocracy?" and that sort of thing.

Pingku 13:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like tosh. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Yes, he's somehow mixed up Tourette syndrome and the Turing test. SemperBlotto 13:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~lêxistin~~
~~Seems to mean two totally different things. SemperBlotto 12:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~I would have tagged it with {{attention|ku}}. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~User has corrected it - also removed the headword - really needs to be watched. SemperBlotto 12:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~touch-and-go~~
~~Newly added today: "A landing page that redirects you to a different website." Equinox ◑ 14:50, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~wasp~~
~~"A hot American hoodie-wearing hipster who is impassive and characterized by a calm, austere fortitude." Um? Equinox ◑ 17:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~fox in the henhouse~~
"A relationship wherein a predator is granted free rein within the prey’s home confinement, often used in the political sense." — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 20:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You aren't challenging the existence of the metaphor. Is it the wording of the definition? Obviously, even a metaphorical fox is not a "relationship". How about glossing it as "a predator with access to prey's refuge." Should we also have fox among the chickens, wolf among the sheep? DCDuring TALK 22:59, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
…As well as (deprecated template usage) cat amongst the pigeons. And yes, this RFV is de facto more a request for rewording than anything else, though the usage is more figurative than "a predator with access to prey's refuge". — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 12:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was mostly thinking of the figurative senses of "predator" and "prey", which are the only ones worth including. Each of these is an instance of the metaphorical constructions: "[predator] among|amidst [prey]" or "[predator] in [prey shelter]". I think Cervantes had noted the proliferation of instances in Don Quixote. DCDuring TALK 14:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"An institutionalised situation of conflict of interest"? Pingku 14:42, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A fox is not a "situation" and the the definition is not substitutable, though neither criticism should be taken as fatal. I prefer to lay out the roles in the metaphor. An alternative is provide a functional definition using {{non-gloss definition}}. If we had an actual style manual we might lay out how to handle various types of definitions. DCDuring TALK 15:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~improvision~~
~~Rfv-sense: act of improvising. Ƿidsiþ 09:47, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]~~
~~skinny~~
Rfv-sense: naked, nude. Is this ever used outside of skinny dipping? There's no reason to think the skinny in skinny dipping means 'nude', as it's an idiom. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Barr, Amelia Edith Huddleston, 1831-1919 "The Squire of Sandal-Side A Pastoral Romance"

[1]

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup add new \| history \| archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.	Requests for verification/English add new English request \| history \| archives Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.	Requests for verification/CJK add new CJK request \| history Requests for verification of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.	Requests for verification/Italic add new Italic request \| history Requests for verification of Italic-language entries.	Requests for verification/Non-English add new non-English request \| history \| archives Requests for verification of any other non-English entries.	Requests for deletion/Others add new \| history Requests for deletion and undeletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.
Requests for moves, mergers and splits add new \| history \| archives Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.	Requests for deletion/English add new English request \| history \| archives Requests for deletion of pages in the main namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.	Requests for deletion/CJK add new CJK request \| history Requests for deletion and undeletion of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.	Requests for deletion/Italic add new Italic request \| history Requests for deletion and undeletion of Italic-language entries.	Requests for deletion/Non-English add new non-English request \| history \| archives Requests for deletion and undeletion of any other non-English entries.	Requests for deletion/Reconstruction add new reconstruction request \| history Requests for deletion and undeletion of reconstructed entries.
{{attention}} • {{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfeq}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

Wiktionary:Requests for verification

October 2008

November 2008

December 2008

January 2009

February 2009

March 2009

April 2009

May 2009

June 2009

vaina (Spanish)

July 2009

August 2009

Relent (transitive)

September 2009

Star Wars stuff

Death Star (old)

Tatooine planet (old RFV)

October 2009