Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:33, 15 August 2011

Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for verification

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup add new request \| history \| archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.	Requests for verification English add new request \| history CJK add new request \| history Italic add new request \| history Non-English (all other languages) add new request \| history Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.	Requests for deletion English add new request \| history CJK add new request \| history Italic add new request \| history Reconstruction add new request \| history Non-English (all other languages) add new request \| history Requests for deletion of pages in the main and Reconstruction namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.	Requests for deletion/Others add new request \| 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 request \| history \| archives Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.			Language treatment requests add new request \| history Requests for changes to Wiktionary's language treatment practices, including renames, merges and splits.
{{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

July 2010

antique brass

A colour, apparently. Equinox ◑ 15:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look on Google Books, and the best I found were:

1929 Metal industry, Metal Industry Pub. Co., Volume 24, p158
Most parts are hammered sheet brass and all require antique brass color.
1950 American builder, Volume 72, Simmons-Boardman Pub. Corp., p64
[...] r alloy, rustproof and finished in antique brass color.
1998 Desire Smith, Fashionable clothing from the Sears catalogs: early 1970s, Schiffer Pub. Ltd., p82
Leather belt with double row of holes all around. Antique brass-color buckle with double hooks.

Ackatsis 07:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the 1998 quote is talking about something that is antique brass coloured, just an antique that is brass-coloured.

- Lua error in Module:parameters at line 828: Parameter "colour&f" is not used by this template.

I think that one fits the bill though. Thryduulf (talk) 09:48, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Antique brass color" does not imply that "antique brass" is a colour, only that it has a colour. A book calling something "sky colour" does not imply the existence of a colour called "sky". Equinox ◑ 16:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right. The Weddie quote works, though, no?—msh210℠ (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it does. I also think some of the this at google books:"black and antique brass" are good, though it's hard to be certain that they mean antique brass color. They certainly don't mean literal antique brass, but they might mean brass that's made to look antique (as here), in which I'm not sure if that counts.
Regardless, there is some idiomatic sense here, unless we're missing a sense at [[antique]].
—Ruakh_TALK 22:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, (barely) RFV-pass? - -sche (discuss) 03:58, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How could we tell whether the color in the color patch was the color being referred to? Was it the same in 1929 as in 1998? The same in all contexts? It's hard enough with the definitions of words using other words in contexts of words. Aren't we dependent on color theorists, color scholars, and color historians to a far greater extent than we depend on the comparable word professionals? DCDuring TALK

Can we at least say that it is similar to brass, but darker? — Pingku^dimmi 08:48, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the patch and added ", but darker" to the definitions. - -sche (discuss) 02:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010

lolicon

Two senses tagged, not listed, with explanatory comments embedded in the page source. Equinox ◑ 20:38, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the third sense (erotic art) should be easily citeable. However I haven't got time to look right now, but the source of that page sis a perfect example of why we should always use the templates for quotations - without them the source is a right mess and it's hard to pick out the definitions from the quotations, and hard to work out what each bit of information about the quotation is. Thryduulf (talk) 22:49, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the following comment was previously in a separate section.

Rfv-sense Its primary function is not to make an artistic statement but to arouse sexual sensation — This unsigned comment was added by 97.120.253.250 (talk) at 00:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Like Thryduulf, I would expect the third sense to be easily cited; indeed, it has two valid citations now. (Correction: one is hyphenated.) I am less certain of the second sense, which has one questionable book and one questionable Usenet citation. - -sche (discuss) 22:15, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I'll cite this in the next few days (or fail it, if I cannot find citations). - -sche (discuss) 22:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. - -sche (discuss) 01:43, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Passed. - -sche (discuss) 21:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wikification

"The process of adding wiki links to specific named entities (usu. capitalized) and other appropriate phrases in an arbitrary text (usu. news articles in current research). The automated process consists of automatic keyword extraction, word sense disambiguation, and automatically adding links to documents (or other unstructured text) to the Wikipedia or other reference." Equinox ◑ 23:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like tosh, but hey, I've been wrong before. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it has two citations. It needs at least one more (possibly more, if either or both of the two are deemed unacceptable). - -sche (discuss) 18:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It has three citations now. Two of them are majuscule, and (in my not-entirely-serious opinion) all of them could easily have been generated by SCIgen. - -sche (discuss) 03:58, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, passed / tolerated. - -sche (discuss) 07:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

insidious

I have no idea how this works. I am unlikely to post here again. Insidious does not = treacherous. The sources listed do not support that assumption either although one says, "stealthily treacherous". Stealthily is the operative word in this case and I would support the idea that treachery might be a more confusing example than something like cunning. Treacherous is very close to deceitful but not insidious. Beside that, the entry "intention to entrap". The intention to entrap is not an example of insidious although the entrapment itself or its manner may be. And, for the entry which says "witch's insidious gingerbread house". Is it not "the insidious witch's gingerbread house". Is it not her cunning and deciet which is insidious or is it the gingerbread and candy canes? RTG 01:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chambers has "developing or advancing gradually and imperceptibly; deceptively attractive; cunning and treacherous." The house is the middle one. Equinox ◑ 17:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vocabulary.com says, "Beguiling but harmful; intended to entrap; working or spreading in a hidden and usually injurious way." It says intended to, not intending to, i.e. the purpose rather than the intention. I did not see any gingerbread houses in those ones but perhaps the gingerbread house had "an insidious purpose"? The one you quote in bold is rather vague to say the least even if it is a quote from Chambers. Are we restricted to the quality of Chambers if it is not so good? There are various hits for the phrase "insidious treason" and hundreds for "insidious treachery" (page one of James Russell Lowells book Abraham Lincoln for one to pick). Suggesting that "insidious" is used possibly to describe treason rather than being it. Currently it blunty says insidious = treacherous. It could be ironed out of those at very least. Note, the "insidious treachery" hits are quite revealing, everything from marvel comics to Lincoln literature, news, blogs and the like. Barnes and Noble quote Lowell (under features tab) RTG 15:17, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would someone who has it like to check the OED? Equinox ◑ 15:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your wish is my command :- Full of wiles or plots; lying in wait or seeking to entrap or ensnare; proceeding or operating secretly or subtly so as not to excite suspicion; sly, treacherous, deceitful, underhand, artful, cunning, crafty, wily. (Of persons and things.) SemperBlotto 15:27, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Party Now But All For Our Country, Francis Lieber, Inaugral Meeting of the Loyal National League, 1863, page 2, line 3, quote:"Insidious treachery" [1] RTG 16:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, treachery is treacherous, so that doesn't preclude "insidious" having that meaning. Compare e.g. "his devices for preying upon the avaricious greed of his fellows". Equinox ◑ 19:23, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not relate the e.g. but for curiosity I searched "treacherous treachery" There were over 1,000 hits on the internet most of which were lists but one quote included the bible... so I searched for "righteous righteousness" which turned up almost 30,000 of which all but one on the first page were about the bible and that one again was a list of words on answers.com. Probably doesn't matter anyway it's only a bunch of meaningless words when you put it like that. Try Leisure Guys The Torturous Tourture Debate [2], an ex head of torture teaches us that torture really is torture. RTG 04:15, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge: Find us a newspaper heading, or the like, published EVER that says, "...found guilty of being insidious." "...was court martialled and shot for being insidious." Not, "...insidious plan." but, "... found to be insidious and sentenced for it." That which means treacherous is often taken very seriously. Find us a quote that not only equates insidious to a state of action or being, but to a state of crime. The most defining feature of treachery is that it is a crime and punishable by death even in countries long abolished of the death penalty. A defining feature of insidiousness is that it is not viewed a crime by any on its own. Show us the statute that says"...the minimum and maximum sentences for insidiousness..." There are none I think. For being treacherous though, there are in every book. RTG 16:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a few citations to the various senses. However, it can be hard to tell precisely which sense is intended. IMO, "this insidious city" (1969, Brewster and Burrell, referring to Paris in Henry James' The Ambassadors) seems to fit the disputed definition of "alluring but harmful", while "insidious house of Austria" seems more likely to mean "treacherous". Equinox ◑ 17:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. - -sche (discuss) 01:20, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Passed. - -sche (discuss) 06:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AC/DC

Australian band. Should meet WT:BRAND. DCDuring TALK 00:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can speedily delete this one, right? Equinox ◑ 17:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There might be suitable attestation somewhere. It doesn't seem like pure spam. DCDuring TALK 18:45, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. DAVilla 14:40, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like an opportunity to clarify WT:BRAND, at least for my benefit. I have three problems with the citations as they relate to the proper noun in this case:

I didn't think that we took similes as valid cites.
It would have certainly simplified many earlier WT:BRAND efforts if we simply allowed all citations of the form "the [Proper noun] of X" constructions as valid citations of [Proper noun].
It is also unclear to me what the actual meaning "AC/DC" in the citations is. What aspect of the band is being referred to?

-- DCDuring TALK 15:09, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem very confused. On the other hand, this response is six weeks late, but for clarity:

1. Sorry, we do. WT:BRAND has two explicit instances of simile. Metaphor is only a proposed criterion for specific entities.

2. These citations are not valid under WT:BRAND merely because they follow that pattern. The pattern is neither necessary nor sufficient to meet WT:BRAND. I chose those quotations because they were the strongest in allowing a specific entity. As you know we don't have criteria for that yet, so strong quotations will avoid having to cite again in the future.

For instance, the last cite is valid because it does not indicate at all what AC/DC is in the preceding and surrounding text. On the other hand, I'm realizing I didn't check that some of the others weren't written about the type of "product" (music?) in general, so they may not work in that regard.

3. The less clear the meaning, the stronger the case for passing WT:BRAND. I really don't care to cite what AC/DC actually means because we all already know that. DAVilla 09:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I think the 1991 and 2009 citations are good; I am less certain that the 1999 and 2006 citations (which are clearly discussing music) are valid. - -sche (discuss) 04:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pastaierie

Old French for paste. Can only find it in etymological dictionaries so far. Will keep trying. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:26, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Godefroy lists this under pastoierie with one citation using this spelling, and two others using the -o- spelling. I'd propose that these are acceptable, therefore, as Old French spelling isn't fixed; pastaierie and pastoierie are the same word, just not the same spelling. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would also pass if Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2011-05/Attestation of extinct languages 2 passes (one valid citation). Mglovesfun (talk) 23:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we move the entry (without redirect) to the -o- spelling, keep the -a- quotation and add the -o- quotations, and list this -a- spelling in that entry as an alternative form — in effect deleting the -a- spelling and "passing" the -o- spelling. - -sche (discuss) 00:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010

badge

Rfv-sense: To enter a restricted area by showing one's badge. Seems to me like a literary use playing on "to barge in". Is it used? Outside of a literary context? DCDuring TALK 13:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be badge in and badge out. The construction reminds me of clock in (even though that doesn't involve showing anyone a clock). Equinox ◑ 17:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if, in English, we ever have de-nounal phrasal verbs that do not have the corresponding bare de-nounal verb itself. IOW, would it make sense to have badge in and badge out without having a corresponding sense of badge. Don't we have some other particle or adverb, like "through", "into", "onto"? DCDuring TALK 20:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see a similar use of "badge" as a transitive verb: "The policeman badged him and asked him some questions." Perhaps the use in question should be considered an intransitive variation of the same sense. More generality in a definition, especially if it makes the definition shorter, rarely hurts, especially if the specific sense has a good usage example. DCDuring TALK 20:33, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. - -sche (discuss) 01:32, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Passed. - -sche (discuss) 07:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

model

Rfv-sense X 3: All senses. I don't believe that any of these meet the tests of true adjectivity (See Wiktionary:English adjectives.) From RfD. DCDuring TALK 14:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be enough Google Book hits for "become model" that aren't attributive use to suggest that at least one adjectival definition is justified. I say justified rather than needed. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:09, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Webster's provides these adjectival senses, although it combines (1) and (2) into a single definition. (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/model%5B3%5D)

Two senses RFV-failed, one sense cited. - -sche (discuss) 02:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now well cited. - -sche (discuss) 18:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

give face

Rfv-sense: "To honor; to pay respect." Related to save face. In use? Context? DCDuring TALK 18:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused by the request, since a skim-through of google books:"give face" shows many more uses in this sense than in the other. The context seems to be "when talking about Chinese people and culture" (because everyone knows that we Americans love it when people embarrass us?). —Ruakh_TALK 02:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled across the entry because I stumbled across the Ety 2 sense (which I also had never heard of, while trying to cite downtalk, as best I can remember. I'd never heard give face in the Ety 1 sense and it seemed fanciful, though plausible. It wasn't in OneLook or my Dictionary of American Idioms and Phrasal Verbs. I RfV things like that in case I forget to come back to them (as I did). In my wanderings through English entries I find many more problems than I can solve, which is why I keep on hoping that we can get more English-language contributors.

If there isn't a context suitable for {{context}}, then any quotes illustrating typical usage would be great.

I think there is also a collocation/idiom "to give (a) face to" meaning something like personify, embody, or represent. Did you come across anything like that? DCDuring TALK 14:52, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that makes sense, thanks. (I thought there might have been something more specific that you were doubting, but I couldn't figure out what. Hence my confusion.) —Ruakh_TALK 15:17, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked at quite a few bgc pages and wonder whether give face, save face, and lose face haven't become NISoP. The Chinese concept of "face" itself seems to have been substantially absorbed into English. That might have been underlying my RfV. This development seems to me to have occurred mostly in the last 20 years, possibly less. DCDuring TALK 01:12, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If it has become NISOP, but wasn't originally, it would seem to pass the in a jiffy test. - -sche (discuss) 16:22, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. Should pass as attested, and per the in a jiffy test. - -sche (discuss) 02:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So passed. - -sche (discuss) 07:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

young lady

"A young ladylike woman". Equinox ◑ 15:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The hits at google books:"act like a young lady" seem to suffice, though IMO this is SOP.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:51, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would think this would be includable as a form of address. As such it might merit fairly long usage notes. It also seems to have had a dated sense. Macmillan and Encarta include both of those senses. RHU is like our entry + dated sense. Citation doesn't seem likely to be difficult, even in the dated sense. DCDuring TALK 19:13, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So, pass as in reasonably widespread use? - -sche (discuss) 18:34, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cited, I think. - -sche (discuss) 00:22, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010

ambient findability

Just an ad for a book? Equinox ◑ 00:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. google books:"ambient findability" gets hundreds of hits. I assume that the book introduced the term, but it's clearly gained some currency. Many of the hits don't count, in that they're not using the term themselves beyond just quoting the book title, but even so, I'll be surprised and disappointed if no one manages to cite this convincingly. —Ruakh_TALK 19:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cited, I think. - -sche (discuss) 02:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Passed. - -sche (discuss) 07:39, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

vela güira

original title was Vela Güira

Looks dubious, especially with its really long definition. — lexicógrafa | háblame — 15:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've found this, but I don't know what sense that supports, if any. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google Groups provides some sort of supporting evidence, but it does seem to be invariable - "los vela güira", no hits at all for "velas güiras". I don't think my Spanish is good enough to cite this, then. Mglovesfun ([ [User talk:Mglovesfun|talk]]) 18:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The books hit looks like a verb to me, "velar güira" = "to watch over children". The groups hits look sufficient to pass this- "opportunist" fits, as far as I can tell. I'll add some of the citations to the entry later. Nadando 19:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has two citations (though both from the same Usenet group); it needs at least one more. - -sche (discuss) 20:27, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

suggestopedia

Finnish, w:Suggestopedia. WT:BRAND. DCDuring TALK 20:32, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(How) Is this a brand? DAVilla 16:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a brand, but a name of a widely used teaching method, suggestopedy by another name. It is supposed to be a good method for teching languages, but not everyone is a believer, and it has also been criticized as quasi-scientific humbug. I think an English section should be added, probably also an entry for the adjective suggestopedic. --Hekaheka 21:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to strike this and keep it, on the grounds that the nominator believed (incorrectly) that the word had to meet WT:BRAND, rather than that the word didn't exist. - -sche (discuss) 02:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

East Slavic

There seems to be a problem with the names of language families, and their categorization in grammatical categories, which is why they are not standardized and completely different depending on the editor. Some think they are adjectives, others think they're proper nouns, some use both.

The sense rfv'd here is (rare) Any of the East Slavic languages or their dialects, including Belarusian, Russian, Rusyn, and Ukrainian.. It is categorized as a common noun, but I doubt it is one. It is never used in that way (see the capitalization, for example), and it does not really make any sense. An entirely different issue is that I don't think it's rare. -- Prince Kassad 00:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made it a proper noun. It remains to be cited or failed (or accepted as a proper noun, which means technically failed as a common noun). - -sche (discuss) 05:27, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 02:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MissingNo.

Needs citations that meet WT:CFI. Equinox ◑ 23:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This entry has all the necessary citations, I think. The real problem is that this is a specific entity, for which we have no set rules. --Yair rand (talk) 23:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It comes from a fictional universe. For those we have fictional universe rules, which invalidates all the Usenet quotations by itself. -- Prince Kassad 01:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except that it isn't from a fictional universe. It is a glitch existing inside of a commercial product, a video game. The fact that the video game uses a fictional universe is irrelevant. The bug itself is not part of the fictional universe. --Yair rand (talk) 01:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, a few of the cites seem to take the view that it is part of the fictional universe of the game, albeit an unintentional one. That is, it seems like there are two senses: (1) a certain glitch; (2) a sort of pseudocharacter in the game that results from the glitch. But regardless: move to RFD and delete, per your first comment above. —Ruakh_TALK 02:29, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WT:CFI and WT:FICTION. The latter provides criteria for inclusion as applied to terms originating in fictional universes. "MissingNo." did not originate in any fictional universe.

I don't think that considering it a "true" Pokémon would necessarily generate a new sense. It certainly would be similar to considering Windows 95 a fictional character based on OS-tan.

The phenomenon of rationalizing MissingNo. as a fictional character is addressed on the article MissingNo. of Wikipedia:

Lua error in Module:languages/errorGetBy at line 16: Please specify a language or etymology language code in the first parameter; the value "Encountering MissingNo. causes graphical errors and the mass replication of the sixth item in the player's item menu; the latter effect resulted in the glitch's coverage by strategy guides and game magazines. IGN has noted MissingNo.'s appearance in Pokémon Red and Blue as one of the most famous video game glitches. Fans of the series have attempted to rationalize MissingNo. as canon, which has sparked discussion in sociological studies about the impact of video games upon society." is not valid (see Wiktionary:List of languages).

--Daniel. 05:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree. That entire quotation seems to be treating MissingNo. as a character; the last sentence merely distinguishes "character" from "canon character". Note, for example, that the previous sentence describes "MissingNo.'s appearance" as a glitch, rather than describing MissingNo. itself as one. —Ruakh_TALK 17:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If this passes CFI, we must change CFI so it doesn't. -- Prince Kassad 15:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The CFI leave this one up to us. (See Yair rand's first comment above.) —Ruakh_TALK 18:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still, agreed with Prince Kassad. — Beobach 19:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; it strikes me as exactly analogous to the F00F bug, which can not be dismissed as fictional. Clarifying CFI seems like a good idea; we seem to be spending a disproportionate amount of time arguing over words that are clearly citable as English, but are in some way limited or proprietary.--Prosfilaes 21:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the video game to be part of the fictional universe. It's true, we don't "cite" video games. I can only imagine the headaches in trying to do so, and for what purpose (even if they could be considered durably archived)? But this term does originate from the video game, and that video game is a work with reference to the fictional universe. IMO a definition of MissingNo. as a species of Pokémon would be subject to WT:FICTION. Most of the quotations fall into this class. However, a definition of MissingNo. as a glitch is a term that was adapted to describe the video game, not one that originated from within. WT:CFI does not make this distinction clear, but we all know intuitively that if this happens for e.g. genericized trademarks then the etymology does not disqualify the term. Per Yair rand and Ruakh, this definition as written is of a specific entity. In that case the rules are unwritten, and I would apply a stronger criterion of metaphorical use that is probably less likely to be met than what this request is asking for. So delete unless it can be defined outside of the universe. DAVilla 01:39, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let's set aside the issue of text from video games being citable or durably archived. First of all, we should not delete any attestable entry or definition just because there is potential for developing a novel rule that would exclude said term or definition. Secondly, DAVilla, mentioning in this discussion that you consider "the video game to be part of the fictional universe" apparently stems from a misleading simplification. Not all words that reference a video game are fictional in origin or in nature. For example, MissingNo. is a glitch of the game "Pokémon Red". The name of this game is a brand name and not of fictional origin, thus WT:BRAND, not WT:FICTION, applies to the possible inclusion of Pokémon Red as an entry. As a similar example, according to Wikipedia, the video games of the "Higurashi When They Cry" series depict a fictional universe and were made with NScripter[3]. If, hypothetically, this engine has functions and bugs named in English, WT:FICTION simply would not be the right policy to define whether or not to include said functions and bugs here. --Daniel. 03:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But "MissingNo." is not a WT:BRAND... ---> Tooironic 21:00, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe nobody said that MissingNo. is a WT:BRAND. It isn't. --Daniel. 22:43, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I misread your comment above. Never mind. ---> Tooironic 21:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that you or anyone in particular should delete the entry because of a potential criterion. I said that I believe the entry should be deleted (as a result of this discussion), and I gave the potential criterion as my basis for voting that way, stating that the rules are unwritten so as to avoid making it appear that metaphorical use is the accepted standard. But others are certainly in their right to delete on different grounds, or to vote the other way. In my opinion, MissingNo. defined as a glitch is a specific entity that, as with nearly every proper noun in the yellowbook, has not entered the English lexicon.

Frankly I would think that WT:BRAND, being a much stronger set of criteria, (in fact so strong that there have been complaints that nothing has passed under it,) supersedes WT:FICTION. But even WT:BRAND doesn't apply to genericized trademarks, terms in common usage where the meaning is a product of this type rather than of this make. You are ignoring my argument, that one must consider the definition being analyzed before considering the origin. So I would have to almost completely dismiss your analogy.

I reiterate that MissingNo. defined as a species must, as I see it, pass WT:FICTION because it originated in the corpus of works, be they books or video games or movies, that is immersed in the fantasy of that universe. (Frankly I don't understand why that would invalidate all citations from that corpus, instead of say all but one on the grounds of independence, but those are the rules we agreed to, so those are the rules to interpret and apply.) DAVilla 02:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DAVilla, sorry if I'm mistaken, but I don't think that I gave the impression that I have ignored your words. By saying "First of all, we should not delete any attestable entry or definition just because there is potential for developing a novel rule that would exclude said term or definition.", I am not opposing the possibilities of defending and/or developing and/or applying a novel rule.

The origin of the definition is important according to WT:FICTION, with its wording "These are examples of the criteria for inclusion as applied to terms originating in fictional universes such as Star Wars, Star Trek, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and Dungeons and Dragons. Examples below include lightsaber, protocol droid, Darth Vadar, and Vulcan." (I edited the italics myself)

In addition, we are not talking about a fictional glitch (for example, a glitch of a fictional machine), but a real glitch. The fact that it is closely related to a fictional universe does not make MissingNo. fictional. As other examples, there are Pokéfan and Pokémaniac as "real" words and of "real" origin.

I'm fine with applying possible rules of inclusion or exclusion of specific entities to MissingNo. as a glitch. I'm not sure about considering it a fictional character, but this may be argued (and probably excluded either way, given our current rules). --Daniel. 06:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it looks like we're coming to understand each other. You say you're not sure about considering MissingNo. as a fictional character, but I'm thinking that's the only way it can make it. Since that wouldn't be a specific entity, there would be tighter rules and it wouldn't be subject to complete discretion at RFD. As a specific entity, I'm assuming here that there would be consensus to delete. There's always the possibility I could be wrong about that since it would, after all, require consensus, but so far we seem to have it. So better to try proving its use as the species, which isn't a specific entity and less subject to whim. Anyways that's what many of the quotes so far indicate it to mean.

Realize that I've only ever suggested applying WT:FICTION to MissingNo. in this sense of a fictional character. In the current sense of a (very real) glitch, I couldn't give a damn what WT:FICTION says, as I believe very strongly that it shouldn't apply, regardless of how the wording could be tangled. Prince Kassad might (or someone with that viewpoint could) argue that the video game is a work immersed in the fictional universe, that the string of letters MissingNo. was first seen within that game, and that the term whose definition is the glitch likewise originated within that universe. I agree with all but the last, and in every post I have been iterating that there is a critical change in meaning between the statements "Wild MISSINGNO. appeared!" and "How do you fix MISSINGNO.?". MissingNo. the creature originated within the Pokémon universe, MissingNo. the glitch did not. DAVilla 07:05, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a consensus particularly inclined to deleting MissingNo. as an individual entity. Perhaps the future voting Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-12/CFI amendment will shed a light on the situation. I humbly consider unprofessional and ridiculous the suggestion of emphasizing a single word on CFI as "not permitted", but it may be improved.

How would MissingNo. have a chance to be kept if it is considered a fictional character and not an individual entity? Pikachu and Gyarados are Pokémon species and presumably excluded according to WT:FICTION.

The citations of Citations:MissingNo. that qualify it as a glitch but don't mention it as a character include:

"MissingNo. is a deadly glitch, that's why it was removed from Yellow. It's on Red and blue because it was part of the initial testing software."
"Everyone has a hissy fit if you so much as mention the name of this little glitch. I had played through Yellow and then Blue and not having anything else to do I tried the Missingno thing."
"MissingNO is a programming quirk, and not a real part of the game."

In addition, there are multiple citations that demonstrate both characteristics of a glitch and of a character. I assume the concept of "capture" of the following sentence is fictional:

"MissingNo. is a glitch in the game. NEVER TRY TO CAPTURE IT! It will screw up your game, but it brings some advantages just by encountering it: [...]"

In this case, it can be considered an indication of both senses. Similarly, in the sentence "The noble blood that runs through my veins.", we can notice blood as the substance and as ancestry.

However, MissingNo. is defined (currently, after a few revisions) as:

A glitch of the games Pokémon Red and Pokémon Blue that is a common result of trying to access data for a nonexistent Pokémon species and that imitates a Pokémon species whose image is comprised of random pixels.

How would a separate hypothetical definition for a character be worded? Perhaps like this?

A species of Pokémon based on the glitch.

The hypothetical second sense is very similar to the first one. In fact, this distinction is akin to creating a new definition of "king" as a class of fictional characters, because there are (many) fictional kings. I believe the fictionality is simply a nuance of the unique sense.

Naturally, my counterargument whose basic idea is "WT:FICTION does not apply to MissingNo., because it is a real glitch." is directed to people who consider MissingNo. fictional, especially if they don't actively defend a distinction between the senses of "fictional character" and "real glitch".

Namely, I disagree with Kassad's "It comes from a fictional universe. For those we have fictional universe rules, which invalidates all the Usenet quotations by itself.". In addition, Equinox' laconic "Needs citations that meet WT:CFI." does not particularly mention that policy, but he has repeatedly labelled certain words as universe-specific to be deleted, so he may or may not be expressing this opinion once more. --Daniel. 14:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with you on the last part, which is why a distinction between character and glitch is necessary in the first place, so as to tame and qualify those sentiments. By the way, besides those two contributors, you would also have Ruakh, Beobach and myself voting to delete. Yair rand and Tooironic have not given an indication as far as I can tell, and only Prosfilaes has sided with you. I would give a tally except this RFV cannot be construed as a formal vote. I hardly consider the targeted CFI amendment to be serious either, although the points being considered on the talk page aren't so illegitimate.

As far as categorizing each quotation, you're also entirely right that there could be a mixture of meaning. I was very careful to select the two example quotations since it doesn't make sense to correct a species nor for a wild concept to appear. "Wild MISSINGNO. appeared!" is clearly a character, and "How do you fix MISSINGNO.?" is clearly a glitch. I would say that anon's "MissingNo. is a glitch in the game. NEVER TRY TO CAPTURE IT!" lends a lot more weight to the idea of it being a character than to a glitch, just as "the noble is a glitch in Nietzsche's system" and "Internet is a glitch on the regulatory system" do not use is to actually define noble and Internet. In fact it is the first three quotations you give that could ambiguously support either sense of figure or concept.

Still, just as with shades of king, this is mostly irrelevant if you would simply concede to applying WT:FICTION in finding citations for the character, since the glitch as a specific entity is more subjective. But perhaps you've had an unfavorable impression. Pray tell, why are Pikachu and Gyarados excluded? DAVilla 11:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for restoring and attesting Pikachu. Yes, I probably had an unfavorable impression on how CFI applies to Pokémon species. Notably, (as mentioned in a related current BP discussion) WT:FICTION's example "Wielding his flashlight like a lightsaber, Kyle sent golden shafts slicing through the swirling vapors." qualifies lightsaber to be defined in the main namespace while it arguably isn't actually independent from Star Wars, so I conclude the concept of independence from that policy is broad enough to allow various modern fictional terms.

The citations that mention the status of MissingNo. in "Red", "Blue" and "Yellow" are not so ambiguous if we know that these three colors are names of video games. Other sentences that mention words like "video game" or "play" may be even more precise.

Please clarify: from your proposal of applying WT:FICTION to MissingNo. as a fictional character, how its status as a "glitch" would be mentioned? In the etymology, or maybe as a separate sense? Or the current entry as it is now, without any changes? --Daniel. 07:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a character that arose from a glitch in the game. There's nothing wrong with mentioning that in the definition, since there's more than enough evidence to support it. Verification is only necessary to allow the term to exist in the first place. Well, usually only. Sometimes it's sought for other parts like the etymology say, but in this case as with most there's no question as to the facts, only the linguistic importance, if you will. DAVilla 16:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I strike this as "kept due to lack of consensus (as to whether or not the 3+ citations meet CFI)". Note that the term may still be sent to WT:RFD. - -sche (discuss) 02:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hampshirite

Someone from the English county of Hampshire. Equinox ◑ 22:16, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's from Wonderfool in (or via) Spain. But most of his edits are OK, so who can tell? SemperBlotto 22:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who checks a bunch of books. Google Books with the appropriate search exclusions for "New Hampshirite" doesn't look promising. Equinox ◑ 22:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NB there appears to be a minuscule word hampshirite, some kind of rock. — Beobach 22:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

'tis a very rare term. I guess I can't cite my friend's Facebook page ;(. p.s. Spain is sunny. --92.58.38.197 22:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The second sense passes; I have therefore made the {{rfv}} tag an rfv-sense. - -sche (discuss) 22:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the first sense as rfv-failed. - -sche (discuss) 00:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

superomnipresent

Can anyone find a third citation for this term to add to the two at Citations:superomnipresent? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 19:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not even on a general Google web search did any of the three pages of results suggest anything additional that's durable. (The one scholar hit is for "super, omnipresent".) This one's going to be difficult, requiring access to some other system. DAVilla 06:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same editor created superomniscient and superomnipotent. All three of them seem a bit daft, the best definition I can think of would be

Template:humorous Omnipresent.

Mglovesfun (talk) 14:17, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those two are both citeable. I think (deprecated template usage) superomniscient even makes some sense, because an "omniscient narrator" is a normal sort of authorial voice, a third-person narrator who just naturally knows everything in the world (s)he's writing about, so a stronger term is needed if you're talking about a narrator who's noticeably omniscient, if you see what I mean. —Ruakh_TALK 14:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 02:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

academic bulimia

Another one tagged but not included here. rfv validity. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 04:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be a popular slang term for cramming and memorizing right before a test and forgetting about everything afterwards. A related term would be academic bulimic. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 04:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-fails, unless someone wants to cite it or assert widespread use and pass it (which I would not object to). - -sche (discuss) 02:21, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

poecilonym

I'm not finding this anywhere except in word lists. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 03:53, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

one instance of it's usage in here Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 04:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the online OED Bazj 09:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the bizarre plural in -e? Is that Greek, or a typo? Equinox ◑ 00:46, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a second good citation, and one questionable citation; I'd like input on whether it is passable or not. - -sche (discuss) 19:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added another citation; I claim this is now cited. - -sche (discuss) 21:00, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

str

"Abbreviation for string in many programming languages." I've seen it as part of longer abbreviations (e.g. substr for substring) but not alone. And a noun? The plural (deprecated template usage) strs seems dubious. Equinox ◑ 21:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Programmers often use str as a string identifier (like using n or i for an integer identifier), but that doesn't quite seem to match our def. And some (many?) dialects of BASIC, as well as Visual Basic, provide a function str/STR (or more properly str$/STR$) that accepts a number and returns a string version, but again, not quite what our def says. Honestly, I'm not sure what would match our def. Is the idea that many programming languages have str and string keywords or built-identifiers that are equivalent? Or that many programming languages have str keywords or built-identifiers that mean more or less "string", or that are intended to be read aloud as "string"? —Ruakh_TALK 23:42, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cited just about as well as it can be. DAVilla 01:26, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I think one can well argue that the 1993, 2006, and 2009 cites justify a sense, but I don't think they quite justify the challenged sense. Only the 2009 cite is using a str that's in a programming language, and none of the cites is using str or str in a way that could be replaced with string or string (respectively), which means that is not so much an abbreviation of "string" as it is a term formed by abbreviating "string". (That is, its abbreviated nature is just etymological information.) —Ruakh_TALK 00:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've tweaked the definition, and added {{rfdef}} to encourage further tweaking. (late signature: - -sche (discuss) 00:27, 12 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

paw

RFV-sense for the Verb sense "{{context|of a person whom is a member of the furry fandom}} To masturbate". Note the page history for the back-and-forth, and the talk page for a little discussion. I understand why the addition was repeatedly reverted as vandalism, but it does also seem plausible that the word would be used with this meaning in this context. Thus, I think the best approach to keep it for a month with this RFV tag and see if its proponents can cite it. — Beobach 23:29, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(deprecated template usage) paw off is very easily attested from Usenet (though I'm not sure if each of the four subsenses is easily cited). But bare (deprecated template usage) paw, I can't find. The form (deprecated template usage) pawing sometimes appears in this sense without (deprecated template usage) off, but as far as I can see, only as a gerund/noun (sometimes attributive; for example, google groups:"pawing material", meaning roughly "[furry] porn", gets one Usenet hit). That's not to say that a relevant verb (deprecated template usage) paw can't be cited convincingly, but it doesn't look easy. And digging through furry erotica communities trying to cite this . . . well, it's not my idea of a good time. :-P —Ruakh_TALK 04:10, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a furry myself and I can confirm that this sense is valid, I've heard it plenty of times. But I don't really feel like digging through such sources either... —CodeCa t 10:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... move the sense to paw off, with a ===See also=== at paw? — Beobach 20:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for "pawed him", and while the results weren't furry, they do suggest we're missing a sexual sense. Urban Dictionary has "to touch someone in a sexual way without their consent" and "to touch someone too much, sexual or not". These suggest something in the middle, like "{{context|by extension, of a human}} to touch someone (with the hands) in a sexual way" (with or without their consent). It would belong under our existing "{{context|of an animal}} to gently push on something with a paw".

August 17 1997, Robert Spector, in misc.fitness.weights:
IronMan used to be good in this way, back in the '80s. [...] They wouldn't subscribe to the old, "Let's put a male bodybuilder with silicone babes pawing him" cover that's mainstay now.
October 26 1997, Verbotene, quoted by Amy McWilliams, in rec.arts.tv.soaps.abc:
So, Katherine was out with Luke and they were both quite dolled up and swoon-worthy. Katherine fawned all over Luke and pawed him, but to what end? Was Stefan supposed to believe that Luke and Katherine have some sort of a thing going? What was the point of this display from Katherine's perspective?
July 18 2002, Lurker Dave, in rec.arts.comics.marvel.universe:
Subtlety is great, but what exactly happened with Jessica and the cop during sex that he locked her up afterwards? Also, what was the item she nicked from his shirt while she pawed him?

— Beobach 20:33, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, surprised we don't have this; I'm familiar with it from books. Suggests unwelcome fondling by an inept would-be lover, e.g. among teenagers. Not a "furry" term in this sense, and not masturbation. The response might be "Get your hands off me!" Equinox ◑ 20:41, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the unattested sense of "paw" (RFV-failed without prejudice), added the attested sense of "paw", and created "paw off". - -sche (discuss) 05:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/Nemzag

Note WT:RFV#Special:Contributions/Nemzag. I have gone through all of Nemzag's mainspace edits; most have been verified or corrected by other knowledgeable editors. A minority had never been edited by other editors, or had been edited but still seemed to me to have problems. In about half of those cases, I was able to verify or correct the information myself. Here, I list all of the words I could not verify myself. I'd prefer the input of knowledgeable editors to actual citations (but conferred with other editors and decided RFV was the best venue). — Beobach 01:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

hipje, hypje, and hipi

The etymology, the related terms, the pronunciation, and of course the definition all need to be verified. — Beobach 01:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Webster's apparently recent Albanian-English thesaurus glosses hipi as "climb" (verb), "mount" (noun?), with example collocations like i hipi shaluar "bestride", i hipi kalit "ride", and i hipi "hop". It has hipje në anije as "embarkation", hipi në anije as "embark". It doesn't have hypje or hypi, though (which are given in the etymologies of our entries). — Beobach 20:00, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Këndime anglisht-shqip, or Albanian-English reader by Margaret Masson Hasluck (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1932) has hypi as "climb, go up, get on, mount" and notes "like eci". — Beobach 20:06, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

njer, njeri

— Beobach 01:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Webster's apparently recent Albanian-English thesaurus has njeri as "person, human". Can we verify the pronunciation? Is the conjugation alright? What about njer? — Beobach 20:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

mmm, doesn't Webster usually take its data from other sources, like Wiktionary? I know I've googled some terms and it found one source and then one of those Webster books with the exact same content. -- Prince Kassad 10:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Webster's hasn't referred to any one company since the 19th century; see [w:Webster's_Dictionary#The_name_Webster_used_by_others]. This data is from [4]; given that the word of the day is a link to a Youtube clip that embeds "LORN (adj): Lost, undone, ruined" with a bunch of unlinguistic junk, it doesn't impress me as a quality site.--Prosfilaes 17:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

أن

— Beobach 01:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

شیطانه

— Beobach 01:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

China Hand

I have several doubts about this:

Is "hand" really capitalized?
Is this the most common sense? A quick Google search would imply that "China hand" is a cardgame. The Wikipedia article is about more specifically defined groups of people.
If the indicated sense is real, isn't it just "China" + "hand" ? --Hekaheka 01:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it derives from the term "old hand." I believe it should be "China hand" but sometimes it appears with both words capitalized. See [5]. 71.66.97.228 20:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One can be a "hand" about many things, especially places (Washington, Asia, Africa, Japan, California, Chicago, Hong Kong, India, Russia, Germany) or people (Nixon, Reagan, Warner). A "hand" can be "old", "experienced", "veteran", "three-decade". (All examples from COCA.)

IOW, the novelty seems to be entirely in the specific sense of "hand" not in any multi-word term that uses it. DCDuring TALK 03:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is included in sense 7 of our entry, which could be split to cover the senses in "hired hand" and "old hand" more clearly. DCDuring TALK 03:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, both capitalised and non-capitalised forms are used. I would say keep this because even if you could argue it's SoP, are you telling me a non-native speaker (or native speaker for that matter) could figure out which "hand" is being referred to in the #18 noun senses currently listed at hand? ---> Tooironic 20:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it is obvious that listeners do this many orders of magnitude more frequently than they successfully resort to dictionaries.

I think the actual questions are:

How many of those a users coming across "China hand" and resorting to a dictionary would look up "China hand" (vs "hand")?
How many of users finding "China hand" would realize that "hand" could be used with other attributive nouns and that it was the same sense of "hand" as in "an old hand at ..." ? DCDuring TALK 19:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed because it is uncited. The discussion above suggests it would have failed (RFD) even if cited (though I do not express an opinion on that at this time). - -sche (discuss) 02:32, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

south

rfv-sense: noun:

(figuratively) The down or negative direction.
His luck turned south.

The water numbed everything south of my ribcage.

The examples look like adverbial and adjectival usage respectively. I am not sure that figurative senses are used in the noun form, though it would not be a surprise.

I have added adverb senses covering "down" and "adverse". I am not sure that the "negative" sense is used adjectivally. DCDuring TALK 13:11, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed / POS changed. - -sche (discuss) 00:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

gristle

Rfv-sense something young and unformed. I've never heard this sense before, and the predominance of the other sense (and the fact I have no idea what context this sense would come in) makes it hard for me to search for.--Prosfilaes 20:01, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the gristle is easy to find, but that doesn't mean that this exists independently.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A sense of unhardened bone seems citeable, and perhaps some extension on that.

[ ... citations moved to page ... ]

—Pingku 15:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but if you see this message in time please move citations to the entry. This page is already long enough. Also you'll save the closer unnecessary work in copying them over. Otherwise just keep that in mind for future quotations. DAVilla 15:13, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Timed out. No citations for challenged sense. DCDuring TALK 21:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Struck. (RFV-failed senses removed.) - -sche (discuss) 02:34, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

apple

Rfv-sense: tree that grows apples. This is always apple tree, right? —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 23:02, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unless citations can show otherwise, IMO yes you are right. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[6], [7], [8], [9]. I'm pretty sure that it can also refer to the wood. — lexicógrafa | háblame — 01:39, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see the second and the third ones, and the first and the fourth ones won't be much help until someone points out what the citations are. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We have plum, damson, orange, quince etc all meaning the tree, just as "apple" on its own can refer to either the tree or the wood as well as the fruit. Why pick out this tree for rfv just because the word "tree" is often attached for clarity? I'd be happy to have a tag of something along the lines of mainly horticultural to the sense. Examples: [10], [11], [12] Dbfirs 10:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Passed as in widespread use, but the citations given above could be added to the entry if necessary. - -sche (discuss) 02:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jule

Etymology 2. Never heard of it, and I doubt this is citable. Longtrend 19:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I heard it uses in the organization of a conference I helped with. Therefore the example sentence.

JULE-Club bietet Möglichkeiten zur Freizeit- und Feriengestaltung für Kinder, Jugendliche und junge Erwachsene

JULE-Programm 2011 Wir freuen uns, Ihnen unser aktuelles Ferien- und Freizeitprogramm für Kinder, Jugendliche und junge Erwachsene vorstellen zu können.

Junge Leute (JuLe) und FÖJ

Often, it seems to mean ‘Junge Lesben’, young lesbians only, as in Junge Lesben Leipzig, but I think that’s more of a name, rather than a word, so not includable, whereas in the sense ‘Junge Leute’, I have heard it used as if it were a normal word, without any context. That was in leftist circles, though it might be some sort of slang.

Maybe move that sense to JuLe or JULE? H. (talk) 08:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed. None of those webpages are durably-archived. - -sche (discuss) 22:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

predicative case

I see no evidence that the phrase "predicative case" is actually used in published works about Volapük, though it does have some web use. I've added the one hit from Usenet for predicative case Volapuk. There are numerous Google Books hits for just predicative case; it will take more linguistics knowledge then mine to make something of them that's not SoP.--Prosfilaes 05:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And now the original creator of the entry has added a cite to a CompuServe document (not durably archived) that's not only in German, but uses the word Prädikativfall. I have no doubt that something that is sometimes called a predicative case is used in a revision of Volapuk made in its twilight years; the question is the words "predicative case" in English.--Prosfilaes 20:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clocked out DCDuring TALK 00:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In place of the failed Volapük sense, I have added (and cited) a general sense. I'm not sure how to define it, though... - -sche (discuss) 20:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nutella

If we take WT:CFI at all seriously, this needs to meet WT:BRAND. Of course the translation rationale for inclusion seems to apply as much to brand names as to proper nouns and common collocations. It is only a prejudice against commerce that applies different standards to brand names. DCDuring TALK 15:00, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not simply a prejudice, as you know. It is to prevent floods of spam gumming up the wikiworks. (I say this mainly so that those who don't know become aware of the whyfore). But to the main point, I do not find any relevant examples in English. (French doesn't count, does it?) -- ALGRIF talk 16:43, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we apply WT:BRAND to toponyms, personal names, etc? There is plenty of nationalistic spam, fanboy spam, etc. DCDuring TALK 21:55, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we? I would imagine that it would be ridiculously easy to find citations for personal names and place names that don't specify something like "Her friend Bill, which is a name, came from Alabama, which is a place". bd2412 T 01:12, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is generically used in German, so the page must stay anyway. For the English section, I don’t know. H. (talk) 08:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed, without prejudice, as uncited; English section removed.

The French and German "definitions" pointed to the removed English section. I have changed them to point to a new Italian section instead. SemperBlotto 21:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I added one citation to Citations:Nutella, but it is difficult to find citations that meet WT:BRAND criteria. - -sche (discuss) 21:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Alright, I have added several citations to Citations:Nutella. I think the McGilvary and Dolgoff ones meet BRAND criteria, the Trentmann one may also. Trentmann suggests Nutella is edible (as people are eating it), and Page calls it a "victual"; if it is only identified in a quotation as edible, but not further identified, does the quotation meet BRAND? - -sche (discuss) 00:39, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reversed my earlier removal of the English section because, hard though they were to find, I believe I have found enough citations that meet WT:BRAND that this might pass. First:

2009, Marion McGilvary, A Lost Wife's Tale: A Novel, page 252:
He was slender, brown, and incredibly pretty, with dark-fringed eyes as rich as Nutella. I could imagine him naked— small and smooth and perfectly formed— but that was as far as I got: imagining.

In this book, ‘Nutella’ could be anything, even a stone: on page 52 of Matt Beynon Rees’ 2007 The Collaborator of Bethlehem, someone is said to have ‘blue eyes as rich as lapis’. Second:

2004, Martin Page, Adriana Hunter, How I became stupid:
[...] those who like Nutella and those who like Brussels sprouts.

[...] ¶

He stood up and filled his arms with Nutella, foie gras, salami, cheeses, blinis, and all manner of victuals.

In this case, ‘Nutella’ is first implied to be edible, and then, a great many pages later, specified to be a victual. However, especially the first time it is mentioned, it would help a reader to know that it is a dessert-like food (something we cannot gather from this quotation). It is contrasted with Brussels sprouts: but is the contrast between a meat that a carnivore would eat and a vegetable that a vegetarian would eat? Third:

2006, Frank Trentmann, The making of the consumer: knowledge, power and identity, page 263:
By contrast, in the Ostalgia shows celebrities now happily eat Nudossi, the Nutella of the East, by the spoonful.

I am not certain this one meets BRAND: it might, insofar as it does not specify but only imply that the product is edible. Are the celebrities actually eating something inedible? Could it be using a metaphorical meaning of ‘eat [...] by the spoonful’ (something like: lap up) and referring to some official government line? Fourth, though, and stronger:

2010, Lucy A. Snyder, Shotgun Sorceress, page 226:
We kissed; his mouth tasted like Nutella, as if we'd just come in from making a mid-morning snack in the kitchen. His skin smelled like fresh gingerbread and clean healthy man.

This strongly implies ‘Nutella’ is a snack food, but it would be helpful to a reader to know it is a sweet, dessert-like food and not, for example, a manly cold cut of meat. Fifth:

2011, Lisi Harrison, Top of the Feud Chain:
His pale blue eyes found Skye's blue-green ones and quickly flicked away, but not before a warm, gooey excitement spread through Skye's chest like Nutella on a fresh crepe.

This one is weak: it suggests ‘Nutella’ is edible because it is found in a simile atop something that is edible (a crepe), but it also implies that it is routinely warm, which is not the case (meanwhile, other things are gooey). Anyway, sixth:

2010, Stephanie Dolgoff, My Formerly Hot Life: Dispatches from Just the Other Side of Young, page 19 and 152:
This is not so much because I used to have a better body for jeans, before I had twins and before my metabolism slammed on the breaks at 40 and decided it would tolerate no more Nutella.

[...] ¶

Self, is it worth it to completely forgo pretty much all the foodstuffs that bring you enormous joy, such as Nutella and pasta with pesto, in order to be thinner?

The case for this book is that it identifies ‘Nutella’ as a delectable food only 100+ pages after first using the term. In the first usage, ‘Nutella’ could mean ‘laziness, failure to exercise’. Even in the second usage, it is not clear (though it is perhaps also not relevant) that it is sweet and dessert-like as opposed to some other kind of pasta.

I would like input on whether any of these citations (or the weaker ones on the citations page) meet WT:BRAND criteria. - -sche (discuss) 07:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hán tự

Rfv-sense: English section added by me last night. Linked to User talk:Mglovesfun#Vietnamese characters as what should the Chinese characters used in Vietnamese. Though it has a Wikipedia article, finding 'uses' in English is turning out to be difficult. Han tu seems to be as hard to cite. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed, sadly. - -sche (discuss) 22:57, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

foodfish

In the absence of citations or definitions in OneLook references, it is difficult to tell exactly what this means. Superficially, it appears to be used in rather restricted contexts, which raises the question whether it means the same thing as food + fish, food fish, or possibly something else. DCDuring TALK 15:51, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, you want the current definition verifying? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's all that I can mean. If other definitions are a better fit with the actual usage, then they would have to be added. Resulting multiple definitions could be deemed redundant so it would be good to make sure there are meaningful differences among any multiple definitions that may fit actual usage. At first glance the typical usages of "foodfish" seem more "technical" than those of "food fish". If the meaning is the same, but the spelling differs by context, that can be shown (and WT:COALMINE would arguably be properly invoked in defense of food fish). DCDuring TALK 13:15, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cited by Mglovesfun, example of the singular added by me for good measure. - -sche (discuss) 20:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

racaille

Rfv-sense: French, gangster. Tagged but not listed. I don't know the word. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:06, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

gangster is too precise, but this very pejorative word may be used for a gangster, and I would keep this sense (as the 1st sense), with a wider definition. I also would remove the mention of inner-city from the 1st definition (I understand the idea, but, in France, inner-city has the opposite connotation!). Lmaltier 22:49, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have been resolved. - -sche (discuss) 05:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tiny Tim

Needs to meet WT:CFI#Fictional universes. I advocate doing a good search before RFVing, and generally do so, but am not doing so on this one, as I suspect their creator of adding it as part of a whole bunch added without regard for the CFI, and I don't want to spend the time searching.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. DAVilla 09:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFV passed. Note that this does not prevent the entry from being RFD'd; Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Fictional universes establishes necessary, but not necessarily sufficient, criteria for such terms. —Ruakh_TALK 15:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost of Christmas Past

Needs to meet WT:CFI#Fictional universes. I advocate doing a good search before RFVing, and generally do so, but am not doing so on this one, as I suspect their creator of adding it as part of a whole bunch added without regard for the CFI, and I don't want to spend the time searching.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AGF. I am sure that if the creator knew how to cite the entry, he would. DCDuring TALK 01:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. DAVilla 09:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Marley

Needs to meet WT:CFI#Fictional universes. I advocate doing a good search before RFVing, and generally do so, but am not doing so on this one, as I suspect their creator of adding it as part of a whole bunch added without regard for the CFI, and I don't want to spend the time searching.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. DAVilla 09:51, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost of Christmas Future

Needs to meet WT:CFI#Fictional universes. I advocate doing a good search before RFVing, and generally do so, but am not doing so on this one, as I suspect its creator of adding it as part of a whole bunch added without regard for the CFI, and I don't want to spend the time searching.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. DAVilla 10:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost of Christmas Present

Needs to meet WT:CFI#Fictional universes. I advocate doing a good search before RFVing, and generally do so, but am not doing so on this one, as I suspect its creator of adding it as part of a whole bunch added without regard for the CFI, and I don't want to spend the time searching.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. DAVilla 10:25, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come

Needs to meet WT:CFI#Fictional universes. I advocate doing a good search before RFVing, and generally do so, but am not doing so on this one, as I suspect its creator of adding it as part of a whole bunch added without regard for the CFI, and I don't want to spend the time searching.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. DAVilla 10:34, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How do things like "as silent as The Ghost of..." count? I can find a book that says "every bit as exciting as Agatha Christie"; does a majority of contributors seriously think that this means Agatha Christie needs an entry in a DICTIONARY? This place is like some horrible nightmare lately. Equinox ◑ 18:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is independent of reference to that universe, used out of context in an attributive sense, as CFI requires.

No, Agatha Christie does not originate from a fictional universe, and if this vote is any clarification, her full name would not be allowed... unless of course it came to mean something else, like Arnold Palmer defined as a drink.

If desired we could find some criterion to apply to such proper nouns, fictional or otherwise, and a stronger one than this. DAVilla 09:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, the definitions for all of these "Ghost of..." entries are dubious. They merely give a description of the ghost itself, rather than actually defining what the phrase is actually supposed to mean. ---> Tooironic 11:22, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

amarulence

Appears to only exist in dictionaries and online word lists. Dominic·t 04:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Amarulence is in more dictionaries than adimpleate or aeipathy, and I found one use. I suggest we move the citation to the citations page, or keep it in the entry, and make the entry an "only in dictionaries" entry. - -sche 01:52, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the citation to the Citations: page, and I mention the etymology here, so that it will be preserved on the talk page when this discussion is archived: from the Latin term amarulentia, from amarus (bitter). (The definition was "bitterness".) RFV-failed. Could be made an {{only in}} redirect to Appendix:English dictionary-only terms. - -sche (discuss) 22:34, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

January 2011

Donald Duck

Rfv-sense: Proper noun. Judging from the paucity of material at WikiCommons, the abundance of branded merchandise being sold at relatively high prices, and the association of the Duck with w:Disney (See w:Donald Duck#Beyond Disney for references to licensing agreements, some from this millennium.), the proper noun (and other senses ?) would seem to need to be cited under WT:BRAND. WT:FICTION seems also to apply. I am not sure whether they combine, as it were, additively or multiplicatively. ("Multiplicatively" here meaning that each citation would have to meet both sets of criteria simultaneously; "additively" meaning here that there would need to be three citations that met each set of criteria separately. I haven't really thought it through. There may be no difference between "additive" and "multiplicative" in practice.) For older fictional characters, presumably only WT:FICTION applies, unless trademark works differently than I expect. I hope we don't need an IP lawyer {:~{. DCDuring TALK 22:23, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has added some cites. I'd appreciate people's input about whether they feel these cites satisfy WT:FICTION and WT:BRAND. —Ruakh_TALK 14:24, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the 1945 Ernie Pyle citation of "Donald-Duck-like", I think they meet both criteria for inclusion. However, they do not support the encyclopedic definition. Specifically, I don't think that most use of "Donald Duck" in ordinary speech has anything to do with the Duck's clothing, for example. The 1945 cite is the only one that is somewhat supportive of "tantrums".

I have been wondering whether and how to include and attest characteristics of historic and fictional characters that are or have been invoked allusively. For example, Cincinnatus has represented a humble military man who did not seek power that could have been his. Plutarch's Lives is a source of many influential allusions of this type. DCDuring TALK 16:10, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the citations meet FICTION and BRAND, so I mark this (noun sense) passed. As for the definition: I believe that once we know what a word refers to, we can define what the word refers to. We can define a bird as having wings, for example, even though a line like "his voice was as lovely as a bird's" does not reference the bird's wings (or its membership in the phylum Chordata) but its song: it nevertheless refers to a bird, and a bird has wings. The quotations refer to Donald Duck; we can define Donald Duck as an anthromorphic duck, even though the quotations all refer to his voice rather than his anthromorphic bearing. (Someone, I think it was Ruakh, has made a similar argument before.) Having said that, if we desired to find quotations that supposed each element of the definition, we could: they might not meet FICTION or BRAND, but we would use the quotations present now to meet CFI, and then use the additional quotations (for example something of the form "he quacked just like Donald Duck, that anthromorphic duck who was always throwing tantrums on TV") to illustrate each element of the definition. - -sche (discuss) 03:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a big step away from empiricism and descriptivism. I'm perfectly happy to rely on (out-of-copyright) dictionaries for definitions and to consult with dictionaries for assistance on the words they cover. But citations illustrate meaning. We already have lots of encyclopedic content. Not relying on citations takes us farther in the direction of becoming a short-attention-span version of Wikipedia.

To say that citations are only necessary for attestation of an entry also contradicts our practice in attesting the senses of words: they rely on specific citations illustrating the usage. I suppose it is true that even today most of our definitions of words (not MWEs) show traces of their origins in Websters and, to a lesser extent, Century. So we can continue our heritage of unoriginality by copying prescriptive definitions from authoritative sources. If we rely neither on citations nor on authoritative sources, what will we be relying on? We certainly can't claim a great amount of lexicographic expertise nor do we have written principles about how words are to be defined. DCDuring TALK 03:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with -sche and thus support the notion that Donald Duck has been cited. The RFV process does not (or should not) require that every part of a definition of a term be attestable by quotations that use the term to convey meaning. --Dan Polansky 09:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

capitat

The letter c does not occur in the Chamorro alphabet (except for the digraph ch). -- Prince Kassad 00:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic, but I wonder if it's attestable in Catalan or Romanian (past of capitar and capita if they existed). Mglovesfun (talk) 01:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blame this 1865 Spanish-Chamorro Dictionary. El Muñeco Shakes It Up, Baby 00:03, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we keep it (Chamorro is a small language, and it's in a dictionary), move it to chapitat/kapitat (which one?), or delete it as RFV-failed (technically appropriate)? - -sche (discuss) 10:40, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 22:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fauxnetic

Jocular spelling of phonetic. DCDuring TALK 01:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not going to do it now, but I think it would just pass from Usenet: [13] Equinox ◑ 18:30, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any more obscure than fauxhemian or fauxmosexual? kwami 12:05, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obscurity is not the issue. Attestability is. DCDuring TALK 12:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. - -sche (discuss) 08:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

exh

Tagged by Jakeybean but not posted here. Two senses. (Both say "exhibition", though, so if cites show general use rather than as the context tags imply, then I suppose they can be combined into one sense.)—msh210℠ (talk) 19:54, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The art sense is easily cited: google books:"exh cat".—msh210℠ (talk) 20:00, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! There was an array of new user posts and bits of vandalism last night, I forgot to put it on here. Agreed, but the chess definition is not so easily cited as of yet —Jakeybean^TALK 20:05, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why isn't this just defined as abbreviation of exhibit, exhibition, and exhaust? This does seem unlikely to prove context-specific in all of these, least of all "exhibit". DCDuring TALK 20:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Modified as suggested. - -sche (discuss) 08:11, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

İzmir

I doubt this would be the main spelling in English. Relative usage? DCDuring TALK 22:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't see that most of the attributes of the encyclopedic definition are confirmed in the single citation. DCDuring TALK 23:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swap content with Izmir. Dorem is pushing his pedantic agenda again. --Vahag 20:17, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly my "pedantic agenda"; note that Wikipedia has its article at the dotted spelling. Good luck discovering relative usages when Google fails to distinguish the dotted and dotless (deprecated template usage) Is. For the point about "most of the attributes of the…definition [being un]confirmed in the single citation", see Talk:adolescentilism#Request for verification. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 19:04, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Besides all that, it has been long established that we don't necessarily lemmatise the most common spelling of a word, but rather leave it up to the editor who creates the entry or section is question (see, for example, User talk:Doremítzwr#homœophony: point 3 of my post timestamped 16:26, 13 April 2010). — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 17:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now tri-cited for good measure. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 14:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cited, and therefore passed: both this spelling and Izmir exist. Feel free to switch which of the two pages, this one and Izmir, is the main page, though. - -sche (discuss) 21:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fat and Skinny

Never heard of this. It seems to be a hyponym of Laurel and Hardy and Abbot and Costello. Could such a thing be a proper noun, as it claims to be? DCDuring TALK 00:51, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel and Hardy

Rfv-sense: by extension: Any duo who are so inept at practical tasks, as to be humorous. Uncited. Would such a sense be a proper noun? Also the translations of the proper noun seem suspect, not to mention the proper noun itself. DCDuring TALK 01:03, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The translations look OK to me in the sense that that's how Laurel and Hardy appear to be called in those languages, if we believe Wikipedia. But I doubt if they are correct translations for the sense "inept duo". At least in Finland one would prefer Pekka ja Pätkä according to a domestic funny duo. --Hekaheka 15:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that there are regional and generational differences for the "extended" sense. "Mutt and Jeff" would work for many in the US, based on their newspaper comic strip, roughly contemporaneously with Laurel and Hardy. There are numerous "buddy" pairings that have some cultural resonance, eg, Starsky and Hutch, Burns and Allen, Bob and Ray. It is not very hard to cite them if our standard allows "the Starsky and Hutch of" to count. DCDuring TALK 19:23, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

al

Rfv-sense: Indian mulberry. (All the other senses are at RFD already.)

No apparent hits on b.g.c, and Wikipedia doesn't know about this either, which looks very suspicious. -- Prince Kassad 13:37, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Al and als are valid Scrabble words. So other dictionaries must have at least one noun sense for this. And searching for any two letter term (for a specific meaning) is an absolute nightmare. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:53, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Scrabble-valid sense is an alt spelling of (deprecated template usage) aal, which is this same mulberry tree. As MG says, that means that a dictionary used in Scrabble validity (Collins, Chambers?) has an entry. Whether it's attestable is another matter. Equinox ◑ 18:27, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not in Chamber's, which is usually the Scrabble bible. Not in the OED either. Ƿidsiþ 19:00, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Chambers isn't the Scrabble word source any more (since about 2007). AFAIK it's now Collins. Anyone got a copy? Equinox ◑ 19:15, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OED has aal but not al. Do scrabble players make up words and rare variant spellings? Dbfirs 20:02, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

google books:"al" "aal" mulberry pulls up interesting secondary sources, from which I learn that al is "Hindi" whereas aal is "Bombay (including Guzrathi and Mahrathi)", and that crossword-puzzlers love it as much as Scrabblers do. Few mentions treat it as really English, but rather, merely as an English rendering of the Hindi. —Ruakh_TALK 16:35, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some actual uses, finally. And here's one more. —Ruakh_TALK 16:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Second link doesn't work for me, but the first one italicises the term, suggesting the author didn't consider it to have entered English. Update: I've just noticed that you already said that. But I am always hesitant to use italics as citations in Wikt. Equinox ◑ 17:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Cited, I think. Take a look: Citations:al. Note especially the 1872, 1881, 1917, and 1936 examples, which use italics for other words and thus clearly could have italicised ‘al’ had they wanted to. - -sche (discuss) 18:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that (deprecated template usage) al is ever used as a true adjective, so all the evidence supports the attributive usage being of a noun and, as you say, it is sometimes used other than in italics or in quotes. It looks good to me. DCDuring TALK 21:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

toxaemia

Originally added by Verbo (talk • contribs), the Latin word here, is there any evidence that this is attested? I know that it can be hard to find citations for Neo-Latin, but some dictionaries even contradict the etymology and say that the English comes from toxicum instead. Caladon 16:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

proculdubio

Speedily deleted by SB; restored and brought here by yours truly.—msh210℠ (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not in any Latin dictionary that I can find. Looks like it may be two words run together. SemperBlotto 22:13, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are definitely hits for the word (joined up) in Latin, but, not knowing Latin, I can't say what it means in them.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is Francis Bacon using the word, doesn't look like a scanno. Here is Abraham Cowley. Journal of theological studies. There are bunches of them, maybe it is some neo-Latin formation. - [The]DaveRoss 03:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the citations User:TheDaveRoss provided to the entry. - -sche (discuss) 21:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

tubercle

Rfv-sense: mycology: "A mass of hyphae from which a mushroom is produced." This appears to originate from an author of Wikipedia. Google searches with combinations [mushroom, tubercle] and [mycology, tubercle] mainly produced links to web dictionaries. Webster's online defines the usage "Wikipedic", which supports my suspicion. I would think that a better word for this definition would be mycelium. --Hekaheka 06:22, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't the term be spelled tubercule? -- Curious, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 23:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, in English we use -cle for reflexes of Latin -cula and French -cule. I'm not sure why, though. —Ruakh_TALK 01:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ruakh. After I posted I did discover that "tubercle" is the much more common spelling, much to my puzzlement. Curious that molecule squeaked through that historical process with its "u" intact. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 20:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyone who could shed some light to the original question:

Does the word "tubercle" have the sense "mass of hyphae from which a mushroom is produced"?. --Hekaheka 19:49, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I looked for evidence of it, but couldn't find any; but I know so little about mycology that I couldn't say for sure. —Ruakh_TALK 22:10, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cork

Rfv-sense: adjective. All the Google Book hits for "very cork" are for "his very cork" or "the very cork" meaning "the same cork". NB since this will be difficult to cite if it does exist, this should, IMO, be allowed more than a month. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found exactly one citation in our usual Google sources of the usage "more cork than" that might be showing an adjective usage. I would welcome opinions as to whether it showed true adjective use as it is of a kind of usage that is fairly common.

Incidentally, I found enough usage for attestation of "more Cork than" in reference to the county in Ireland (or its dialect or mores). Very many toponyms and demonyms can be found in such patterns. DCDuring TALK 17:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think " […] was no more cork than my own" is use of cork as a mass noun. Not sure, mind you. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. I think this is something other than a standard comparative use of "more." Compare:

The product looked like steel ; but it was no more steel than strong cold-short iron ever will be. — 1873, Frederick Overman, A. A. Fesquet, The manufacture of steel

He is no more a lexicologist than I am.

—Pingku 10:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the cite proffered doesn't show that it's an adjective. I also doubt it is one.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This distinguished trio's unanimous views (plus Ruakh's earlier similar views) may help keep me from offering such examples henceforth. Thanks. DCDuring TALK 18:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the adjective section (RFV-failed), per the apparent consensus above. (I also made my own short search for adjective use, and found none.) Note, however, that I tried to preserve the translation information. - -sche (discuss) 22:01, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

aniono

Rfv-sense: Esperanto. JorisvS (talk • contribs) thinks this is only Ido, and the Esperanto is always anjono. Upon asking my opinion, I suggested an RFV as it's not 'ridiculous' enough to merit speedy deletion. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely used; there's two hits in "aniono kaj" in b.g.c. (I always search on kaj, since it's rare enough outside Esperanto to be a better locator of Esperanto than setting the language.) The citations are mildly incomplete, because I was working from snippet view and couldn't get article details or the full title on one work. I don't think b.g.c. is going to yield a third hit, though.--Prosfilaes 07:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm actually not surprised about that. Even if technically the Esperanto word is just "(an)jono", we are bound to see "(an)iono" in a few Esperanto publications, simply due to interference from people's native language (mostly due to spelling I guess). So far every dictionary I've tried gives only (an)jono and not (an)iono. --JorisvS 11:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm actually having trouble finding any references to anjono outside dictionaries. On the ground, admittedly from a tiny sample, aniono seems to be the form in use.--Prosfilaes 01:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you count Wikipedia: w:eo:anjono, w:eo:jono. These pages seem to have consistently used this spelling throughout their histories. The next few days I've got ridiculuously little time to look around in the world at large, so more input from my part will have to wait a few days. --JorisvS 11:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to suggest putting in a "common misspelling" entry at aniono, but now I'm not as sure about that anymore: Googling 'aniono kaj' telling Google to look only at Esperanto (pages) gives a mere 14 results (and several "similar pages" Google leaves out by default), of which one is our page, one a mirror of our entry at anjono, one at Vikilibroj where (an/kat)iono appears only three times alongside countless (an/kat)jono (and thus just look like misspellings), one a Portuguese-Esperanto word list (with eo only anjono), one an Esperanto-Russian word list which uses aniono once, alongside (an)jono, 5 Ido-Esperanto word lists (actually just two pages, but these are five of the hits) with the Ido being aniono and the Esperanto anjono, one is in a very short word list on a Finnish page, and three look more legit (these are actually just two instances, and one of which I can't open). Telling Google to show those it left out only gives a few more of the ones already seen. On the other hand, doing the same thing with anjono gives many many more hits. Googling 'aniono kaj' without telling Google to look only at Esperanto (pages) gives a great deal of non-Esperanto hits and has trouble turning up new hits (maybe one or so later on in the hit pages).

Prosfilaes, the first quote you've given starts with "ci-kaze", which should at least be "ĉi-kaze" (or might even be somewhat better "ĉi-okaze"), and uses "-jono" in the same phrase, and so gives me the impression of it being a misspelling. Oh, and what's b.g.c.? --JorisvS 15:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B.g.c. is books.google.com (more properly "Google Books" or "Google Book Search"). See Wiktionary:Glossary. —Ruakh_TALK 16:57, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's -kaze--OCR doesn't tend to lose letters like that unless it's really having problems. But possibly erroneously I changed the quote to ĉi-kaze; it won't show me a snippet of the text now, just the OCR, and as I noted in an HTML comment, the snippet cut off the tops of letters making it hard to tell whether there was a circumflex on them or not.

I'm having problems seeing anything that's citable under WT:CFI, given that that demands we pull from printed material, or Usenet, or Google News. Webpages are not considered citable. "aniono" doesn't quite hit the standards unless another cite can be found, and "anjono" is completely unattestable so far.

While there has been some noise about eventually accepting webpages for stuff that can be retrieved from the Web Archive, it's not there now, and dictionaries would still be out of bounds as mentions, not use. There has been some argument that the three use rule in CFI shouldn't/doesn't apply to most languages, including Esperanto, ([14] and more fully Wiktionary:Beer_parlour#Lingua Franca Nova) but that wouldn't help anjono, as there's no evidence suitable under CFI it's ever been used.--Prosfilaes 18:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any explicit or implicit prohibition from using webpages at WT:CFI (except Wikimedia sister projects, obviously). And from what Google Books tells me, the first quote really uses "Ci-kaze", without the circumflex (I also saw the snippet where the circumflex would've been lost). --JorisvS 20:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "I can't find any explicit or implicit prohibition from using webpages at WT:CFI": See point #3 at Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Attestation. Web pages aren't considered to be "permanently recorded media". —Ruakh_TALK 20:59, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of them? I mean, indiscriminately? So then, basically, all web material, in fact all digital material can be considered not to be permanently recorded, can't it? Is there a page that specifies when something is/isn't considered "permanently recorded"? --JorisvS 23:48, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

scelestious

I see mentions but no uses.—msh210℠ (talk) 05:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I only found one mention in the dictionary Word Nerd and one other in a German paper, Neuphilologische Mitteilungen: Volume 76. Could not actually view either instance. One or both could be typos for scelestus. —Stephen ^(Talk) 15:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Word Nerd page is visible via Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/Word-Nerd-Barbara-Ann-Kipfer/dp/1402208510; use the "Search Inside" feature). The complete paragraph is:

other terms for wicked are scelestious or scelestic

So, not helpful.

—Ruakh_TALK 15:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can find two mentions, not uses, one on Usenet, one in a book titled Word Nerd.

Perhaps Mr. O'Reilly is just indulging in the hallowed practice of coining/reviving words by anglicizing Latin (and Greek) words. Though this is not so fashionable for the past century, it had a long history before then, especially among those with a training in classical Greek and Latin. Perhaps his acolytes and fans will start using the word enough so we can include it. Perhaps promoting a rare word is a way of showing or testing the impact he has on "the conversation". DCDuring TALK 18:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 08:22, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Palermo

Rfv-sense (Dutch, Proper noun) A place that is organisationally flawed, making it an unpleasant place. Dutch Wikipedia has a page concerning "Palermo's of the world", but I think that is just a metaphor. SemperBlotto 22:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Rfv tag removed by User:Mallerd. Tag reinstated. User blocked. SemperBlotto 12:23, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've read some of the articles in the google link provided by Mallerd and my conclusion agrees with that of Semper's. Palermo aan de Maas is simply a metaphor that alludes to the increasing corruption in Maastricht. Many cities in the world that have trademark qualities can be used as metaphors. A good example is Shanghai, which is often titled Paris of the Orient. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 23:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was thinking of St Petersburg as the "Venice of the north". SemperBlotto 08:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to believe. I checked the Dikke Van Dale as well as the WNT online[15], but none of them have the entry "Palermo," whereas Van Dale has over 250,000 entries (and actually does have an entry "Palermitaans," meaning "of, from Palermo") and WNT is the largest dictionary in the world, containing almost 50,000 pages. Wouldn't "Palermo" be in these dictionaries if it had the alternative meaning of "unpleasant place?" Caudex Rax 13:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sense removed as RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 08:26, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refidex

Australia. A (any) street directory. By "trademark erosion". DCDuring TALK 22:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added one cite for the contested sense, but it's difficult to find informal usage in with all the other official meanings. I've also added the formal sense, as it is meaninless to anyone without prior knowledge of what it is.--Dmol 11:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally, there would be a WP article at w:Refidex, which would allow an Etymology section with a link thereto. But there isn't. DCDuring TALK 13:31, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ka

Rfv-sense: kiloamp. Should it be kA? —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 23:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also this should be translingual. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 00:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added the sense "kiloyear", which is what ka really represents. Yes, kiloamp should be at kA. -- Prince Kassad 00:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Already removed. [16] Closing. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 03:55, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

work path

All I can see on Google book search is something to do with Photoshop. SemperBlotto 14:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In a search at bgc for '"work path" -intitle:photoshop' I found 3 hits for this sense, but in so doing became skeptical that this should be included. There are numerous context-dependent readings of the collocation, all of which seemed utterly transparent if I knew something about the context. On further investigation for a couple of the more technical cases, the context also made the semantics of the combination transparent. DCDuring TALK 15:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

kadigan

or cadigan. A placeholder word. Equinox ◑ 19:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you nominating cadigan, too? Can you tag it with {{rfv|fragment=kadigan}} then, please?—msh210℠ (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a link to bgc at citations:kadigan, but the text is invisible to me. Can anyone see it?—msh210℠ (talk) 17:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I see is a table-of-contents entry "KADIGANS", and then a snippet consisting of the word "KADIGANS" in huge-point font. I imagine that the latter is using it as the name of a section, and that the former is pointing to the latter, but it's fun to think of alternative explanations. :-) —Ruakh_TALK 18:02, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

undecomino

Class of shape. Does not seem attestable. Equinox ◑ 19:30, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly sees (rather limited) use on the Web, but I see nothing at all for it, undecominoes, or undecominos on Usenet, Books, News, News Archive, or Scholar. A shame: it looks like it should be a word....—msh210℠ (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please, don't change the definitions of word in order to mention this list of sites. The sense of word has nothing to do with them. Lmaltier 21:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why do we have CFI if we are not to use it? IMO, when a "real" word is just barely too rare to meet the rules (e.g. this one citation instead of three), it's like the age of consent on sex. If the girl is a few days under 16, hey, what does it matter? But it's still illegal because the bar has to be set somewhere. Equinox ◑ 22:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that Lmaltier is proposing we ignore the CFI. He's explicitly taking issue with your usage of "attestable" (we often use "attested/-able" to mean "cited/-able per the CFI", but that's inconsistent and incompatible with (deprecated template usage) attested's real-world meaning among real-world linguists) and he's explicitly taking issue with msh210's usage of "word" to mean "CFI-meeting word". And I think he's right in both cases: we should distinguish between WT:CFI itself and the concepts underlying it, or else we won't have the vocabulary to justify and discuss changes to it. ("Why on Earth would you want to make it illegal to have sex with anyone under 17? People over the age of 16 can give consent, so what's the problem?" "I don't think people under 17 can really give consent." "No, the law explicitly says that 16 is the age of consent.") —Ruakh_TALK 13:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, this is exactly what I was meaning. I also think that CFI are inconsistent and that most CFI rules might be justifiable for a paper dictionary, and are unjustifiable here, but this is another point. Lmaltier 19:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is attested on the Web (more than 400 Google hits). One Google Books hit (in Mcgraw-Hill Dictionary Of Mathematics). Clearly, this is a word. Lmaltier 21:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant it looks like it should be inclusible. (But it's not AFAICT.)—msh210℠ (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know Lmaltier is perhaps the most inclusionist Wiktionary editor ever. Where he and I disagree specifically is what should the minimum be for inclusion. Sure, every word needs really world usage, but how many uses? I get 71 hits on Google, many of those are not English, such as Finnish (or Estonian, I can't tell the difference) and Korean! Also some of the results aren't uses but mentions like this one, so overall I don't think 50 or fewer uses of the word can be 'clear widespread use'. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not clear widespread use, this is obvious, but no dictionary includes only words with clear widespread use (except maybe dictionaries for children), and CFI states that all words are welcome. It's often for words that are not of clear widespread use that the dictionary is most useful. On the other hand, words of clear widespread use might be excluded because it is unlikely that somebody will look for their meaning. Actually, CFI are inconsistent, they should be changed. Lmaltier 17:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

About inclusionism, this means something for Wikipedia, but here, it makes sense only for phrases (the basic principle is all words). I want to include only words (including phrases that can be considered as words). I would remove all phrasebooks entries for individual sentences (and create real phrasebook pages), so I feel that I am much less inclusionist than most people here. Lmaltier 17:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mad cow

Rfv-sense: Prions that carry this disease. (mad cow disease, BSE)

Also: RfV for adjective PoS. I doubt that this can be attested as a true adjective. DCDuring TALK 01:13, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds wrong for the noun, and I would probably have speedy deleted the adjective had I come across it, explaining so in the edit summary as to allow another editor to undo it if they felt strongly enough. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have found one quotation so far that might be using an adjective: the strange 2002 one at Citations:mad cow (specifically, its second usage of the term). - -sche (discuss) 22:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hamilton

Doubtful, but mostly because I'm lazy. (Hamilton Peak, the President, I'm not sure about the rest.) I've certainly heard of a Washington once or twice though. TeleComNasSprVen 01:26, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rollereuse

Protologism? SemperBlotto 11:14, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The given citation is the only one currently on Google Books or Groups. Equinox ◑ 17:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 08:33, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rufie

Synonyms for Rohypnol include "rowie", "rophy", "ruffle" (with an 'l'), "roachie", "roofie" (the most common one I know), "ruffie" (with two 'f's), "ruff up", "rib", "roach 2 (R2)", "roche", "rope", "ropie", "circle", "circe", "forget it", "popper", "forget-me-pill", "Mexican Valium", "mickey", "forget-me-now", and "rufilin". But not "rufie". TeleComNasSprVen 21:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pee-wee

Rfv-sense adj. very small Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 23:21, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think pee-wee is just an alternative spelling of peewee, which is a noun, often used attributively, but may also be an adjective. DCDuring TALK 15:08, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adjective RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 06:43, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

transfenestrate

Today's WOTD, never heard of it personally. Ƿidsiþ 15:47, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see it (and -ation in a few books). Pynchon used it. Equinox ◑ 15:49, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When I hear the name Pynchon I reach for my gun. (also Nabokov, Tolkein, Joyce). I think these authors' coinages are examples of why the "well-known work" rule should be eliminated. Perhaps we need to have appendices for literary hapax legomena, such as these authors and others from Early Modern English have coined without subsequent usage. DCDuring TALK 16:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is the "nonce" gloss for rarer-than-rare (also making them easy to locate in the event of any change of rules in the future). I agree this is very obscure to have made WOTD. Equinox ◑ 17:31, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I created {{nonce}} with the idea in my head it would only work for well-known works, as anything else wouldn't meet CFI, or wasn't really a nonce word. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How can one even attest to meaning with one usage? Find three published commentators? What about translations? Find three separate translations? DCDuring TALK 19:18, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we also need to start treating WOTD more like pedia's featured article; let's use entries which have all their ducks in a row rather than simply interesting words. - [The]DaveRoss 19:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DCDuring, "nonce" doesn't always mean the word was only ever used once. It can mean that each user of the word coined it separately for a single usage, perhaps not knowing anybody else ever had. Equinox ◑ 22:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fesh-fesh

"Fine dust that looks like solid ground but behaves like soft mud." 1. We may want to reword it (this sentence was taken from someone's Flickr page). 2. All citations I can find are italicised, so I don't know if I can really consider it English. Anyone know the ety and originating script? Equinox ◑ 17:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cited this and fesh fesh, I think. Two books say it's Arabic. - -sche (discuss) 22:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ich

Rfv-sense: English, "(obsolete) I." -- Prince Kassad 23:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am certain this exists, but it must be very old; maybe Widsith can help. It is British and related to the old dialect (deprecated template usage) che (which we are missing), e.g. "che vor ye" (I warn you) in King Lear. Chambers has related forms like chave (I have) and cham (I am). Equinox ◑ 23:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

B.g.c. abounds in Middle English cites — see e.g. google books:"ich am" and "ich habbe" — but Modern English and Early Modern English cites are harder. (I know that Widsith doesn't support our making that distinction, but some editors are rather insistent upon it.) —Ruakh_TALK 01:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cord

Rfv-sense: The string of a musical instrument.

I do not see this sense in dictionaries. First appeared in this revision. --Dan Polansky 17:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's really (deprecated template usage) chord which has this sense. See oxforddictionaries.com.

The etymology is complicated. Both words ultimately originate from Greek, where the meaning is actually "string of gut, string of a lyre", but as pointed out in w:chord (music), (deprecated template usage) chord also continues Middle English (deprecated template usage) cord, which is a shortening of (deprecated template usage) accord, an unrelated term. --Florian Blaschke 19:50, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hydro

Tagged Canadian; def is "an electric utility". Maybe it's just a bad def? Or maybe this is a specific company, and not dictionary material? —Ruakh_TALK 20:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My instinct says it's a poor version of our Canadian definition of hydro. If that's true, it could be speedily deleted as a "bad entry title". Mglovesfun (talk) 13:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The largest Canadian power utilities are Ontario Hydro (now divided into several companies of which Hydro One distributes the electic power to customers) and Hydro-Québec. Therefore the electric power is sometimes called hydro in Canada, uncapitalized. This entry looks like plain misunderstanding and should probably be deleted. A similar sense for the word Edison should probably be deleted as well. --Hekaheka 01:26, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Struck because the consensus is that it should be deleted (at Hydro, and kept at hydro). - -sche (discuss) 23:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

as well as

===Conjunction===
# [[also]]; as well
# [[too]]; [[likewise]]; in addition
===Preposition===
# And in addition to; and [[furthermore]].

I added a second POS for the prepositional sense, but we need to clarify the conjunction sense(s). Are there really multiple conjunction senses or is that one sense split into two lines? Also I am not a fan of the definition line I made for the preposition, so if someone wants to reword that so it is less awkward that would be spiffy. - [The]DaveRoss 23:32, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tangentially: I seem to recall some Template:nonstandard use at the start of a sentence as a synonym of also or further (adverb, I guess). Googling for it is hard, but my attempts so far have not been fruitful.—msh210℠ (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've definitely heard "as well" alone used that way — it's hard to Google for, but I did find this page with two uses — but "as well as"? Crazy! —Ruakh_TALK 23:50, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this one has been giving me headaches trying to track down cites for, I am just going by "I know I have heard this..." which is not something I like to do if I can help it. - [The]DaveRoss 00:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As well as the obvious security problems, giving out usernames and passwords to unsecure sites and programs can just be damn embarrassing. comes from LiveJournal

As well as the obvious things that hit you immediately when you arrive, such as sights, sounds, smells and tastes, every culture has unspoken rules which ... comes from UW Counseling Center

As well as the obvious category of hiring web space on a server (the cost of which which will almost certainly be negligible assuming the site is to be hosted on an ISP) comes from Producing for the Web (almost a real book!)

As well as the obvious benefits, such as improved access, we should try to make a realistic estimate of the preservation potential, the learning potential, what I might call the synergy potential. comes from Multimedia preservation (Aussies?)

I guess I just need to pick more phrases which I think will get results and search for them. I like your new definition msh, thanks. - [The]DaveRoss 00:16, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That sort of prepositional usage doesn't seem to be too rare; [17][18][19][20] are all the sense you have in mind, yes? But I can't think of a sense like Msh210 mentions. —Ruakh_TALK 00:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only times I can think of it being used that way are combined with "that" or "this"; "As well as that there are..." and that wouldn't be prepositional, it would be adverbial. I guess that is what msh said. - [The]DaveRoss 00:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As a conjunction, doesn't it just mean "and", with the second, following term being "backgrounded" ? Perhaps it needs a non-gloss definition.

The putative prepositional use seems to hinge on it being used to introduce some kind of adjunct. CGEL insists that it should be considered as as well#Adverb + as#Preposition. Huddlestone et al insist that in all cases what they view as the PP headed by "as" is optional. DCDuring TALK 00:32, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ཀ་ཏ་ཀི

Not in Rangjung Yeshe or Das 1902. No Google hits. -- Prince Kassad 23:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tibetan has a beautiful script. I must learn to read it one day. --Downunder 23:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it to ཀ་ཊ་ཀི (with mirrored t), which is listed in Das 1902. The definition probably needs some fixes, it isn't quite uniform with the dictionary. -- Prince Kassad 19:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

screamer

Rfv-sense: an effeminate gay man. Quick googling doesn't give much. Any of our gay company fancy helping us with this one? --Downunder 23:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added that. Weird, it's used all the time in my social group but I can't find any real usages in published material on Google Books. ---> Tooironic 12:02, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ficio

This just looks like a page for (deprecated template usage) faciō and (deprecated template usage) fīgō in the form of compounds, but I don't think this is an attestable word. Caladon 17:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This should simply be deleted if anyone does not disagree with me since I cannot find it anywhere. One thing to consider though is that all the verb forms require deletion as well. Caladon 09:34, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

unleadify

Pretty sure this is nonsense, but there is a single groups hit with this exact usage so I thought I would give people a shot at making me look dumb. - [The]DaveRoss 03:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we'll have plenty of other opportunities to do that. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

feck

Ety 4, meaning "blast". I think there is a quote from Dryden and one from Smollett in this sense. The OED might be help is determining the relationship of this usage to the more recent Irish usage as a synonym of (deprecated template usage) eff. DCDuring TALK 20:48, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is also (deprecated template usage) fecks used in Shakespeare: "i' fecks"/"i,fecks" said to be "in faith", often pointing to Irish (deprecated template usage) faix. DCDuring TALK 20:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if this helps, but it was used a lot in Father Ted, a popular comedy show in the UK in the 1990s. I'd have thought that was the same etymology as the "fuck" sense, but it may well be citable. My instinct says yes, but haven't tried yet. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

家里 - home

See Talk:家里#Noun for initial discussion. -- A-cai 01:25, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[Disclaimer: I know absolutely no Mandarin whatsoever.] I wonder if one point of confusion here is actually to do with the English word (deprecated template usage) home, one of whose uses is as an intransitive preposition meaning "in/at/to one's home" (as in "Honey, I'm home!" or "I want to go home"). The Chinese-to-English dictionaries that the anon mentions — do they specifically say that (deprecated template usage) 家里 (jiālǐ) is a noun? Or do they just translate it as "home", without specifying which POS of "home" they have in mind? —Ruakh_TALK 01:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lin Yutang's Dictionary provides the following definition: "家裡 [jia1li3], n., (1) one's home; (2) wife." The problem is that no example sentences are given for either sense. The second definition (wife) can easily be verified in other more comprehensive dictionaries, but not the first. Without an example sentence, it's hard to determine what they had in mind by including the first definition. It literally means, "at home" or "inside one's house." I'm having a hard time thinking of a scenario where one would be justified in dropping the preposition in the English definition. -- A-cai 01:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it depends on how you interpret it really. It could be treated as a noun as in the definition or as part of the circumposition as in 在...里 (in, inside) to form 在(我的家)里 (in my home). I tend to swing towards the circumposition more. I've never officially studied Mandarin grammar, so I don't know how a grammar specialist would treat this. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 05:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

家里 - wife

I'm moving this to a separate section to avoid confusion. -- A-cai 13:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, the definition of wife is historical/literary. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 05:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

response: fixed. -- A-cai 13:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sense of "wife" is not literary. It's not obsolete or archaic either. Nor does it necessarily mean "my" wife. This sense exists in many modern Chinese dialects, for example Suzhou (宿州) dialect, and much of Shanxi (山西) and Hebei (河北) dialects. I'm speaking from my personal experience. Please, do not make conjectural edits like this. Wjcd 13:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

response: I have "unfixed" it for now, and have removed the "my" in front of wife, pending the outcome of this discussion. -- A-cai 13:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wjcd, personal experience is great, but it generally doesn't hold much water at Wiktionary, since we cannot verify something like personal experience. That makes this a rather thorny problem. I don't suppose you have a book on the Suzhou dialect hanging around that backs up your claim? I'm being facetious :) But seriously, assuming what you say is true, would you agree that the term is more of a literary one in Modern Standard Chinese, as you have described MSC in previous forums? If so, one possible compromise would be to add a "usage note" to the entry. -- A-cai 14:03, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather label it as "colloquial/dialectal", if the header were "Chinese", since modern written Chinese has a standard, and this is not quite MSC. However, since the header is "Mandarin", and the group of Mandarin dialects does not have a specific de jure written or literary standard, no tag is necessary really. This sense is as Mandarin as the Mandarin from Beijing. Wjcd 14:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, maybe there is no law on the books, but wouldn't you agree that what you are calling MSC is the de facto standard? In any case, Wiktionary's current policy is that anything under the Mandarin label is presumed to be modern standard spoken Mandarin (Modern Standard Chinese, by your definition), unless otherwise noted. -- A-cai 14:31, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have a workable solution for this one. Please take another look and see if you can live with it. -- A-cai 20:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a long-term solution. Language headers refer to standard forms of the language by default, eg. a German header refers to Standard German, a Japanese header refers to Standard Japanese, a Korean header refers to Standard Korean ... unless otherwise specified. "Standard Chinese", according to Wikipedia, equates to the "Mandarin" here. Therefore, similarly, it is legitimate to refer to modern standard written Chinese ("Standard Chinese") as "Chinese". MSC is simply a literal translation from Chinese 现代标准汉语, or a disambiguated version of the current Wikipedia title. Wjcd 14:10, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It also seems legitimate to refer to Standard Mandarin (a.k.a. Standard Chinese) as ==Mandarin==, no? —Ruakh_TALK 14:53, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a quote from The "Mandarin Chinese" article:

Mandarin dialects, particularly the Beijing dialect, form the basis of Standard Chinese, which is also known as "Mandarin".

Here is a quote from the "Standard Chinese" article:

Standard Chinese or Modern Standard Chinese, also known as Mandarin, is the official language of mainland China and Taiwan, and is one of the four official languages of Singapore.

"Standard Chinese" or "Mandarin" can be used. After much discussion here at Wiktionary we have decided to use "Mandarin" as the label. The reason for this is that we have agreed on a policy at Wiktionary that says a level two language header needs to have a corresponding ISO-639-3 language code for an individual (as opposed to macro) language. This was a way to avoid Wiktionary getting into the business of setting standards, which is not our role. Neither is original research. The level two language header shall use whatever the ISO-639-3 describes for that language. It was further agreed that we should use "Mandarin" rather than "Mandarin Chinese" or "Chinese Mandarin" for simplicity's sake. Thus, cmn = Mandarin, yue = Cantonese, nan = Min Nan etc. I had at one point argued that the Min Nan language header should really be Amoy, but was overulled on the grounds that there is no corresponding ISO-639-3 code for Amoy. Likewise, there is no corresponding iSO-639-3 code for Standard Chinese. There is a code for the macro language "Chinese" (zho), but macro languages cannot be used as language headers. Since you used Arabic as an example previously, you may be interested to know that there is in fact an ISO-639-3 code for "Standard Arabic" (arb). The latest list can be found at: http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/iso-639-3_20100707.tab. The explanation can be found at: http://www.sil.org/iso639-3/download.asp. That's also not the point of this discussion. The point of this discussion is to decide whether the "wife" definition, in its current form, is acceptable to all parties. Is it? -- A-cai 15:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a Wiktionary policy relating language headers to ISO codes. The decision regarding language headers is based solely on the zusammengesetzt perceptions of that language by Wiktionary participants. ISO also lists Arabic, Azerbaijani, Estonian, Persian, Serbo-Croatian, Hmong, Kurdish, Malagasy, Mongolian, Malay, Norwegian, Quechua, Albanian, Sardinian, Swahili, Uzbek, Yiddish as macrolanguages, and almost none of them have ISO 639-3 codes corresponding to standard languages, but none of these language headers have to be compulsorily changed the way Chinese headers are. The Arabic language header was allowed not because of the presence of an ISO 639-3 code for standard Arabic, as evidenced in the code in Category:Arabic language and Category:ar:All topics. The separate treatment of Chinese is apparent. Besides, ISO 639-3 mainly draws its codes from Ethnologue, which is well-known for its factual errors. In its cladogram of Sino-Tibetan languages, Bai is listed as a branch of Tibeto-Burman, a view that has been challenged for about 60 years. Its classification of Chinese languages is also quite unusual, different to both the traditional and modern common classifications (compare, for example, 汉语方言, List of Chinese dialects and Spoken Chinese). It used to have specific codes for Yinglish and Moldovan as well, which is absolutely ridiculous. Wjcd 05:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You brought this argument up where it might be appropriate, and then you decided to close it when you weren't getting a good response. Please don't bring it up on RFV, where it definitely doesn't belong.--Prosfilaes 06:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)--Prosfilaes 06:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because in that discussion the same old arguments were repeatedly brought up by opponents, and the discussion isn't leading anywhere. But here there is some new argument. Anyway, as long as there is people who'd fervently participate with superficial knowledge, this proposal is going to fail. I give up. Wjcd 06:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wjcd, if by giving up, you mean to say that you have no intention of lodging objections to the "wife" definition as currently written, I will consider rfv "wife" discussion closed. If you wish to further debate the language header policy (or non-policy de facto agreement made by myopic tyrants, if you like :), feel free to post another message at Beer Parlour or on my talk page, but not here. -- A-cai 23:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

intersex

At first look I see no evidence that this is used as a true adjective rather than attributive use of the noun. I searched for "too|very intersex" and "more intersex than" at Google Books, News, Scholar, Groups. See Wiktionary:English adjectives. DCDuring TALK 13:24, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've split this into two senses, one describing people and one of the "of or pertaining to" sort. I think the former is an adjective, and I've cited the former by adding three predicative cites from Google Books that I think demonstrate as much. The latter is ambiguous, since it's a non-predicating modifier (like presidential in "presidential candidate"; "presidential candidate" does not mean "candidate who is presidential", or at least, not usually). Nouns and adjectives can both be used as non-predicating modifiers; it's certainly more characteristic of nouns than of adjectives, but if we've already got the adjective section, I don't see a problem with keeping that use there. —Ruakh_TALK 15:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I should have mentioned that my reading of the usage suggested that this term has "wanted" to be an adjective lately (~10 years) and was likely to become one. One can find "too|very intersex" and "more intersex than" on the Web, but not from our preferred sources. The cites look sufficient to me. DCDuring TALK 16:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems misleading to me to characterize the other sense as a true adjective without evidence. It would be somewhat surprising that a noun sense that is mostly technical in its usage would be used as a true adjective. DCDuring TALK 16:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "It would be somewhat surprising that a noun sense that is mostly technical in its usage would be used as a true adjective": Right, but it's perfectly normal that an adjective that is not mostly technical would be used in extended senses. Transgender people form transgender groups, intersex people form intersex groups. (Actually, maybe the problem here is that even the split off sense "of or relating to intersex" needs to be split into two: "of or relating to intersex people" seems to be a non-predicating use of the adjective, whereas "of or relating to the condition of intersex" seems to be attributive use of the noun. The two blur into each other, of course, but the latter is technical/medical/clinical whereas the latter is not. And perhaps the (deprecated template usage) Lua error in Module:parameters at line 360: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "of an individual" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E. sense needs to be (deprecated template usage) Lua error in Module:parameters at line 360: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "of a person" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E. instead, since use to describe non-human animals is a technical use, and not likely to have become an adjective.) —Ruakh_TALK 16:50, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We will get this right with a little more tweaking along the lines you mention or, perhaps, a generalized first sense, perhaps confined to persons. (Though I understand that anecdotes about non-human individual are used not-so-technically in polemics.) DCDuring TALK 18:02, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

I have added two quotations to Citations:intersex; I am not certain which adjective sense they use. - -sche (discuss) 08:44, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

believe

Is sense 2 ((transitive) To accept as true without empirical evidence.) really just (deprecated template usage) believe in or is it used this way without (deprecated template usage) in transitively? Either way the usex is wrong. - [The]DaveRoss 20:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This definition would be a novel one with or without "in", transitive or intransitive. It reminds me of definitions by w:Ambrose Bierce. Most dictionaries don't have a contrafactual sense. Encarta is the closest: intransitive: to think that something exists: to be of the opinion that something exists or is a reality, especially when there is no absolute proof of its existence or reality. "Absolute proof" is a logical, not empirical possibility. DCDuring TALK 20:49, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rfv-sense To consider something as true without having empirical evidence is the most common usage. — This comment was unsigned.

Wording is not good; surely with or without empirical evidence, it's the same concept. It does say 'without' (that is, none at all). Mglovesfun (talk) 21:06, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are a dictionary, so wording has some significance. In any event, it would be interesting to see the context of quotes that use this sense ofor anything like it. I guess people say things like "I really know it can't be true, but I believe it anyway." DCDuring TALK 21:23, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this exactly the same as sense 1? What am I missing?—msh210℠ (talk) 08:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are we dealing with a sort of methodological conflict here? It seems the point is that people who believe (in this sense that is supposedly most common) do so outside the scope of logic. Perhaps a way to approach this is to regard a belief as an (deprecated template usage) axiom. Pingku 10:32, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now let's not get encyclopedic (or epistemological) here. With respect to making (modal?) assertions about the truth of propositions, the same people sometimes use "know" and "believe" as synonyms and sometimes as contrasting terms. In the contexts using the words in contrast "know" seems to imply a greater justification (social knowledge) for the proposition in question. It also seems that "believe" is used about propositions about which there is/has been a great deal of disagreement and about propositions of broad scope. "Know" seems to be used for 'smaller' propositions. DCDuring TALK 12:27, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only just read the whole entry. Delete this, redundant (though not identical to) sense #1. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's redundant. The wording of the rfv'd sense allows for belief based on proof without evidence to back it up. Presumably this would be deductive proof, and if discipline were applied the proof might be subject to peer review. However, I don't see any hint that objectivity is required. So all it requires is that the believer is convinced by said deductive argument. The question should not be whether proof without empirical evidence is possible, but rather whether someone could be convinced by such a proof. Pingku 15:48, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "without empirical evidence" bit is the problem. Do we require a different definition for "with empirical evidence"? Empirical evidence is POV in this case. You might say (hypothetically) that my belief in God is without empirical evidence, I might say that the Earth, the Moon the stars, these are all examples of empirical evidence. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:10, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hagi

"A person with mental retardation. (Comes from H.A.G.I Transit, the local transportation service for the handicapped) (local colloquialism, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada)" Equinox ◑ 19:49, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See short bus and ride the short bus for a more widely used, probably attestable synonym. DCDuring TALK 20:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pepto-Bismol

RfV for sole noun sense: "A particular shade of pink associated with said medicine." I don't think that "Pepto-Bismol-hued" or "-colored" counts as evidence. The word would have to be used perhaps attributively in something like "the/a Pepto-Bismol car/room/chair/blouse" or as a stand-alone noun where the branded product itself was clearly not the referent.

I think the citations in the entry under the proper noun PoS meet WT:BRAND. DCDuring TALK 19:59, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

moist

Rfv-sense: soft, supple. In the use example, "moist lips" refers to lips that are somewhat wet. While something that's moist may also be supple, I don't think moist on its own means supple. Evidence? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:48, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The opposite of moist is dry, and dry things tend to be stiff and hard to bend. It does make sense to me at least... —CodeCa t 01:22, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that's not a definition, is it? Someone who's intelligent may be educated, and someone who's educated may be intelligent, it doesn't mean that "educated" is a definition for "intelligent" or vice versa. It's just a mental association between two ideas. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:54, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MFC

AFAICT, this used in this sense only in Brother product designations. If so, WT:BRAND. DCDuring TALK 20:39, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Converted to rfv-sense as I added another definition. -- Prince Kassad 20:50, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitly not limited to Brother. A quick search showed the same term used by (or about) HP, Epson, Kyocera. Until recently I worked in a large retailer, and both the staff and the public used the term regardless of manufacturer.--Dmol 21:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In product designations only or in a usage like "Our MFCs are right next to the printers"? If the latter, then WT:BRAND does not apply. DCDuring TALK 00:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was definitly a generic use of the term. They even had the "MFC aisle", and I'm sure there wasn't a Brother pinter in there. If the term is Brother's trademark, (and I can't find any evidence that it is) then it is trademark erosion.--Dmol 10:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

notary

Rfv-sense: a civil lawyer.

Originally added as "civil law notary, a trained jurist in working in civil law", in this revision.

I have found no dictionary that has this sense, hence this request for attestation. --Dan Polansky 10:39, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

kamboji

Suspicious-looking senses. How many of those can actually be verified? -- Prince Kassad 21:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also should be at upper-cased Kamboji, based on the senses (a tribe, a language name). Equinox ◑ 15:11, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mpene

Unintelligible definition. Google Books doesn't turn up anything about this however... -- Prince Kassad 21:08, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 00:42, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Scotch

Rfv-sense: "A brand of transparent adhesive tape manufactured by 3M". Based on the synonyms proffered, what's meant is clearly "transparent adhesive tape, of a particular brand manufactured by 3M" (i.e., the tape, not the brand). So we'd need to cite Scotch (note, not Scotch tape) in use to mean tape. In fact, we'd need to cite it per WT:CFI#Brand names.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this is a separate issue, but our entry for (deprecated template usage) Scotch tape isn't really sufficient, in that (deprecated template usage) Scotch often occurs in this sense outside of the exact collocation (deprecated template usage) Scotch tape. google books:"Scotch or masking tape", for example, gets dozens and dozens of hits. —Ruakh_TALK 03:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "Scotch and masking tape": compare "North and South Korea", "medical and legal experts". Those phrases are just eliding the part of the term that would otherwise be repeated; I'm not convinced our entry for Scotch tape is insufficient. Of course, this very RFV was/is to determine what Scotch means in true isolation. :) - -sche (discuss) 00:12, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't all that relevant, but the 1997 quotation amuses me because it specifies "brand". I added it and another quotation to Citations:Scotch. (To be clear, I do not think either satisfies this RFV.) - -sche (discuss) 00:18, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BOGOF

"By extension, any similar offer in which the recipient is offered twice that which would usually be provided." Like what? Equinox ◑ 15:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One headline has "The town that's telling Tesco to BOGOF: Residents oppose supermarket giant's planning proposal"; I don't know what the means. There "In other words the Tesco couple were in fact willing a hung parliament, willing a sort of political BOGOF bargain where you got two sharing power for the price of one vote."[21]; I thought about adding it to the cites, but it's obvious metaphor, not really a new definition. (And I didn't verify it was durable, either.)--Prosfilaes 18:29, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine the former is simply a pun; the true meaning is that of (deprecated template usage) bug off. (Is (deprecated template usage) bug off used in England? If not, then the pun might also be a way to allude to (deprecated template usage) bugger off without crossing a line, vulgarity-wise.) —Ruakh_TALK 18:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's (deprecated template usage) bog off in England. Equinox ◑ 18:43, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yes, and pronounced in exactly the same way as BOGOF. Dbfirs 11:39, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a UK word? Around here it is (deprecated template usage) BOGO and googlefight gives BOGO a huge margin. - [The]DaveRoss 23:43, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, common in the UK, where I've never heard of "BOGO"! Dbfirs 11:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, the tagged sense fails RFV...? - -sche (discuss) 08:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

outburp

To burp longer, louder, more medolically(?) etc. than. OTOH, I've not heard any such "medolical" burps before. TeleComNasSprVen 22:30, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about "to burp more than or in a manner qualitatively superior to", following the general meaning of (deprecated template usage) out-. DCDuring TALK 00:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

b.g.c provides lots of evidence of usage; they mostly seem to indicate that one burper was able to burp in a superior fashion to another, whether that pertains to frequency, volume, duration or melodiousness. Not exactly sure what needs to be verified here. That link does provide alt spellings, including (deprecated template usage) out-burp and (deprecated template usage) out burp. - [The]DaveRoss 01:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Melodiousness is probably too specific for a semi-rare word. "To burp more or better than" should cover it. I agree it's quite CFI-attestable. Will have a try now. Update: The inflections are a lot rarer than the infinitive; I've added a mixed bag of three. Equinox ◑ 01:02, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mud wrestling

"Figuratively, a contest, usually implying desperation and underhandedness. " Equinox ◑ 23:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The definition given is not quite spot-on, but I've heard this before. "political mud wrestling" on Googe Books —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 03:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. I changed the gloss slightly to fit. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 01:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

latex

Rfv-sense: Made of latex (not comparable). Looks like use of the noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

nutbar

Rfv-sense. Originally listed with rfc saying "is this really an adjective?" I've decided to list it here. Looking for true adjectival use. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican pool

Tagged but not listed. I have no opinion. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This guide-book speaks of "local men drinking beer and shooting Mexican pool beneath fluorescent lights" at a certain pool hall in Mexico City, but the previous page says this:

BILLIARDS
Shooting pool is a favorite pastime (mainly for men) in Mexico City, as it is throughout Latin America. The game of choice at most Mexican billiard parlors is pool, where in balls 1-15 are lined up around the sides of the table and are sunk in order. Several players, rather than just two, can play at the same time (as in the common U.S. game cut-throat). Second in popularity is ocho bola, or eight-ball, played much like it is in the United States. […]

so I assume that by "Mexican pool" the guide-book is referring back to that description of pool. That doesn't match our explanation at all, and even if that usage appeared in other books, I wouldn't be totally sold on its being idiomatic.

(of course, it's quite conceivable that some Americans play a game they call "Mexican pool", just as Egyptian ratscrew is not actually how Egyptians play ratscrew and Martian chess is not actually how Martians play chess; but b.g.c. turns up absolutely no evidence of that. The phrase "Mexican pool hall" occurs in many books, but clearly means a pool-hall owned and/or frequented by Mexicans, not an establishment for the playing of "Mexican pool" in any sense.)

—Ruakh_TALK 23:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ozone

Rfv-sense: (informally but erroneously) Fresh air, especially that breathed at the seaside and smelling of seaweed. Tagged but not listed, a bit of a strange one. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. The OED has " Also colloq.: fresh, invigorating air." and also " fig. Something fresh or invigorating." SemperBlotto 12:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds ok to me; the definition needs to be a bit better, such as no 'smelling of seaweed'. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:39, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Compact Oxford shows it as UK informal. I'm not familiar with the sense in the US currently. DCDuring TALK 17:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The word has been used in this sense of fresh or invigorating (seaside air) in the UK since 1865. The OED has three cites spanning 127 years. I'm sure we can find many more, but our entry does need attention. We should blame the error on the Victorians who confused ozone with dimethyl sulfide! There's a completely different US slangy usage. Dbfirs 11:30, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some citations (of each sense). SemperBlotto 20:44, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. All of those citations seem to me to indicate a belief that the beaches smell of actual ozone. Certainly the author of the 1998 cite means literal ozone, else his statement would make no sense, and the 2004 and 2007 cites talk about the smell of ozone plus other seaside smells. Maybe the sense should tagged "by confusion" or something? —Ruakh_TALK 20:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

come of

Rfv-sense. "To happen to." I don't get it. That's not what it means, surely? When you say "What came of that plan to...?" it means "what came from, what resulted from". This is our (deprecated template usage) of, sense 3.1, and is also used with other verbs. Or am I missing something here. Ƿidsiþ 06:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Encarta, Macmillan, and Collins, among current OneLook dictionaries, have an entry for this, but with the meaning "result from". There is also an obsolete sense "descend from" and as synonym/contraction of become of.

What should come of the entry? We could add all of the other senses, submit it to RfD, and see what comes of the discussion. DCDuring TALK 13:09, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How would you interpret:

Whatever came of you and me? / America's new bride to be / Don't worry baby I'm safe and sound / Down in the dungeon just Peaches 'n' me

? — Pingku^dimmi 16:13, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's the "become of" sense. Whether it really "is" NISoP as come + of, I don't know, but I find common verbs like "come", "get", "make", "have", and "take" and prepositions, both in their more grammaticized senses, to be very hard to combine appropriately to yield the meaning of combinations I routinely use. DCDuring TALK 21:16, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

watchlisted

Rfv-sense: Adjective. Just seems to be use of the passive voice. I'd prefer to nominate it at RFD as rfd-redundant, but the trend is to list them here. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:05, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find evidence of adjectival usage on books, scholar, news, or groups. (too|very watchlisted; more watchlisted than; [become] watchlisted) DCDuring TALK 13:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's obviously adjectival. To watchlist something is to add it to your watchlist, but if something is watchlisted, that means it's currently on your watchlist. (Stative/resultative passives are very common in English, but they're not the same as the regular eventive passives.) —Ruakh_TALK 14:57, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lucrabilitate

"Lucrabilitate" isn't a commonly accepted term in Romanian!

It does not exist in DEX and even if the word circulates on the web, it just doesn't convey any real meaning. The correct Romanian equivalent for "workability" is practicabilitate.

The same critique can be applied to lucrabil (the correct term in Romanian is practicabil; lucrabil is an absurd construction).

Just because suffixes can be added, doesn't imply that they should!

--Robbie SWE 19:42, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't whether the suffix should be added, it's whether it is added. google scholar:"lucrabilitate" suggests that it's appeared in the Revista de Chimie and the Revista Romana de Materiale, and google books:"lucrabilitate" suggests that it's appeared in a few other periodicals as well. That said, if you're confident that this term is nonstandard, you can tag it as such by adding {{nonstandard|lang=ro}} to the start of the definition. —Ruakh_TALK 20:14, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

February 2011

remerged

Just looks like a typo to me. SemperBlotto 11:02, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, though being pedantic we should move the sense to remerge then rfv that, as if remerge does exist, nobody can deny that remerged is the past of it. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:25, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This certainly has currency in the sense of "to join together after having been separated" ((deprecated template usage) re- + (deprecated template usage) merge), and it also looks to have some currency as a misspelling of (deprecated template usage) reemerge (e.g. "When he remerged from the back room after turning on the hot water, he held a large wrench in his hand." Probably worth an RFV to determine the commonality. - [The]DaveRoss 11:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

QQ

The remaining sense (the other one already failed rfv) gets no hits at groups. -- Prince Kassad 19:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can attest that it has that usage, as well as the sense (deprecated template usage) cry about it or (deprecated template usage) boo hoo, as well as a verb sense (deprecated template usage) whine, (deprecated template usage) complain or (deprecated template usage) cry. Finding durable cites for these senses will be all kinds of difficult, but finding evidence of widespread usage is a single google blogs, groups or web search away. - [The]DaveRoss 20:31, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mora

Rfv-sense: as a Spanish noun meaning “mole” (in the sense of “dark spot on the skin”). The second-oldest tagged RFV, but seemingly never listed. —Ruakh_TALK 20:53, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sense added by Nadando (very experienced Spanish editor) tagged by Hippietrail (not so experienced). I'll bet it's valid. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:50, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two citations. In retrospect, both could possibly mean 'mulberry'. It says in the form of a […] so I suppose cells in the form of a mole is more likely, but in the form of a mulberry is not impossible either. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, sorry, both are mulberries. One is describing Mott cells, which in English are also called "morular cells" because they look like mulberries, and the other is translating an English text with the word "mulberry". BTW, is it supposed to be common knowledge what mulberries look like? Because I had no idea until I checked Wikipedia just now. —Ruakh_TALK 03:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wish I knew where I got "mole" from... I can't find anything that related to skin that isn't "looks like a mulberry" or equivalent. Nadando 23:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything, either. google books:"tenía un lunar" and "un lunar en" and "un lunar sobre" get plenty of relevant hits, but google books:"tenía una mora" and "una mora en" and "una mora sobre" don't seem to get any. (But admittedly, my Spanish is not great, and it takes me some effort to scan the page looking for hits in a desired sense. It's quite possible that I missed some.) —Ruakh_TALK 01:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not in Spanish Wiktionary. DAVilla 09:33, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed, but "forma de mora" quotations kept. - -sche (discuss) 08:46, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

西語

Rfv-sense: "Western language; Western language study". One of the oldest tagged RFVs, but apparently never listed here. The tag was added with an edit summary that asks if it's "really in use or just a guess based on the kanjis?" —Ruakh_TALK 20:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This term is certainly showing up with the same two meanings in my Japanese-only copy of Shogakukan's Kokugo Dai Jiten, Shinsou-ban (Japanese Big Dictionary, Revised Edition) from 1988. My dictionary doesn't give any sample sentences or I'd add them to the term's page, but I'd say it's verified. -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 23:47, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We do not rely on a term's being in a dictionary (listed in a dictionary. Used in the dictionary is fine) for attestation.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. What counts, then? Googling about shows lots of use on the Japanese web (a cursory look shows the term used mostly to mean Spanish, showing up quite often on university course listings like this web page or this PDF), and a good bit too in Chinese (which I cannot read as fluently). -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 19:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best citations are from printed books (not self-published), printed (not self-published) periodicals, and academic journals (print or not). Also generally accepted are Usenet postings archived by Google and e-books (not self-published), and self-published books (e-, if available on Google, or print). Citations must show the word used, not just mentioned (as it is in a dictionary), although people have argued that a good source, like an academic journal, which notes that others use the term is also okay; certainly a work that quotes an interviewee (e.g.) is fine even though that's technically mention rather than use. (I think that pretty much sums up the way we've been doing things lately. Others may differ.)—msh210℠ (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poking around further, the only use I can find of 西語 in the sense of "western languages" is in Chinese; every Japanese online mention I've looked at means "Spanish". The wording in the Shogakukan listing makes me think the editors there were thinking more of an abbreviation of 西洋語学 or 西洋言語 to 西語, rather than a bog-standard term unto itself:

2 （「西」は「西洋」の略）西洋の言語。また、その語学。

Even so, I cannot find any Japanese use that matches this, despite applying some fun Google-fu. I thus have no objection if anyone wants to remove the second definition on the 西語 page. -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 22:18, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In Chinese it means 1) (= 西班牙語) Spanish; 2) Western language(s). Same in Japanese. [22][23] Wjcd 23:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

interwiki

Rfv-sense: Adjective. Looks like use of the noun. The noun is definitely attestable, the verb too, I think, but just barely based on Usenet cites. Have added a Google Book citation to the verb for good measure. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:14, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually be interested to see cites for the noun. There is a noun sense that I'm familiar with ("= interwiki link"), but our current noun sense ("The structure, space or network of links between wikis") seems like tosh. If that can't be cited, then by default it makes sense to treat "interwiki" as an adjective. —Ruakh_TALK 23:52, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, though I think the plural 'interwikis' gets enough hits, none of them which seem to be verb forms. Oh and see User:Mglovesfun/to do if you're wondering where these nominations come from. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:09, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "I think the plural 'interwikis' gets enough hits": I'm sorry, but I don't understand your point. I acknowledged that there is a noun sense, but I contend that it's short for "interwiki link", and therefore contest the notion that "interwiki link" is using the noun "interwiki" attributively (since that would be circular and redundant: it implies that "interwiki link" means "interwiki-link link", which means "interwiki-link–link link", and so on). —Ruakh_TALK 00:32, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I hadn't actually read the noun sense as I just assumed it said interwiki link. The adjective (or noun used attributively) is much easier to cite than the noun used countably, but IMO it is a noun. Perhaps that's an RFD issue rather than RFV. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, we can leave it here for a month to see if anyone provides really compelling adjectival cites, then move it if no one does. RFD discussions, for whatever reason, don't seem to be very conducive to evidence-gathering, nor very responsive to such evidence as is gathered. —Ruakh_TALK 23:45, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

So, which part of speech is supposed to stay? - -sche (discuss) 08:50, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

like a train

Rfv-sense: Quickly, speedily.

I am skeptical about usage in this sense. DCDuring TALK 17:04, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, and the given cite doesn't really support the sense, could also be "following a track", "with great force", any metaphor based on attributes of a train. - [The]DaveRoss 17:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"start like a train" is used a lot to mean "start quickly" as in "Manchester United started like a train, and were 2 - 0 after 20 minutes". I am doubting myself a bit, though. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trains don't start quickly, so, by the misnomer principle, that would make it idiomatic. DCDuring TALK 23:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculously, I heard this on TV (Match of the Day) less than an hour after turning off the computer. I'm not sure that many definition is 100% accurate, but it does exist, doesn't it? And yes I remember having an argument with a trainspotter on the matter that trains actually start very slowly. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that the sense you are referring to is (deprecated template usage) unstoppable or (deprecated template usage) forceful? I would describe a team which goes up 2-0 quickly as both of those things and trains also have both of those attributes. I have never heard the expression so this is just an idle thought. - [The]DaveRoss 11:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cited I think. I think it might be British only, I will try and bug Equinox when I next see him online. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:54, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TDR's suggestion seems to fit the cites. Does it fit the colloquial usage too? DCDuring TALK 13:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently this isn't as common as I thought; maybe RFD it as a not-very-common simile. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i播放器

123abc entry. No obvious results on books or groups. -- Prince Kassad 17:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 08:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Latin alpha

Really? -- Prince Kassad 18:55, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, really. Unicode labels U+0251 ɑ as Latin alpha. Citing it is going to be hard; I'll need to see if there's a use in the Unicode Standard, the Handbook of the International Phonetic Association, perhaps Geoffrey & Pullum (though I'll probably have to ILL that, and it's not worth it), etc. But it is real.

Google Groups turns up "Look at the n shaped Eng (Ŋ) used in Africa vs the N shaped on use in Scandinavia, the Azeri schwa or African turned E (Ə) vs. the other turned E (Ǝ), the n shaped N with long right leg (Ƞ) used in Lakota, the Latin alpha (ɑ/Ɑ) used in Africa, the r with tail (ɽ) shaped

capital R with tail (Ɽ) vs. that capital R shaped, and other historical letters." which would be great if it were in a newsgroup.--Prosfilaes 19:30, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cariad

Cariad isn't an english word, at most it is used by Welsh speakers who are code-switching.

If it's used in English, and a word meaning darling strikes me as one likely to get dropped in English, then it's English.--Prosfilaes 19:23, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult to find citations that aren't using italics (i.e. emphasising a foreign borrowing). Equinox ◑ 19:25, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ergo it's borrowed, but still English in my book. DAVilla 09:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now has three citations in English language sentences. SemperBlotto 19:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMO this one doesn't support a claim of English: "The master's waiting to hear you ask after your little cariad (sweetheart)." Equinox ◑ 19:44, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nor does the Thomas quote. See Equinox's comment above in reply to Prosfilaes.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two Usenet quotes, one showcasing the plural.--Prosfilaes 19:47, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

malt-o-meal

We have three separate senses: "a hot breakfast cereal or porridge made with farina (ground wheat) or semolina"; "semolina pudding"; "cream of wheat". But from what I can see (Google Books, Wikipedia) this is a specific capitalised brand name referring to one specific manufactured cereal product. Equinox ◑ 19:12, 3 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If so, it may have become genericized. I suggest using the CFI for brand names. bd2412 T 23:49, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A.I.

The A.I. I know best is "artificial intelligence" and neither of these I can find on Books as having superficial dots after the respective letters (cf. AI). TeleComNasSprVen 02:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your best-known sense is recorded at our AI entry. The form A.I. is (or used to be) most common for the sense given in that entry. It is still used in some documents such as [24], [25] and [26] Dbfirs 10:47, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

genetics

rfv-sense: Template:biology The genetic makeup of a specific individual or species. See: genes. Tagged by Dictabeard (talk • contribs), to be honest it looks ok to me, but three citations would be good. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:32, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can see people saying "I'm fat because of my genetics", meaning "... because of my genetic makeup". SemperBlotto 11:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
google books:"because of his genetics", this would seem to pass on that alone. BTW etymology is missing a step or two - it's not directly from Ancient Greek, I think it's via French and Latin. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cited, and loads more cites available. And thanks Ruakh. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:02, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

presume

Rfv-sense: "To give some evidence of." The example sentence is Paw prints in the snow presume a visit from next door's cat. This sense isn't in the OED and I don't recognise it. Ƿidsiþ 07:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The example is a literary trick that I don't know how to name specifically. It's the person viewing the prints who's making the presumption. DAVilla 09:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps hypallage, though our definition seems to be only of a subset of the general phenomenon. DCDuring TALK 18:55, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...but the issue is whether (deprecated template usage) presume is actually used this way in the wild. Ƿidsiþ 11:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, some scholarly articles suggest that "hypallage" is a productive lexical process, like metonymy, metaphor, etc. DCDuring TALK 11:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

make use

Can anyone find usage of forms of "make use" in the sense of "use" that are not of "make use of"? I have found an instance of "make use out of" at COCA. Also from transcribed speech at COCA: "You may have such a number of them as you should think fit to make use upon this account.", which looks to me like a mistake, based on the occurrence of "of them" earlier in the sentence. DCDuring TALK 18:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, google books:"made use and abuse of" gets three distinct relevant hits. They are using "make use of", of course, but the coordination obscures that. But since you've obviously already noticed and disregarded cases of P-stranding ("of which we made use") and cases of interposed adverbials ("made use from time to time of"), I guess you're not going to find coordination any more convincing?

I guess I'm not sure what you're wanting, exactly. Are you saying this entry should be deleted, because we already cover the idiom at [[make use of]]? Or are you just saying that the context tag "usually with of" should be changed to simply "with of"?

—Ruakh_TALK 18:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it fails this, it should be deleted, I think. It clearly is not an RfD matter; it is empirical. I would not be in the least surprised to find dated, archaic, or obsolete usage of make use in approximately this sense with other prepositions. Also, the possible existence of dialectal and informal synonyms for "of" ("a", "uv", "out of", "outa") gives me some pause. DCDuring TALK 19:08, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your sentence "It clearly is not an RfD matter; it is empirical" aptly sums up the problem with RFD discussions. RFD voters should take facts into account, but for some reason many don't. But you can't solve that problem by bringing questions here that are manifestly not RFV matters. There is no policy that says that [[make use]] should be deleted unless (deprecated template usage) make use is used citeably without an (deprecated template usage) of-headed complement.

That said: If you want, we can leave this here for a month, and if no one produces the cites you're looking for, you can move to RFD with facts in hand. (I'll vote keep or redirect in that case, BTW.) Alternatively, you can list this at RFD now, with a vote along the lines of "Move to RFV, and delete unless citations without (deprecated template usage) of-headed complements are produced". If other voters share your view, then we can bring this back to RFV with a much clearer mandate.

—Ruakh_TALK 21:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In any event, it would benefit from citations, especially of the type I've mentioned. Perhaps the optimal sequence is to do what may be deemed cheap (talk is cheap, after all) and uncertain before doing what is not as cheap (getting citations). Alternatively, the sequence is to provide citations that provide focus for whatever subsequent discussion is required. DCDuring TALK 22:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about google books:"made use thereof"?

By searching for "made use on", I did find one intransitive use, one directly-construed use, and one use construed with on, but I'm inclined to view these all as errors.

—Ruakh_TALK 00:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm starting to think that maybe (deprecated template usage) make use of is SOP: one can also say "make much use of", "make a great deal of use of", "make good use of", etc.; and also "use was made of" and so on. I'm not suggesting that we delete it, but it's hard to judge whether "of" is essential to the idiom, given that there doesn't seem to be an idiom here at all. —Ruakh_TALK 00:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of problem bedevils many other entries of the form [V NP Prep] and also many of those in Category:English predicates. Some of them might be considered, like this, prototypes of constructions. A few OneLook dictionaries have this (MWOnline, RHU, AHD Idioms, McGraw-Hill). I don't think that alternative forms accommodate the variation. Usage notes? DCDuring TALK 01:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

get the better of

Rfv-sense: to influence heavily; to tend to control or persuade. I am unfamiliar with this sense, except possibly as included in the two other senses. DCDuring TALK 20:07, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would think it would more like "to trick" or "to con". I think there is substantial authority for this meaning, and I don't think it falls under the senses of "overwhelming" or "having an advantage over". bd2412 T 20:28, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which sense substantial authority? The challenged one or the one yet to be added? DCDuring TALK 21:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I was thinking of the challenged sense as a poorly worded attempt to enunciate the sense I was discussing. bd2412 T 21:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I detect overlap but vastly prefer your sense. I'm still not sure your proposed sense is more than "especially" to one or both of the other senses. DCDuring TALK 21:31, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

call

Rfv-sense: A work shift which requires one to be available when requested (see on call). Was first listed at WT:RFC#call without reply. So I've listed it here. I know you can be on call, but I don't know if such a shift is called a call. Sounds totally weird. Any other dictionaries list this? As it might be hard to cite because of the numerous other meanings of 'call'. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll bet the contributor is thinking of the use of "call" in "call shift" or "on-call shift". "Call shift" seems to possibly merit an entry, but I doubt that there are many uses of "call" in the RfV'ed sense. DCDuring TALK 21:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some cites. google books:"night of call" has a few dozen more. In my experience it's uncountable, so you wouldn't refer to a shift as a call, but rather, simply as "call". In other respects it sometimes blurs with other senses of "call"; for example, it's frequently used with the verb "take" in a way that seems more reminiscent of "take a call" than "take a shift" (in that you can readily say "while taking plastic surgery call", for example, whereas ?"while taking the night shift" is a bit awkward). And one cite (which I didn't add) even used it with the verb "answer" (though that one I think might be an error or idiom blend, because otherwise it doesn't match my understanding of how call works; but my experience is both limited and strictly secondhand, so I really can't say for sure). —Ruakh_TALK 22:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does the first attestation of this in 1978 make call shift (c. 1990) SoP? DCDuring TALK 23:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard theatre workers who must built sets say "I have a work call tomorrow" about as often as "I have work call tomorrow". I think these [27] [28] may be examples of "a call" and this [29] may be an example of "calls". - -sche 08:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cited by Ruakh; I added what I think is another citation (used in the theatrical context I know it from). - -sche (discuss) 19:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

laser light plane

[Laser Light Plane]

Caps? Plural exists? SemperBlotto 15:02, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moved. Plural exists, so definition as "a technique" is probably not the right approach. Might be SoP if there are other light planes not counting aircraft. DAVilla 09:25, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Curious. The definition comes from the referenced document, and is there mostly associated with the initialism "LLP," which is at one point expanded as "Laser Light Plane." Thereafter, "LLP" is used throughout to refer to a particular method (an implementation of a multi-touch technology) that is characterised by its employment of a "laser light plane" - a beam of laser light passed through a "line lens" so that it expands into a planar area. My interpretation, as gleaned from the document, is thus that the term "laser light plane" is SoP, but that a different meaning may be associated with the capitalised term and the initialism. In any case, the latter is a hypothesis that can be put to verification. — Pingku^dimmi 13:30, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mail

Rfv-senses: both adjective forms seem to be attributive uses of the noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:59, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DateTime

I think this needs usage outside of programming languages, seeing as we consider these "not English". -- Prince Kassad 21:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's easy to find uses in English, e.g. This method returns a DateTime representing the first day of the month represented by the instance it is called on. (http://iridescence.no/post/A-Set-of-Useful-Extension-Methods-for-DateTime.aspx) or Convert a UNIX timestamp to a datetime with MySQL (http://www.electrictoolbox.com/mysql-unix-timestamp-to-datetime/). These sentences are written in English, not in a programming language. Lmaltier 16:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rumble Pak

Now this is trademarked, so it definitely needs to meet brand name criteria. -- Prince Kassad 21:46, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hooper

Rfv-sense: "Supporter and/or member of Shamrock Rovers football club". Tagged but not listed. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rationalization hamster

Seems like a clear protologism. Blowfish 06:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sees some use online, but I can only find one durably archived cite (which I've now added to Citations:rationalization hamster). If this does happen to pass, which I rather doubt, I think an RFC is in order. The phrase has a mostly sexist POV, but we should find a way to define it that distances ourselves from that POV. Also, the phrase seems to be figurative, in that many uses treat it as an actual hamster (e.g., speaking of how fast it's running), and/or refer to it simply as a "hamster" after first introducing the concept. Our definition ignores that, making the expression seem more like an opaque idiom than like the metaphor it really is. —Ruakh_TALK 00:15, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

prebendary

Rfv-sense

Adjective (non-comparable) — citation given looks like an attributive use. — Pingku^dimmi 10:27, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tough one to search for, because like many nouns denoting positions, it can be used anarthrously as a predicative complement (as in "he became prebendary"), so almost the only clear-cut uses would be either graded ("very prebendary", "X is more prebendary than Y is"), or else predicative with a plural or inanimate predicand. I haven't found any examples of the former; I'm not sure yet about the latter. Also, some attributive uses can be judged to be adjective uses based on semantics, but that's tricky. Still, I'll give it a shot.

By the way, we seem to be missing a completely different non-comparable adjective sense, meaning something like "of or pertaining to a prebend", but with some sort of extended sense of "prebend" that other dictionaries are missing. (We do have a sense "Political patronage employment", which is in the right direction, but it still doesn't seem to quite fit.) I've added an {{rfdef|lang=en}}, with some cites.

—Ruakh_TALK 02:05, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've had a stab at a sense to do with corruption (also at prebendal). Is it what you had in mind? — Pingku^dimmi 15:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks! —Ruakh_TALK 18:12, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

frottage

Verb: To rub a drawing implement (eg. a pencil, crayon or charcoal) over a piece of paper placed upon a textured surface in order to create a mottled or patterned area.

I didn't find frottaging or frottaged at bgc. DCDuring TALK 12:06, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Uilleann

Does this actually mean anything (especially capitalised)? SemperBlotto 08:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC) p.s. We already have uilleann pipes[reply]

(1)If we have uilleann pipes then obviously it is an adjective. I don't see how you can in good faith ask if the word "actually" does "mean anything" when you yourself verify that it is a type and category which applies to pipes. I don't see the point of any further verification that the word does actually mean anything but I will invite you to be more specific about what you believe should be verified. (a) Doesn't that therefore moot the verification Template? (b)What constitutes "resolution"? Agreement of SemperBlotto? (c) What is the deadline on this putatively pending deletion? (d) What is the venue for the arbitration? (e)i. Is the deletion appealable? ii.To whom? iii.Why is that information included in the template? (f) Why is this thread not located on the discussion page of the word proposed for heightened scrutiny? (2)At minimum, the deletion threat should be withdrawn give 1, above, but I suppose one might reduce the entry to "a type of bagpipe". I don't see the value in that, but that appears to be the maximum remedy that can in good case be applied since the preumptive template-posting editor offers no refutation of the word's adjectival status. Indeed, offers an example of its use in a two word compound. (3) Maybe it should be lower case, I don't have a problem with that. Please note that whether or not a word does "actually mean" anything, capitalization does not intensify paucity of meaning. Hence, I don't understand the parenthetical secondary question. Thank you for your interest in the quality of wiktionary. Please see my requests for comment linked from my UserPage. Geofferybard 21:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "If we have uilleann pipes then obviously it is an adjective", "the preumptive template-posting editor offers no refutation of the word's adjectival status. Indeed, offers an example of its use in a two word compound": Note that plenty of words besides adjectives are used in attributive position. In particular, nouns are commonly used this way: in "high school principal", "high school" is a noun. See Wiktionary:English adjectives for some guidance on identifying adjectives.

Re: "I don't see how you can in good faith ask if the word 'actually' does 'mean anything' […] ": Well, if you read the current entry, you'll see that it doesn't mention whether the word actually means anything! It only gives etymological information.

Re: "What constitutes 'resolution'?": If and when there is consensus that the entry demonstrates that the word meets our criteria for inclusion, it will be resolved as "RFV passed". Conversely, if a long period goes by without such being demonstrated, it will be resolved as "RFV failed" and deleted.

Your tone, by the way, is needlessly adversarial. This isn't a "deletion threat", it's a request that the entry's contents be verified.

—Ruakh_TALK 22:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for verification isn't a 'debate', it's about evidence. Fancy words win you nothing here. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:24, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 03:57, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

semenancy

I can't really face plowing through some of the links this turns up, but certainly there's nothing on google books or google news. Ƿidsiþ 11:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. SB had even less patience than I did. Ƿidsiþ 11:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I did consider adding it to our bad jokes page - but I can never remember what it is called. SemperBlotto 11:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have created WT:BJ shortcut, as "bad jokes". --Dan Polansky 12:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't anyone going to notify me of deleting a word I added? An explanation would be appreciated too. --BrightBlackHeaven 11:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"It doesn't exist". Mglovesfun (talk) 12:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Um, yes it does. Just ask Google. I wasn't aware of the policy on protologisms, I'm new here, so, sorry. The two words I was trying to add (chemognosticism and semenancy) were used in a Wikipedia article (chaos magic) and I thought people would find definitions of these words useful. (The "bad joke" comment above was out of line.) --BrightBlackHeaven 12:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WT:CFI#Attestation, and you're right, they were good jokes. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. And I don't mind if anyone thinks semenancy itself is a joke, I didn't even know what it was before I googled it, I'm saying it's not a bad (or good) joke to imply that this word exists, since it does. --BrightBlackHeaven 12:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You might think that it does imply that the word exists - we cannot tell you what to think. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:47, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's a chance this could pass based on Google Groups alone. Restored, it does seem to mean *something*. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Does that mean "chemognostic" could pass too since it has earlier (since 1997) mentions on Google Groups? --BrightBlackHeaven 14:43, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but chemognostic has never existed. Maybe you mistyped it, I dunno. Chemognosis would pass IMO. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I first made an article for chemognosticism since that was the word used on the wikipedia article, but chemognosis seems to be the word that's used the most, on the internet at least. As far as I understand right now, -gnosis is the gnosis itself, and -gnosticism is the practice of achieving said gnosis, wouldn't they both need to be defined if at least one of them passes the inclusion criteria? Plus chemognostic, the person. --BrightBlackHeaven 15:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Any word will pass RfV if you provide evidence a) that it is actually used in the real world, b) that it actually means what the definition says. SemperBlotto 15:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~I wouldn't know how to prove it besides saying "google it". :/ How would I add any proof in the article?~~ Oh, hold on, I'm actually reading the text on top of this page now. --BrightBlackHeaven 15:23, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to review your policies re citations and post later, but I assure you this esoteric term has been widely used for at least the last century in various sex magick traditions. Crowley uses the term in White Stains I believe - certainly he refers to the practice repeatedly.Thelema23 01:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not if the Hathi or Google Books OCR is correct. Neither White Stains or any of the other 11 books HathiTrust has show hits for semenancy.--Prosfilaes 06:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I'm sorry...you're quite right the word itself is never used in White Stains. The rite was (and is) quite esoteric and Crowley rarely uses the term in his published work. The act however, is referred to repeatedly, albeit most frequently indirectly such as in this instance-

"Viens a moi, qui, raide, couche,Attendant tes desirs lubriques;Tu suces et couvres dans la bouche De l'amour le pouce phallique;Je tremble, en mourant avec feu,Voyant la clarte de tes yeux,Leur flamme mechante, saphique,Brulant en langueur amoureux."Thelema23 02:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 06:50, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

citify

The intransitive senses. "Paris citified", "he citified after moving there"? Equinox ◑ 13:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some citations added, using the present participle. Are these convincing? — Pingku^dimmi 14:56, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find any cites for "citified" in this sense (or the other intransitive sense) either, but I don't know that such an absence should warrant deletion. DCDuring TALK 18:08, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

spaciology

I see only one usable quote on google books- not enough to formulate a definition. Nadando 19:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

brass

Rfv-sense X 3:

Made of brass.
[not challenged] of the colour of brass.
(UK slang) Bad, annoying.
Related to brass instruments.

Sense 1 and Sense 4 seem to be attributive use of the noun. I am just unfamiliar with the UK slang sense. DCDuring TALK 19:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

#1 is not just attributive. Though we're reaching the point where WT:GLOSS needs to define attributive as "adjective-like, without being an adjective". —Ruakh_TALK 19:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We've probably passed that point. DCDuring TALK 21:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

*sigh*

Done —Ruakh_TALK 21:27, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I understand your point. For sense 1, in the uses "That nozzle is brass" and "That is the brass nozzle.", both uses seem more easily interpreted be of the noun than of an adjective. It is most convincing to me that a word is a true adjective when it can be modified by "more" (with "than"), "too", or "very", has a meaning shift. Use following "seem", "become", and "make" doesn't seem to discriminate between mass nouns like brass and possible adjectives like brass. "Brass" fails the "enough" test also, I think: "The nozzle is brass enough to meet the spec." doesn't seem right, in contrast to "The nozzle is corrosion-resistant enough to meet spec." DCDuring TALK 23:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My point is not about the word (deprecated template usage) brass, but about the word (deprecated template usage) attributive, which is a useful technical term with a specific relevant meaning. I think we should try to use it accurately, rather than brandishing it like a fetish whenever we want to say that a noun isn't also an adjective. I don't see how we can have a meaningful discussion about whether a given cite demonstrates adjective-ness without recourse to the real meanings of words like "attributive" and "adjective". For some reason you're very punctilious about the latter, but very libertine about the former. —Ruakh_TALK 01:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which use of the word "attributive"? I don't think that uses of "brass" in most senses where "brass" is predicate are uses of an adjective; I believe they are uses of the noun. Therefore I believe that purported uses of "brass" semantically like sense 1 are all uses of the noun. Our code for this kind of thing focuses on the common attributive use of a word whose syntactic class is in question. Do you have an alternative shorthand tag for this? DCDuring TALK 03:42, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "Which use of the word 'attributive'?": You wrote that "Sense 1 and Sense 4 seem to be attributive use of the noun" (emphasis mine). Hence my reply that sense 1 is not just attributive.

Re: "Do you have an alternative shorthand tag for this?": Well, despite what I wrote at WT:GLOSS#A, I'm not actually 100% sure exactly what you mean by the word "attributive". In this case you could have just said "Sense 1 and Sense 4 seem to be use of the noun", but presumably you included the word "attributive" because there was something you meant to convey with it. Maybe "Sense 1 and Sense 4 seem to be adjective-like use of the noun"? Or "Sense 1 and Sense 4 seem to be adjective-like,-not-adjective use of the noun"? (In the latter case, I suppose we could call it "ALNA".)

That said, it might be a bit premature to be resorting to "code" and "shorthand" regardless, given that different words have different considerations, and I imagine that most editors are not very clear yet on what those considerations are. For example, if we started seeing cites like "the door is car" and "the door became car" and so on, that would be good evidence that car as in "car door" has become an adjective for some people; but cites like "the door is brass" and "the door became brass" and so on are not. Why? Because the relevant sense of "car" is countable and the relevant sense of "brass" is not. This is fairly easy to understand and fairly easy to explain — provided we actually bother to explain it, rather than hiding like hermit crabs inside our unintelligible shorthand.

—Ruakh_TALK 12:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have been crabby here, but how did you know I was an hermit?

re: "attributive". I have inferred from the entries that seem to have PoS sections for both nouns and adjectives that contributors ascribe adjectivity to those words if they occur in pre-head position in a noun phrase. That is the "attributive" position for adjectives. Nouns can also occur in that position, usually in "attributive use" (but sometimes as a complement of the head per CGEL). ("Attributive use of noun(s)|noun phrase(s)" is not exactly a rare collocation. Nor is "attributive" noun.) I don't want to have to explain the whole thing (not that I could, anyway), whenever this comes up - which is often. That is one reason why we have Wiktionary:English adjectives. Perhaps we should have a template that facilitated linkage to pages that explained all this, including controversy, and our operational practice. I found this book passage congenial. DCDuring TALK 18:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like we're still talking at cross-purposes. I think the word "attributive" is useful. "Attributive use of noun" is useful. "Attributive noun" is useful. All of these are great, and useful, and relevant, and we should keep using them in these discussions. My complaint is with using them wrong. You said that the sense "Template:not comparable Made of brass" is "attributive use of the noun"; but by "attributive" it doesn't seem that you meant "attributive", because you're obviously perfectly aware this sense also occurs regularly in predicative use. I just don't get it. Are you assuming that the contributor considered this an adjective because of "brass doorknob" and not because of "doorknob is brass"? If so, that would explain our miscommunication: I'm not making that assumption. It didn't even occur to me until now.
Re: Wiktionary:English adjectives: Can I be bold with that page?
—Ruakh_TALK 18:47, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that it is attributive use of the noun that apparently causes contributors to create the PoS section and add senses to it. If there were clear predicative use of the adjective, there wouldn't be an issue. When a noun PoS exists, predicative use is often ambiguous at best. If the predicative sense were to exist then there is a prima facie case that the sense should be included in the adjective PoS. I am asserting that the sense is that of the noun, which language users normally and naturally often construe as "made of" in the case of mass nouns. DCDuring TALK 19:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your edit summary ("I am not willing to concede that the sense actually exists in predicate use"): I don't get it. Are you saying that "the doorknob is brass" is an attributive use of the word "brass"? Or are you saying said clause means something other than "the doorknob is made of brass"? Or what? —Ruakh_TALK 20:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying that "the doorknob is brass" is predicative use of a sense of brass#Noun that can be construed as "made of brass". Further, I assert that unless it can be shown that there is some use (attributive or predicative) of brass#Adjective in the sense "made of brass" that is gradable, we should not have such a sense for the adjective. I felt that to say that the sense "is" "made of brass" concedes the point that is in question. DCDuring TALK 22:28, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your first two sentences: I agree. (At least, pending evidence to the contrary.) Re: your third sentence: O.K., I half-understand that. But it seems like you're willing to acknowledge that it's "made of brass" when it's attributive, and you only start quibbling when it's predicative. (Your initial comment said that the sense "seem[s] to be attributive use of the noun", and your recent edit summary refused to concede that "the sense actually exists in predicate use". It seems like you should refuse to concede that the sense actually exists, period, even as "attributive use of the noun". It's just a misclassification of some of the noun's uses.) —Ruakh_TALK 22:55, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be more risk to leaving behind a bad soundbyte (a sentence or phrase) than an inconsistent paragraph-long or multiparagraph-long argument, let alone some inconsistency across multiple discussions. Short-attention-span discussions and debates seem to be the rule, especially lately. Now that I think of other times, maybe that isn't so bad. Sh! DCDuring TALK 23:56, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google books search results for "brassest" do not mean "most made of brass" — but "made of brass" is probably absolute. I have added three quotations to the citations page. - -sche 04:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"A very brass band" is used, apparently a pun on meanings [3] and [4]. - -sche 23:12, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Usually we try to avoid wordplay usage in attestation, but maybe some think we should accept it. DCDuring TALK 23:50, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we should count wordplay, but looking through the hits at google books:"a very brass band" (thanks, -sche!), I don't see much evidence that it's wordplay, aside from its pressing an attributive noun into service as an adjective, which I think we more or less have to ignore (else our reasoning would be perfectly circular). If three adjective cites are enough to demonstrate adjectivity, then I think it would be valid to take three of those (though obviously it would be preferable to add three cites with more internal variety). —Ruakh_TALK 00:25, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this one provides another collocation in sense 1. DCDuring TALK 00:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added quotations of "very brass band" to the entry. To which meaning do they belong, [3] or [4]? The word seems to be used in another meaning on Usenet, something like "brazen, impudent". I have added four quotations to Citations:brass. - -sche 00:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added to the entry. - -sche (discuss) 04:43, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RR's

RReally? SemperBlotto 22:14, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good use of WT:BRAND, as do the similar following terms. DCDuring TALK 03:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EB's

Does this really meet our CFI? SemperBlotto 22:16, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

edge

Rfv-sense noun - rock-climbing. Looks like it might be a verb, but is difficult to check. SemperBlotto 22:20, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rainbow

Three newly-added senses: "(US) (American countercultural/contemporary.) Mellow, laid back, peaceful; (US) (American countercultural/contemporary.)Non-racist; (US) (American countercultural/contemporary.)Racially or ethnically blended." Also remember they need to show adjectival use and not just attributive! Equinox ◑ 23:28, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The third one sounds ok to me, as in "rainbow culture". The second one sounds like a closely related sense, the first one, no idea. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at google books:"rainbow community" and google books:"rainbow society" this would pass. I think a better definition would be multicultural and/or ethnically varied (or multi-ethnic?). There seem to be a LGBT sense as well, such as 'In Taipei, gay and lesbian entrepreneurs have joined together to form a "rainbow community."'[30]. Poker sense is ok, though I don't know the poker noun sense above it. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original use of this in the US was explicitly multi-racial, multi-(skin)-colored, as in "white", "black", "brown", "red", and "yellow". I would find it hard to imagine applying the term to say "multicultural" China. DCDuring TALK 03:54, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How many of any of the senses of "rainbow" are used as true adjectives? Most dictionaries don't have an adjective entry. DCDuring TALK 04:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since rainbow doesn't mean "a non-racist" or "a member of the LGBT community", it can't be attributive use of a noun that doesn't exist. Compare with #interwiki above. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice to see how and when the meaning evolved to become more generalized from multiracial to diverse to any specific flavor of diverse. DCDuring TALK 22:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

spruce

Rfv-senses:

Made of the wood of the spruce.
Being from a spruce tree.

Originally at RFD, moved here as adjectival use is a matter of attestation. Usually. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what counts as an adjective in English. In Swedish we make compounds for things like "spruce table" (of the wood) and "spruce cone" (from the tree). But anyway, these examples are easy enough to find on the web, just like "pine" table/cone and "oak" table/leaf. --LA2 19:04, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary:English adjectives gives a bit of guidance. Compounds like you mention aren't (necessarily) using the word as an adjective; you can't say *"this cone is spruce", for example, as you'd expect to be able to if "spruce cone" simply meant "cone that is spruce" (with "spruce" meaning "from a spruce tree"). —Ruakh_TALK 19:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But can you say "this table is oak"? And is that guiding the fact that oak is listed as an adjective? --LA2 21:59, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is just like the discussion about some of the senses of brass#Adjective at #brass. OneLook dictionaries don't have adjective senses for these. I'll bet the OED doesn't either (but only at even money). DCDuring TALK 22:08, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@LA2: Your questions make me think that you're taking "oak" and "pine" to be confirmed adjectives, and asking how "spruce" is different? (Am I right?) If so, I should clarify that I'm not sure that "oak" and "pine" are adjectives, either (at least in the relevant senses). —Ruakh_TALK 21:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I'm asking. I have no real clue what counts as an adjective in English. Why is expired listed as an adjective, but exposed just as a verb form? Why is oak listed as an adjective, if spruce doesn't qualify? --LA2 16:00, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two reasons IMO

There are as yet 'unofficial' tests at WT:English adjectives that some words will meet and someone won't
We're inconsistent on everything due to several reasons, like lack of contributors, personal opinion, etc.

Mglovesfun (talk) 16:22, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

public comment

Looks like sum of parts to me. Needs formatting if OK. SemperBlotto 08:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There might be something to this, but I don't think I can find cites for the definitions given. I have added three cites to the entry but they don't really fit any of the definitions. Current sense 4 seems to be SoP, included in "literal" sense 1. I don't think that "public comment" is used to mean a type of "opportunity" (sense 2) or a type of "written document" (sense 3). "Public comment" is either countable or uncountable. It is (a) comment that may be made to and received by an official body about a matter of public concern, such as a law, regulation, or action, actual or proposed. It seems to have a special legal status in forming a permissible basis for an official decision, at least fictively. DCDuring TALK 04:29, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The legal definition is a part of notice and comment rulemaking. In the U.S., there are numerous Federal Register provisions governing various agencies that require the agencies to have a period for public comment on any proposed rules. Consider:

Before conducting a licensing hearing, the Board must hold at least one public input hearing at which witnesses may testify and the opportunity for public comment is afforded. Id § 1205(b).
Keystone Redevelopment Partners, LLC v. Decker, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 398 (3d Cir. Pa. Jan. 7, 2011)

Note that this relates to a Pennsylvania state law requiring public comment, Pennsylvania Race Horse and Gaming Act, 4 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1205(b)(4), which states that "the board shall establish a public comment period during which time members of the public may address the board regarding the application, license or proposed structural redesign". Compare this to the following from a case absolving a judge from misconduct charges stemming from a joke the judge made during a speech:

So far as can be discerned from the complaint, the joke was not racist, sexist or otherwise invidious; it was not reported in the press or the subject of any significant public comment.
In re Judicial Misconduct, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 2108 (9th Cir. Feb. 2, 2011)

The kind of "public comment" referred to in the first case, conforming to a statutorily mandated opportunity for members of the public to comment in a prescribed time, place, and manner on pending agency rules, is very different from the kind referred to in the second case, which merely reflects that "the public" has chosen to discuss an issue. bd2412 T 15:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One cannot substitute a phrase headed by "opportunity" or "period" or "document" into the citations you have provided. It is this question of wording that has led to my objections to the definitions given. There is something idiomatic here, but our definitions don't meet the substitutability desideratum for definitions. Are we forced to resort to {{non-gloss definition}}? DCDuring TALK 16:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By my reading, there are two idiomatic senses of "public comment", one being a prescribed period and means by which members of the public can submit their opinions about a proposed piece of legislation; and the other being a general expression of public sentiment about something. bd2412 T 19:25, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

spectrum typology

Any takers? SemperBlotto 14:56, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The users two other entries phrasal typology and rhetorical device could use some cleanup. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:43, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pluto

Rfv-sense: "(comics} Famous Disney's dog." No citations at present to support WT:FICTION, or WT:BRAND or that usage actual presumes Disney connection. "Famous dog" should be easy, based on cites that meet WT:FICTION and WT:BRAND. DCDuring TALK 20:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some definition line that merely pointed to Wikipedia might work. DCDuring TALK 20:16, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

full

Rfv-sense: poker, a full house. Citation might be difficult because of the numerous other meanings, but I've been watching poker on TV and to some extent playing for about five years, and I've never heard it called "a full". I was actually trying to find what sense we had to cover things like "aces full" and "queens full". Mglovesfun (talk) 23:25, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isaric

Nothing obvious in Google book search. Not in the OED. SemperBlotto 10:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Aramaic word and root can be verified in the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon, as well as in the Syriac Online Entry Search. The etymology provided is valid and substantiated. -Anonymous User 5:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but nobody's disputing the etymology, just the existence in English with these meanings. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:06, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

strikingthrough

Previous discussion: Talk:strikingthrough.

This had four cites. I was able to find three of them; all three actually used "striking through", so I've removed them from the entry. (Confirmatory URLs are in the edit history.) I couldn't find the fourth one, and am not inclined to credit it any further than the other three, especially since, with all respect to the citer, that quotation's metadata suggest a bit of shoddiness. (For example, the "New York State Federation of Chapters" in question must be the New York State Federation of Chapters of the Council for Exceptional Children.) So as far as I'm concerned, we need three cites that demonstrably use this form. When it comes right down to it, a typed-up quotation in an entry is hearsay, not evidence. ;-) —Ruakh_TALK 14:18, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Groups has this one. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 14:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it. Did you mean strikethrough? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the subject line, viz. "track changes set to underline for insertion but strikingthrough". — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 01:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

brachyology

"A figure of speech that is an abbreviated expression, for example, the omission of "good" in "good morning."

Rhetorical terms are not used consistently, but I haven't found use in this sense. Compare brachylogia, defined at Silva Rhetoricae as "The absence of conjunctions between single words. Compare asyndeton. The effect of brachylogia is a broken, hurried delivery.". Both senses may be correct. DCDuring TALK 01:41, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In OED online the main entry is brachylogy, brachyology being an alternative form. Encyclopedia of Identity defines brachyology as the "intentional shortening of spoken or written statements where full understanding is still assumed." — Pingku^dimmi 04:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Bennett in his New Latin Grammar gives as a defining example (of 'brachylogy'):

ut ager sine cultura fructuosus esse non potest, sic sine doctrina animus.

as a field cannot be productive without cultivation, so the mind (cannot be productive) without learning.

He also identifies zeugma and compendiary comparison as varieties. — Pingku^dimmi 10:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I wonder when the last time is that someone used the word in these senses. So many rhetorical terms seem to have fallen into disuse. I think I have found a source that has all the senses of this and all of its hyponyms. It will not be so easy to find usable citations for all the meanings. DCDuring TALK 11:30, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

syntexis

Rfv-senses emaciation and wasp SemperBlotto 08:18, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"emaciation" sense appears in a medical dictionary. DCDuring TALK 11:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - I've found it now. SemperBlotto 12:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Syntexis

I split this entry from syntexis. There does appear to be a one-species genus, a type of sawfly or woodwasp. DCDuring TALK 11:52, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK too. SemperBlotto 12:02, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Baidouska

Encyclopedic definition, almost certainly not attestable in its excruciating detail. DCDuring TALK 19:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, I object to the notion that the facts in a definition must be "attestable". No such requirement is described in WT:CFI, and I don't think such a requirement is tenable. Our definitions shouldn't be encyclopedic, but "attestability" is not the reason. (I should create a template for this comment.) —Ruakh_TALK 02:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the reason definitions shouldn't be encyclopedic? How can a contributor tell whether a contribution is encyclopedic? What fact-based standard is there about definitions? There seems to be no internal compass that enables most contributors to distinguish encyclopedic from non-encyclopedic content.

If we wish to create a class of entries that are permitted to be encyclopedic or simply not bother with the distinction, we may of course do so. We will need to have some additional standards for enforcing a level of quality control on our entries. Are we just to accept references from "authorities"? Will there be any limit on the types of entries for which references will be accepted? Would references have more or less force than attestation? DCDuring TALK 04:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am echoing Ruakh: 'I object to the notion that the facts in a definition must be "attestable". No such requirement is described in WT:CFI, and I don't think such a requirement is tenable.' --Dan Polansky 08:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the idea of attesting senses is well established. We regularly amend senses to fit the citations provided. What seems new is applying attestation to proper nouns. That in turn follows from the breaching of barriers against inclusion of entries that have little prospect for anything but encyclopedic content and contributors who seem to lack the cultural knowledge to produce usage-based definitions intuitively. I don't really trust anyone's intuitive definitions of any term, but some contributors seem to have no ability to produce a definition without copying. If no dictionary has the term, they seem to have recourse to encyclopedias for the definitions. But an encyclopedia is not a long-form dictionary. It is its own thing with its own standards, in which considerations of ordinary usage do not loom large.

I never understood why there was not a practice of trying to infer from usage what people actually meant by proper nouns. The effort to find what "Lassie" actually means when used shows that there is a set of attributes which seem to be invoked by the use of "Lassie", but that many characteristics need to be explicitly repeated. Relying on external sources for definitions has not proven a major problem for most older true dictionary entries, as Webster 1913 and Century provide copyright-free sources and other online lemming-sources provide a way of pointing out missing senses. Newer words usually require attestation to allow inference of meaning. DCDuring TALK 12:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just proper nouns; as I mentioned before, the same thing applies to, say, (deprecated template usage) goose. More generally, there are many words where usage seems to be guided by something like ostensive understanding (it's a duck because it looks and walks and quacks like a duck, and I know what a duck looks and walks and quacks like because I've seen other ducks, and I know that those were ducks because . . . ; she's Ibo because she speaks Ibo and belongs to the Ibo ethnic group, and the Ibo ethnic group consists of people who are Ibo, and Ibo is the language they speak, and I know that the language is Ibo because . . .), and I simply don't think it's possible to capture that sort of understanding in a dictionary definition without resorting to factual information.

By the way, relatedly, I think we should always keep reality in mind when writing definitions, even if reality has no bearing on usage. Many English speakers have believed that dragons were real, and that belief affected their usage of the term; but we would do our readers a disservice if we included a definition of (deprecated template usage) dragon written from that perspective.

—Ruakh_TALK 17:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As you know I am an advocate and practitioner of ostensive definitions: pictures, drawings, examples (rhetorical figures), and even sound files. Are they encyclopedic? Even if they are, they seem to correspond closely to the idea that a word often has a central concrete representative.

But verbal definitions necessarily place a great reliance on the selection by the definition writer of salient features to include in the definition. I cannot think of a better way to find out what features of the referent of a word are most saliently evoked by its use than by an attestation process. We routinely do this for words other than proper nouns, unless we are just lazily copying other dictionaries' definitions.

For many words we have only technical definitions of terms that clearly are normally used without knowledge of the elements of the definitions we provide. The average golfer using a golf club with a "titanium shaft" is completely unaware of virtually all of the components of the definition we provide: "a chemical element, atomic number 22; it is a strong, corrosion-resistant transition metal, used to make light alloys for aircraft etc." It is not merely a problem of length. The problem begins with the choice of the word "element" rather than, say, "material" or "metal". I have no objection to having a definition such as ours in the context {{chemistry}}. But the folks who name products are far ahead of us in understanding what such words actually mean to normal people ("hi-tech", high-performance, high-status). We could do worse than pay attention to such usage in preparing definitions. ::::I would suggest that "titanium" needs a first definition something like "A strong metal used in demanding aerospace, marine, medical, and sports applications." The second definition can be something more like what we have.

Almost all definitions of basic technical terms should have a general non-technical definition reflecting actual usage. Something similar would apply to a term like "goose", whose first sense should not include its taxon. DCDuring TALK 18:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "The average golfer using a golf club with a 'titanium shaft' is completely unaware of virtually all of the components of the definition we provide": Well, so what? If I say "titanium" and you say "titanium" we're still talking about the same thing, and using the same word in the same sense, even if one of us knows more about titanium than the other. A golfer who speaks of his golf club's "titanium shaft" doesn't just mean that the shaft is made of a strong metal with certain other users, he means that it's made of the strong metal that chemists and materials scientists refer to as "titanium". If you give him a club with a titanium shaft and one with an adamantium shaft and he finds no golfing-relevant difference between the two, his reaction will be, "wow, adamantium is just as good as titanium!", not "O.K., so 'adamantium' means 'titanium'". (That's a cool thing about words: we can use them to store information that we don't even have. I can use "titanium" coherently and meaningfully to mean "whatever it is that 'titanium' means". But it'd be a crappy dictionary that tried to define it that way!)
Overall, I think you're making a great point, but I think you're taking it too far, and — if I may speak relevantly for a moment — our current CFI still don't demand three cites for each aspect of a definition, even if you convinced me that they should.
—Ruakh_TALK 18:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing against there being a "technical" definition. I object to its having no usage context. I believe that your position requires a great deal more acceptance of authority than one that is based more on attestation.

In the case of Baidouska, I have added an external video link so as to provide another ostensive definition, in addition to the WP article linke. Combined these links make something far better IMHO than a definition based on what one person thinks salient that is short enough for a dictionary.

I have brought this item here for attestation for a few reasons:

just in case someone could actually show that there is attestation in some context.
to illustrate what is meant by encyclopedic in a definition.
to discourage contributors from abdicating the task of making usage-based English definitions.
to defend the proper role of a dictionary relative to an encyclopedia.
to justify in advance the editing of encyclopedic entries into dictionary entries.

I am greatly relieved that I do not need to bring each encyclopedic definition to RfV.

Citations:Lassie is a complement to this discussion, illustrating IMO problems with many of the citations that might be used to justify encyclopedic content. DCDuring TALK 19:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need multiple definitions that mean the same thing. If the set of creatures signified as "goose" in common usage is equivalent to the set of creatures signified by the taxon, then we should use the taxon. Moreover, define goose without including its taxon. Give me a definition of goose that completely specifies the creature in such a way that it's clear that swans and ducks aren't geese, and isn't encyclopedic.--Prosfilaes 19:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Collins Pocket provides: "a fairly large web-footed long-necked migratory bird." Encarta provides: "long-necked water bird: a large waterfowl with a long neck and webbed feet, noted for its seasonal migrations and distinctive honking sound. Geese resemble swans but have shorter necks. Subfamily Anserinae. I admire the three-level Encarta approach: 1., the bold terse lead, 2., the longer, ordinary-English definition, and 3., the link to the world of taxons. DCDuring TALK 23:30, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would echo Ruakh again. What I would add is perhaps this: A quotation serving as an attestation of a use of a term is typically silent on the details of what the term means precisely because it already presupposes that the reader knows the term. A sentence that does not presuppose the previous knowledge of the term typically explains the term, and is thereby qualified as a mention of the term, and thus a poor quotation for attestation purposes. Quotations attesting details of the meanings of terms can probably be found for many terms, but these would be mention quotations, a set disjuct with the set that we normally accept. --Dan Polansky 17:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted the last two sentences and, voila, it's no longer an encyclopedic definition. ---> Tooironic 05:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely an improvement, but the existence of more than one sentence or more than 40 words in a definition is not necessary for a definition to be encyclopedic. DCDuring TALK 12:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No real opinion, but the Wikipedia article is Paidushko_horo, and w:Special:WhatLinksHere/Paidushko_horo doesn't even list this in the redirects, suggesting our title is either wrong, or a less common form. The translations seem to "support" this too. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:41, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Striking as cleaned up. Or was it actually verification that is needed? DAVilla 16:56, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unstriking, yes, three citations please. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, like Mglovesfun I would like to see citations. I see only two in Usenet and only one in Google Books that could be acceptable. - -sche 18:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unstriking. I don't think that the English terms attestably bears the meaning relating to the beat. What the dance is and what the word means are the essence of the distinction between encyclopedic and lexicographic, especially at a truly descriptive dictionary as we claim to be. If we want to claim that, because some people (trained musicians ?) attestably use the translations of the word as having the meaning of having a certain beat, the English word has that meaning to general users of a dictionary, we can do so. But I believe that we are eliminating distinctions among languages and among usage contexts within languages. DCDuring TALK 17:12, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The specific portion of the definition that needs attestation (or simple deletion) is: "done to a 5-beat meter, divided into "quick-slow" units of two and three beats." If English attestation is found, the attestation source may provide a clue about usage context of a definition with such a component. DCDuring TALK 17:58, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, what the dance is is part of the definition. Our definitions should make it clear how something differs from similar somethings--"A folk dance of Bulgaria and Macedonia" is a lousy definition because it doesn't give you any way to distinguish between this folk dance and others. It's like defining communism as "an economic theory".--Prosfilaes 19:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  But the words that create the discrimination should be intelligible to a general reader and not require a paragraph. In the case of Wiktionary, we have multiple means of providing a user with a means of gaining a more direct experience of the definiendum: a photo or drawing, a sound file, a link to WP (and/or other sister projects), references, and links to external sites. In this case, I believe that the YouTube video I added is vastly superior in breadth of reach and specificity to the wordy definition and even the WP article. I don't think a still picture is much help and couldn't find a sound or image file at Commons.
  
  As for communism, I don't think our definition at sense 1 is especially good at distinguishing communism from the ideology of the British Labor Party in the '50s, a distinction that seemed very important to users of the word at the time. It might be an adequate definition for a dictionary, but it does not succeed in making the distinctions that would ideally be made. I think this is a problem of any usefully short definition that reflects actual usage. DCDuring TALK 20:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  The problem with a photograph or video is that it doesn't express the range of the subject. We can illustrate Chihuahua with the same picture as dog definition 1 and dog definition 2. The same creature might fit all three definitions, but the meaning of those definitions is quite different. Moreover, words are the only medium that can reach the blind and deaf and even deaf-blind.
  
  communism is its own bear, like any other word that has been used and abused as a political football over the years. But we still need definitions that separate it from capitalism and feudalism, as users are generally agreed it's separate from those things, and definitions that briefly explain its relation to socalism.--Prosfilaes 20:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  The problem of diverse natural kinds can be addressed by galleries and by single photos suggesting the range of possibilities. The latter is quite easily found for dogs. In any event users don't expect perfect knowledge from a dictionary or even an encyclopedia. I always expect users to select the appropriate medium for their capabilities. I have nothing against providing technical definitions and links to WP. If such definitions would provide a means for the differently abled to get a deeper understanding of "titanium" or "dog" or "Baidouska", then so much the better. But it should not be necessary for standard-configuration humans to have had a Physics or Chemistry class to get some basic idea of what titanium is, as "element" presupposes IMO.
  
  In my discussion of communism, I was just trying to work with the example you provided. Why don't you take a run at improving our definition of communism so it exemplifies the kind of differentiation that verbal dictionary definitions can achieve. At least we would then have one better definition.
  Do we have that many users that don't know what an element is? Provide a link to element, then; it's certainly a simpler word and easier to explain then metal.--Prosfilaes 18:07, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  Very few people have any direct experience of titanium in the real world except as the metal. They experience titanium dioxide as a pigment. To insist on the superior reality of the technical view seems to be a new technocratic form of prescriptivism. "Metal" may hard to explain because it is not a new-fangled artificial concept, but one that has existed for a long time and has intuitive meaning relating to the tactile and other qualities that people experience. That some materials that chemists call metals don't have some these qualities and that metals don't have those qualities in all environments does not diminish the linguistic reality that metal has a principally non-technical meaning in the language. DCDuring TALK 18:32, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kirov

Rfv-sense X 2:

a small village in Adygea, Russia
a town in Armenia

Normal English attestation, usage not mention, etc. DCDuring TALK 20:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed, without prejudice, because no one provided citations. - -sche (discuss) 06:52, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

give a damn

Rfv-sense for the meaning of "to look after". Is this really distinct from the first sense? bd2412 T 19:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to RFD or delete outright - no, it isn't. Usex is clearly for sense #1. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:24, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it is not attestable as a distinct sense, I see no reason to go to RFD. I just wasn't sure that there might not be some real evidence of a separate use. bd2412 T 21:12, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disney

Rfv-sense X 4. Various entities connected with the corporate entity. I believe each needs to be separately attested under WT:BRAND, but in any event, attested. There is a missing sense of the same type without the very specific entities that, I think, may be more easily attested under WT:BRAND. DCDuring TALK 19:40, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I just removed another Daniel sense: "An incorrect name sometimes used to refer to other, non-Disney, animation companies, apparently expressing some amount of confusion or misinfirmation on the part of the speaker." This is like somebody mistaking one kind of flower for another and giving it the wrong name. Certainly not for a dictionary to clear up. Equinox ◑ 13:09, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

baer

Did this Limburgish word really mean "dog" in the past? I have not found references. - -sche 21:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Limburgish Wiktionary apparently lists it, too (but doesn't note it being obsolete). --JorisvS 22:38, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've converted the {{rfv-sense}} to an {{attention|li}}; I withdraw/strike my RFV quite a while after being given assurance by a Limburgish editor that the word is in use. - -sche (discuss) 07:00, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sunyata

"Sunyata" is used in philosophy and theology discussions particularly East - West dialogue. Apparently someone deleted it and cited a general article on Criteria for Inclusion, almost none of which was pertinent. Without further specification, it seems that the concern was

"Note:# Any word in any language might be borrowed into English, but only a few actually are. Including spaghetti does not imply that ricordati is next (though it is of course fine as an Italian entry)."

The word sunyata, like karma and nirvana (from which it is linked), is used in English discussion, albeit not as widely. In other words, it is like, if not spaghetti, certainly it is like rigatoni.

Procedural, if one or more editors believe sunyata does not meet CFI, I would request a seven day minimum RFD discussion thread, thank you. Geof Bard 18:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is not RFD; this is RFV; and the proof is in the pudding. If you want the senses to stay, provide 3 proper citations for each.--Prosfilaes 19:18, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know what this is and is not. Thank you. Maybe I should have posted this as a request for comments in the Tea Room since I apparently have the burden of providing the verifications. Didn't think there would be any harm asking others to contribute verifications. Since when are deletions just made arbitrarily without notice and without the seven day discussion, anyway? I am being patient with the process here, which violates it's own practice as well as its own posted rules. If sunyata should be deleted, so should alfredo and nirvana. All I ask is the seven days of discussion rather than deletion-without-notice. Geof Bard 19:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The "Not dictionary material: please see WT:CFI" part of his deletion summary was not really the reason for deletion; it was that it had a Sanskrit language header but it was in Latin script. It should be okay now.

When administrators delete a page, they have the option of selecting the reason from a drop-down list of reasons. As a result, sometimes the reasons are unclear or vague when they don't think that hard as to which reason really applies. It happens that there's nothing in CFI about using the wrong script, but he probably assumed there was somewhere. I've done that myself on occasion. In this case, he added an extra note in the deletion summary so that's how you can know the problem.

If you're ever unsure why an entry was deleted, you can always ask an administrator such as me (or better still the deleting administrator) for clarification. If you still think that it was deleted in error, you can post on WT:BP or a similar forum.

—Internoob (Disc•Cont)18:59, 26 February 2011 reposted from UserTalk by third party

1 (UTC)

RFV ~~Annuled~~ Withdrawn by Original Requesting Editor RENEWED by New Requesting Editor User:Ruakh The entry existed unchallenged under an alternate spelling (shunyata and no third party requested verification. Administrator Internoob, who presumably can see the deleted entry, stated the issue "was that it had a Sanskrit language header but was in Latin script". That same admin stated "it should be ok now." That language substantially closes the RFV, if it had been valid in the first place. However, it was based upon the erroneous presumption that the deletion was for other reasons. Additionally, six citations have been placed on the sunyata entry, three for each sense. (Note, this is not a closure-by-Non-Admin, it is a revocation by the Requster. . Geof Bard 20:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No annulments granted once the RfV has been consummated by discussion, except to especially generous cash donors to WMF. The citations do not all seem to be from durably archived sources. The definitions appear tendentious as well, not necessarily corresponding to, say, newspaper usage of the term. DCDuring TALK 21:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFV's are sometimes annuled by request; but only if no-one objects; if someone does, they can simply add back the rfv tag and start again. The more I read this debate, the less I understand. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:32, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This started when SemperBlotto deleted the entry sunyata because it had a Sanskrit header and was written in Latin script. Then Geof added it again and inquired here and on my talk page (at almost the same time) as to why it was deleted without discussion. I see that he has reposted what I said on my talk page above and I stand by that. It should be alright assuming that it is attestable, which I have no reason to doubt that it is. [31] —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 21:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well yeah I appreciate all the comments. Problem - deleted pages not visible to non-admins, so we have to guess what was deleted and why, specifically. I thought by the time I wrote sunyata I had learned from Bodhipathapradīpa but not sure. Just going by what the deletion citation was, it looked like a matter of demonstrating English usage. But after citing six, and I don't see that they are necessarily so non "durable", I noticed the same word shunyata which, like most words, does not have citations. So, whatever people want to do but if anyone serious thinks it is rfd please template it thanks. Geof Bard 22:01, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, Ruakh renewed the RFV? I think that this edit was only a notice to readers that this discussion existed on this page. Did he say somewhere else that he wanted to? —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 22:46, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I hereby say so. The entry is a total mess, and valid, formatted, linkified quotations will help determine which parts of the entry need to be fixed and which parts need to be axed. (They will also help with the fixing of the former parts.) —Ruakh_TALK 01:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that Ruakh actually does some of the work not just whining but with five quotations, surely some of them are "valid", as compared to zero quotations at shunyata. What is the big deal about this particular entry, there are hundreds of thousands of entries which are not nearly as well documented - for instance karma, which only has one example quote, not a citation; nothingness, no quotes, no citations; Zeit: no quotes, no citations. Geof Bard 02:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Anyone can RFV any entry. (2) Surely some of them are valid doesn't cut it. All of the citations should follow CFI and be appropriately formatted. (3) Generally citations will not be demanded for words that can obviously meet CFI. Karma, nothingness, Zeit, all are words that probably have a hundred thousand possible valid citations. RFVing them won't do any good. For this entry, it's not obvious without cites that it will pass CFI, at least to me, and even if it does, there's a question of whether all the definitions do, and whether all definitions are clearly distinct.--Prosfilaes 02:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hand-egg

This doesn't appear to be a real word or definition. There are no mentions of it's use. 184.97.225.195 23:30, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No hyphenated hits on Google Books or Google Groups. —Ruakh_TALK 19:21, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the word used with that definition a few times in normal conversation. So I can confirm it is real. But it was spelled handegg with no hyphen then. —CodeCa t 19:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only written mention I could find was an editorial from the New York Times. [32] The term appears to be just used in online culture. I'm not sure of Wiktionary policies on inclusion but I assumed it was not a repository for internet culture and neologisms. 184.97.225.195 20:51, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even the NYT cite is mention not use. DAVilla 06:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move the content to handegg. - -sche (discuss) 23:29, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved the content. Hand-egg fails RFV and can be deleted. - -sche (discuss) 18:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cetera paribus

L2 header Latin, but categorized as English phrase. I would think it an uncommon misspelling/misconstruction of ceteris paribus in English and probably just an error in Classical Latin. I have no idea about its possible standing in Vulgar Latin. DCDuring TALK 18:57, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a simple mistake by an English speaker mixing up "et cetera" with "ceteris paribus". I suggest moving this to RFD. —An gr 15:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timed out DCDuring TALK 20:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hickster

Does this make any sense to anyone? SemperBlotto 20:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[comment removed due to copyright violation]

That's kinda what I got out of it--someone trying to fit in pretentiously or awkwardly, a wanna-be, poser. Does it carry any pejorative connotation? Leasnam 20:22, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

dàirich

Can't seem to find this in any dictionary, though I did find (and add) (deprecated template usage) dàir, the supposed etymon of this. embryomystic 22:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Śūnyatā

Tagged but not listed. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:39, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

watutso

Tagged by a new user but not listed. Watutsi seems to be okay, the other three forms don't seem to be attested on Google Books at all, so we'll need other sources. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wellness

Italian only: tagged but not listed. Google Books suggests this might pass, but it's very rare indeed. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:56, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see only a very recent and very rare use of the word, limited to a few company names (health centers, spas, etc) and "creative" commercial communications; the word "benessere" is the litteral correspondent to the English word. I wouldn't say the word is used in Italian. --Fantasma 19:15, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is modern. It has made it to [33] SemperBlotto 22:25, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've added four citations for "la wellness"; "il wellness" actually gets more hits though many of them seem to refer to company names. It's very rare as either masculine or feminine, but seems to be attestable. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:22, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

abduction

Rfv-sense X 3.

(computing) The process of inference to the best explanation; abductive reasoning.
Determining the best or most plausible of many possible explanations for a set of facts
(education) The process used in getting students to see disciplinary regularity through the use of metaphor.

We have a sense for the logic context that seems valid: A syllogism or form of argument in which the major is evident, but the minor is only probable.

The three RfVed senses have no citations, the first two seeming possibly included in the logic sense above, the education sense seems tendentious, possibly a copy of an ad hoc definition in a monograph or text. DCDuring TALK 21:26, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Timed out. Uncited DCDuring TALK 22:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

/s

Do we allow HTML tags and other syntax to be part of our dictionary? (test rendered as test) If so, should they be verified as being in common use, and how should they be used? At the end, the beginning, or the middle of a clause or statement? And is this the correct entry to use, or should it be relegated to the unsupported titles appendix instead, where it can use the < and > tags in the title? TeleComNasSprVen 23:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Entry looks really wrong; if it were actually in use and attestable as such we'd keep it, but I can't imagine it's the case. HTML isn't considered to be any 'language' so it doesn't meet CFI, but it's claiming to be humorous use (in English) of faux-HTML. But... nah. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the Web page listed in the entry's References section, the pagetitle is correct (sans angle brackets). This is not an HTML tag, but something (if our entry — and said Web page — is correct) people use to tag their sentences to indicate sarcasm online. (Compare, though the analogies are imperfect, (deprecated template usage) quote used to tag a quotation, and (deprecated template usage) :-) used to tag something lighthearted.) It is English and carries meaning, so seems to be inclusible if verifiable.—msh210℠ (talk) 07:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard the same for strikethroughs (as in "I did not mean to say that"). TeleComNasSprVen 05:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be in NS:0 if it's an unsupported title. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with it, as long as it's used in running English text. DAVilla 06:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clocked out DCDuring TALK 20:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 07:05, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

March 2011

語感

Original contributor does not list proficiency in Japanese or Korean, and no references are cited. -- A-cai 01:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A simple Google search gives pretty much what you wanted for the verification: [34] [35]. What's the point of this request? Doubting the ability of others without providing some evidence of it is not the way to go. 129.78.32.22 01:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Would be nice to cite it. Anyone? Mglovesfun (talk) 09:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ŝpruci

I'm seeing a couple transitive uses in Google News, but nothing to indicate that there's a different transitive meaning, or even that those uses aren't simple mistakes. I put one in an HTML comment, since I didn't think it supported the sense. Furthermore the current example sentence implies a far more specialized usage then the definition offers.--Prosfilaes 02:49, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

viâ

English alternative spelling of via. Two more citations needed. DCDuring TALK 19:36, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are three, though this passes as "clearly widespread use" IMO. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 19:04, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done, but I don't really see why this needed to be an RFV, considering how many thousands of hits Google Books got on this, and how clear it was that at least many of them were in this sense. (Possibly all, but I didn't check.)--Prosfilaes 20:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in the original scanned pages, the first and third of the cites have the headword in italics, which we don't consider as valid English attestation of such a spelling. I couldn't get access to the second citation via the link. DCDuring TALK 23:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The (now reordered) second cite has Lignes de Normandie (England viâ Dieppe or Le Havre), which means it didn't put viâ into italics to mark it as foreign.--Prosfilaes 00:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This seems dated, UK, AFAICT. Perhaps it was widespread there once. DCDuring TALK 19:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cleverality

We need cites for this. DCDuring TALK 03:11, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Her husband soon gets tired of "too much cleverality."[36] It was real cleverality in the callant.[37] Sheridan might be clever; yes, Sheridan was clever — scamps often are — but Johnson hadn'ta spark of cleverality in him.[38] What exactly is behind this taking to RFV words that can be trivially cited by Google Books?--Prosfilaes 03:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't nail down a date or author for the quote attributed to Bronte. Which edition of Gaiskell's biography? Was it from a leter to or from Nussey? It seems to be second or third hand. Anyway, I have other cites. It is cited to my satisfaction. DCDuring TALK 04:34, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hyperochality

The entry contains one cite for hyperocality. I can find no other cites for either spellling. The one cite is not from a well-known work AFAICT. DCDuring TALK 04:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

farrant

Any takers? SemperBlotto 17:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing a bunch of mentions and even some uses for a "handsome, neat, orderly" and even "good" sense (for farrantly (current redlink) more, but also possibly sufficiently many for farrant or especially the older farande), but none for the RFVed sense of "short, brief".—msh210℠ (talk) 20:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a Surrey slang, but perhaps only in recent usage (4 years or so), what is the Wiktionary stance on that kind of thing? Maybe better as an Urban Dictionary entry?

Needs written attestation. Sometimes local words like this are only ever spoken, and we can't document that. Wiktionary is a written project. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:12, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

triquarter

Nothing obvious on Google book search. Needs formatting if OK. SemperBlotto 17:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've assembled some citations but it looks like a word that has been repeatedly nonced. No way the definitions can be supported based on what I've found. DCDuring TALK 19:01, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The hyphenated citations currently on the citations page (except perhaps the last of them) seem clearly to mean "three-quarter", "of three quarters". If all these people thought they were coining words, you'd think some of them would put it in quotation marks or add "if you will" or something, which none of them did (in the quoted passages). I think they're good cites (not for the RFVed spelling, though).—msh210℠ (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mak su

English: a dish. I see three Web hits for "eat mak su", all of which capitalize it as Mak Su. There are other senses on bgc, whihc makes it a little hard to search for. (They may well be transliterations, though.)—msh210℠ (talk) 20:49, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

vranyo

In the google books hits that I've seen so far this transcription of a Russian word appears in italics and/or preceded or immediately followed with an explanation. That wouldn't seem to indicate that it is part of the English lexicon. If the Russian entry has the transcription, then users would find the meaning anyway. DCDuring TALK 03:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WT:CFI says “They raised the jib (a small sail forward of the mainsail) in order to get the most out of the light wind,” is a great quote. Policy does not support your demand for an explanationless quotation.--Prosfilaes 19:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I stand, well sit actually, corrected. DCDuring TALK 20:02, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not italicized, though....—msh210℠ (talk) 09:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

iPSC

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

Did you try? Google scholar results are easy to find 65.95.15.144 05:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I wonder if we should include Google Scholar as an attestable source in our Searchable external archives index. TeleComNasSprVen 05:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As this is a medical/biology topic, there's always PubMed 65.95.15.144 06:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should prefer attestation that is not behind a pay wall. DCDuring TALK 16:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Medline is free, I think. And comprises journal and proceedings articles only, I think.—msh210℠ (talk) 09:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

qex

From rfc. No idea what this is, and no obvious cites in b.g.c. -- Prince Kassad 10:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hostis humani generis

Legal. Only one citation of this not in italics. Might be valid. DCDuring TALK 23:00, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO this request should be dismissed on the grounds that the use of italics does not detract from the phrase's being used in English text. When italics uses are included, the phrase is easy to attest in English texts by searching in Google books. See also #ejusdem generis below. As said, let us dismiss this nomination and get to real work that increases the value of Wiktionary to its users. --Dan Polansky 10:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I second Dan Polansky's admonition here. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:12, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ejusdem generis

Needs citations of use in English (no italics, no quotation marks). DCDuring TALK 00:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no actual rule about italics and quotation marks. You can use italics for things like crème brûlée as it's a foreign phrase, but it's still English in the sense 'used in English'. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we want to start blurring the distinction between use and mention, we can. I thought we didn't want to. I don't want to. DCDuring TALK 14:28, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But the use of italics doesn't mean the phrase is only mentioned, not used. Surely this is an example of "ejusdem generis" being used in English. In the following paragraph, personal names and even the words May and July are italicized. —An gr 15:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't seem sure to me.

Also, what part of speech does the phrase assume? Our definition defines it as a noun, a "rule", which would possibly make it English if it is so used. Is it common or proper?

But the example in the link you provided seems to deploy the italicized phrase borrowing its grammar from Latin: as if it were a prepositional phrase serving as an adjective (though it might also be deployed as if an adverb). DCDuring TALK 16:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do agree, though, that it's clearly a use and not a mention? (I'm not dismissing your other concerns, but given your earlier comment, I'd like to be clear on whether we need to keep arguing about that point or not. :-P ) —Ruakh_TALK 17:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some quotations that appear to use the phrase, requiring the reader to know what the phrase means in order to understand the quotations: [39], [40], [41], [42]. There are two quotations that do not even use italics: [43], [44]. The phrase "ceteris paribus" is often used in italics, but it is still used rather than mentioned; the use of italics has nothing to do with the use-mention distinction; and it is a phrase that Wiktionary should better define as one that is used in English, albeit a foreign one. --Dan Polansky 10:14, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting myself: the use of italics has something to do with use-mention distions, as italics is often used in English instead of quotations marks. So instead of '"sun" is a word', you can write 'sun is a word'. But I do not think that the practice of putting Latin phrases in italics indicates that they are used in quotation marks, as it were; but even if they were, the italicized Latin phrases are still being used rather than mentioned. --Dan Polansky 10:24, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An additional issue: Whether or not we allow an English entry for (deprecated template usage) ejusdem generis, we can't have Latin entry at that page title, either — Wiktionary:About Latin#Prefer spellings with I; do not use J requires (deprecated template usage) eiusdem generis. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 16:09, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't the later Latins (Medieval, Ecclesistical, New) use "j" and "u"?

Is "English" the right L2 for such terms rather than "Translingual"? I would think that many expressions in legal and medical Latin similarly are used in more than one European language. DCDuring TALK 17:23, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: DCDuring above "If we want to start blurring the distinction between use and mention, we can". Are you suggesting that de facto (as an example) when italicized isn't English, but used with no italics, it is? Use of italics can demonstrate a non-English word/term, but it's not the only way to use italics. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:33, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What bothers me is that it is a stretch to call these English. The italicization is an indication. The expressions are used in English text as if they were idioms. They do require lookup for most users. They may not be idiomatic in Latin. Should we call these Translingual based on use in multiple European languages or Latin if only in English? I really don't see why they have to be considered English. DCDuring TALK 22:00, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because they may not be idiomatic, or even grammatical, in Latin? When a monolingual speaker uses a phrase in his native language, then there's a good argument that it's in his native tongue, especially if it has a set meaning, and isn't a quote. It's quite likely the meaning of this in Latin, if it has one, is not nearly as limited and formal as its meaning in English.--Prosfilaes 22:44, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some legal and medical Latin may actually be Translingual (more or less European). The meanings may be sufficiently shared in that community even if not idiomatic in Latin.

@DCDuring: Yeah, that bothers me, too, though not to such an extent that I would want the ==English== entries removed. But it would be nice if they had some sort of context tag, something to clearly mark them as foreign. Would that make the entries more palatable to you? The OED used to do something like that; it used a symbol (viz. ‖), but of course we always prefer textual tags for things. (In its key, the OED glosses that symbol as "not naturalized, alien". (alien) is not very clear IMHO, but (not naturalized) might work. What do you think?) —Ruakh_TALK 00:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That might work for me, but how about ordinary users? Garner's Modern American Usage has some pertinent observations in its short article on italics. "[W]hen that [naturalization] happens, the terms are written in ordinary roman type." The article concludes: "A good dictionary usually provides guidance on which terms should be italicized." Would "not naturalized" be better than "usually italicized"?

I was thinking that medical and legal Latin might have merited Translingual treatment. But the problem of presentation of not-yet-naturalized terms is more general. I think it is much more noticeable for multiword terms, which are common in legal Latin. Such multiword terms seem to often resist naturalization. DCDuring TALK 01:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Translingual and pronunciation: One reason for not having these phrases as translingual is that their pronunciation varies with language. Placing a tag "often italicized" or "always italicized" somewhere to the entry, whether on the definition line or into a usage note, seems worthwhile. --Dan Polansky 09:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

When, as and if we actually have differing pronunciation for these usually written terms we should definitely accommodate such. In the meantime why bother? DCDuring TALK 13:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If at least two languages use the phrase, then there will be at least two pronunciations at some point. If only English uses the phrase, then filing the phrase under the head of "English" seems just right. I don't understand why you bother to try to get deleted this phrase via RFV, a phrase that is often used in English: I get 102,000 Google web hits and 62,400 Google books hits for the phrase when the search is constrained to "English". Your introducing statement "Needs citations of use in English" showed no sign of hesitation as if you were proceeding as a matter of routine or common practice, which really is not the case. --Dan Polansky 20:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I originally thought that this might perhaps not be attestable except in italics, which indicates either that a term has not been naturalized as English or that it is being mentioned not used. DCDuring TALK 22:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

à propos de bottes

English expression? DCDuring TALK 00:48, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, google books:"à propos de bottes you|are|am|is|there|the" has four hits, two of which are uses, both italicized. A better search along the same lines may yield more results, of course.—msh210℠ (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a couple more citations, courtesy of gutenberg.org. — Pingku^dimmi 11:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of the cites are italicized. I thought that italics for such an expression means that it is not English. Thus, this is presumably French, possibly dated, archaic, obsolete, or even ungrammatical in French. I had looked and found only italic/quotation-mark usage in English. DCDuring TALK 14:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to "I thought that italics for such an expression means that it is not English". I don't think it's quite that simple; italics are used for loanwords/loan phrases in English, but that's not enough to say that these terms aren't English. WT:CFI says "A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means." which could be the case whether the term is italicized or not. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree (with Mglovesfun). —Ruakh_TALK 15:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@msh210: Simply dropping the leading "à" produces many more hits: google books:"propos de bottes you|are|am|is|there|the". Google Books is diacritickally incompetent. By the way, google books:"and|or|but a propos de bottes" also gets a few dozen hits (though it only catches instances where Google Books treated "à" as "a", as opposed to as "à" or as "d" or as "u" or as something else entirely). —Ruakh_TALK 14:27, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Mglovesfun. Italics ou quotes are often used when the author cannot find the word in his dictionary, but a word is used when it is used, whatever the typography. Of course, it's English: it's valid French, and the sense used in English seems to also exist in French, but I've never heard it nor read it. Lmaltier 21:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: "I've never heard it nor read it": For the record, I'd never heard it in English, either. It seems to be dated or archaic in both languages. —Ruakh_TALK 21:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

salty water

Tagged but not listed, apparently. -- Prince Kassad 09:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

From web site "Not Alone"[45]: Usually made as a clear liquid or a light-colored powder that the user mixes with water, alcohol or soda, GHB's identity is easily masked. At night clubs and raves, partiers often carry the drug around in Visine bottles or simple water bottles like the one from which Shortridge drank the day he died. The drug hasn't been dubbed salty water for nothing. Anya says, "It looks just like water. It's scary." --Hekaheka 22:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tabasco sauce

What is this? If it is a brand name, it should be proper noun, shouldn't it? What is really the brand name here? Is it "Tabasco sauce" or "Tabasco"? Is there a common noun "tabasco sauce"? --Hekaheka 14:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is it's a genericized trademark, though I don't have any strong feelings about whether it should be capitalized in that usage. I can certainly imagine saying "Please pass the Tabasco sauce" to a friend I'm eating dinner with, even if the sauce in question is not Tabasco™ brand pepper sauce made by the McIlhenny Company of Avery Island, Louisiana. —An gr 15:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this here? Mglovesfun (talk) 20:37, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

With "here" I suppose you mean RfV, not Wiktionary. It's here basically because we need to verify whether "Tabasco sauce" is a noun or a proper noun, or both. Current POS is "Noun", but the definition appears to be for "Proper noun". If it is a common noun, current definition looks more like an etymology.--Hekaheka 21:26, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even if Tabasco is a brand name, Tabasco sauce cannot be called a proper noun... Lmaltier 06:50, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why? DCDuring TALK 12:58, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because the difference between a common noun and a proper noun is related to the sense. The POS must be the same in Tabasco sauce, béchamel and gravy. Lmaltier 18:51, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the nature of the relationship between the difference and the sense? Is the POS the same for "Ron" and "my brother-in-law", which are semantically identical and both hyponyms of "man", just as Tabasco and bechamel are hyponyms of sauce? DCDuring TALK 00:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at proper noun. Lmaltier 06:34, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have. I was hoping to be able to develop criteria to add to Appendix:English_proper_nouns#Proper_noun_as_Part_of_Speech_in_Wiktionary or insert in Wiktionary:English proper nouns. DCDuring TALK 12:20, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I made a new version of the entry based on the assumption that "Tabasco sauce" is a common noun. The "official" way to write the brand name seems to be "TABASCO® Sauce". --Hekaheka 13:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That it's capitalized in promotional material (including on product labels) does not mean that that's the official spelling of the brand name.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a lawyer, but I have the impression that brand names are almost always in all-caps. eBay, for example, has [a trademark on http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4004:q1ifp1.4.32 EBAY], not on "eBay"; but its user agreement and privacy policy and so on, which amount to user-facing legal documents, all use "eBay". So in the general case, I don't think there's any such thing as an "official" capitalization, one way or the other. —Ruakh_TALK 16:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. According to company's own web site [46] the trade mark is TABASCO®. Thus "Tabasco sauce" must be a common noun and the definition should be something else than "A trademark of..." --Hekaheka 21:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's Tabasco, brand name of a sauce. Even if the manufacturer never calls it that, people do. Tabasco sauce doesn't meet the idiomaticity requirement, I don't think.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Tabasco sauce" should be deleted then? --Hekaheka 21:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMO.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surely not. Tabasco sauce isn't a "sauce" of "tabasco". ---> Tooironic 13:04, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rödeln

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

Lanner

I have added a quotation to Jawjah/Jawjuh — from 1867! I can however not find quotations of Lanner. - -sche 02:24, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hov

Does this word exist in English outside of Urban Dictionary? Rspeer 06:27, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pompatus

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

There are three citations, but I'm not confident that any two of the three support the same sense. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the pop music world, Gangster of Love might be a well-known work. It is almost certainly better known by more people than, say, Finnegan's Wake: For example, more people can recite parts of it. There are two competing theories about the meaning of the word, which are comparable to the authority- and etymology-based "meanings" assigned to other words dependent on the "well-known work" exception to normal attestation. Relying on such eisegeses of a small number of "experts" for meaning seems contrary to what Wiktionary tries to do. DCDuring TALK 00:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

𐌿𐌻𐌱𐌰𐌽𐌳𐌿𐍃

Neologism? -- Prince Kassad 15:19, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This word is attested a few times, you can see it on Wikisource: [47] The dative ulbandau is attested twice and the genitive ulbandaus once. —CodeCa t 15:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it consensus that if the infinitive is never attested, it is not used as the lemma form? Of course the dative and genitive forms should have entries though. -- Prince Kassad 15:47, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there's some reason to doubt that this is the nominative singular, I don't see why it shouldn't host the entry (though we should probably indicate exactly which forms are and are not attested). —Ruakh_TALK 15:52, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My uncertain take is the following. The lemma, which for this Gothic word happens to be the infinitive form, does not really stand for the infinitive form but for the whole word as a pack of inflected forms. If enough inflected forms are attested, it should be the infinitive that hosts the word, per its being the lemma. I once had a talk with Atelaes on Ancient Greek, in which I understood he way saying the same thing. --Dan Polansky 09:02, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The nominative singular is not attested, but the two forms that are attested are such that there is no other possible nominative singular form according to Gothic grammar. There is only one declension in Gothic where the dative has -au and the genitive has -aus, and that is the u-stem declension which has a nominative singular in -us. —CodeCa t 13:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any access to the original Gothic script? --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:18, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're asking. [48] is virtually the entire set of Gothic text in existence. [49] has a couple pages that aren't part of the Bible. It's Latin script, as everything besides the original manuscripts and Wiktionary is Latin script; I don't believe the texts have ever been printed in the Gothic script.--Prosfilaes 19:33, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GROLIES

There is a mention at [50], initial Google Book search shows only hits for grolies (Dutch, I assume). Mglovesfun (talk) 20:55, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NFN

Normal for Norfolk. Same source as above. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GLM

Good looking mum. Same source as above. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UBI

No hits for google books:"got an|a ubi on|to" or same on ggc. As this is by our new friend Polaisz, who's been adding a lot of these, that's the extent of my effort.—msh210℠ (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that he's an old friend. SemperBlotto 22:21, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

deep sleep

Rfv-sense: (fiction) Artificially induced hibernation in humans for the purpose of long-distance travel. Does WT:FICTION apply? This is presumably not the same as either an SoP sense or a medical sense. DCDuring TALK 04:07, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why WT:FICTION would be a concern; the cites I'm finding are from very different, and very marginal, science fiction universes.--Prosfilaes 05:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cited; none of the universes bear any relation, and the last is at least nominally not fictional.--Prosfilaes 06:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. DCDuring TALK 14:59, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

witcher

Rfv-sense "with you". Eminently plausible, but I'm not seeing it.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried the collocations "go(ing) witcher", "talk(ing) witcher", "come witcher" and "coming witcher" and I found no relevant quotations. I tried "do witcher", but did not sieve the many quotations of "dowitcher". - -sche 06:47, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One hit with "I'm witcher". — Pingku^dimmi 09:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't this be alternative form of witcha, if it is even attestable? DCDuring TALK 13:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And another; "on witcher". (Although this is actually "with your.") — Pingku^dimmi 15:51, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Damned facts. I suppose, both witcher and witcha could be either "with your" or "with you", but I'd guess more often "with you" for witcha and "with your" for witcher. DCDuring TALK 17:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an Etymology section for "with your", with cites. DCDuring TALK 19:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And an instance of a contraction of "which are". — Pingku^dimmi 03:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sirius Black

Needs to meet WT:FICTION.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

poppysmic

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

According to the OED, it's a nonce word (from Ulysses) - related to the Latin (deprecated template usage) poppysma. SemperBlotto 14:53, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The James Joyce stuff calls on the issues brought up at WT:BP#Newspeak. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

educocide

From RfD. Most cites listed are mere mentions. -- Prince Kassad 19:16, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Existing cites entered by a user apparently with same name as cited author. I can't find any durably archived cites at our usual sources. There is a Scholar cite by the same author, but it doesn't seem durably archived. "Educacide", though not necessarily with the same meaning, gets some hits. DCDuring TALK 19:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fifamigo

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

Like fifamigi, it's not thick on the ground, but soc.culture.esperanto held three cites from unique authors and threads.--Prosfilaes 22:49, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Continuity IRA

From RfD. Needs citations that meet the company name CFI. -- Prince Kassad 00:10, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it need to meet the company name CFI. It's not a company, it's a terrorist organisation.--Dmol 10:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Applying such a standard is a sensible approach to avoiding encyclopedic content in a dictionary. Political party names, like brands and company names, are similar in potential for spam as well as encyclopedic content. Not-for-profit spam seems as bad as any other kind to me. DCDuring TALK 13:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFV is not a place where you should be pushing your yet another deletionist invention. You have BP and RFD for the purpose. The term exists; there is nothing to attest. --Dan Polansky 14:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This does not belong to RFV: This is not a company name, and even if it were, there is no voted-on regulation for company names. The RFV question "is this attestable" is clearly "yes". You may try to push it through RFD, where you can vote "delete". --Dan Polansky 14:32, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't say this too often, but I agree with Dan Polansky. Brand name of who? Company name? How is this a brand name more than say, Dublin or Belfast? --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:36, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Polansky, you are clearly not familiar with our CFI. Please read Wiktionary:CFI#Company_names. -- Prince Kassad 15:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All this says is "To be included, the use of the company name other than its use as a trademark (i.e., a use as a common word or family name) has to be attested.". It says nothing about terrorist groups and the like. SemperBlotto 15:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Kassad, I know of the unvoted-on paragraph on company names. What I have written still holds: "... there is no voted-on regulation for company names." --Dan Polansky 16:40, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-12/Names of individuals mentions the Red Cross, which is the unofficial name of various affiliated organizations (if I'm not mistaken). So we have the name of a company noninclusible, and the unofficial name of various affiliated organizations inclusible. This seems to fall in between those, though closer to the being the name of a company, as the abbreviated official name of an organization. (Technically, a company, in one sense of company, but I'm not sure whether that's the sense meant in the CFI.) If it comes to a show of hands, I say to exclude it per the company-name rule, based on the two points that (a) it technically is a company and (b) even if that's not the sense of company meant in the CFI, an organization is similar enough to a company to be governed by the same rule.—msh210℠ (talk) 15:27, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion#Company names is not terribly well phrased, but I take it to mean that company names aren't included, period. (More precisely, I think it's saying that if a company name is also a family name, then that's included; and if a company name is also a common word, then that's included. So we include (deprecated template usage) Disney as a surname, and (deprecated template usage) fox as a common noun, but we don't include them as company names.) Therefore, the statement that it "Needs citations that meet the company name CFI" seems like another way of saying "Needs to be deleted after a month", because there simply is no such thing as a citation that meets the company name CFI. Right? It would be like listing a word here as "Needs citations that meet the protologism CFI", or "Needs citations that meet the NISOP CFI." —Ruakh_TALK 19:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I see no principled reason for treating this encyclopedic organization differently than any other. bd2412 T 19:00, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

bescheiden

Rfv-sense: German verb, (law or administration) to notify, to inform. I'm totally not familiar with this word as a verb. Google seems to return some hits, but not with this meaning. -- Prince Kassad 17:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This meaning is attested by DWDS. Matthias Buchmeier 10:16, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a few quotations (one reflexive) to the citations page. - -sche (discuss) 17:22, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

yippie

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

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

Blend of yuppie and hippie, I assume. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

intervarsity

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

If you read the original version it makes more sense, BTW I thought varsity was US only, I'd never heard the word till I saw it on a US TV show. Mglovesfun (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure that this is only an adjective in the UK (and often hyphenated). SemperBlotto 08:16, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's total tosh, but if it does exist it ought to be pretty easy to find (an intervarsity, intervarsities). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two citations seem to support a sense for "an intervarsity competition". Unless the intervarsity in question is a team that only exists once a year. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

schentsch

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

rmv

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

I've used it in the past; conversely I've listed it at User:Mglovesfun/to do in "to verify". Mglovesfun (talk) 12:50, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cher

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

waist-shake

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

I have about 4 or 5 non-Usenet uses on Google Groups. Nothing more at all. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

fatHa

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

At best, it needs cleanup. It links to redirects that should either be created as full entries, or deleted as unacceptable. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:02, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems very marginal. Google Books turns up only three independent English uses: in Arabic for Dummies‎ (and Arabic Phrases for Dummies)‎, in Java Internationalization‎, and in A Reference Grammar of Modern Standard Arabic‎. All three use it, but all three treat it as transliterated Arabic (via boldface, italics, and italics, respectively). And all three are specifically talking about Arabic; it's not like using a Latin phrase in a legal context, but more like using a Latin phrase while teaching Latin class, or while discussing Latin in a linguistics class. ~~I would delete it, personally.~~ —Ruakh_TALK 17:20, 16 March 2011 (UTC) last sentence struck 20:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC) per others' comments below[reply]

fatha seems citable. I think fatHa is probably citable too. [51], [52], [53] and [54] are four Usenet hits with that capitalization. Naturally, it's going to be used when talking about Arabic, since it's an Arabic letter, but those hits don't seem to be using it as a transliteration.--Prosfilaes 19:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in this exact capitalisation, also fat7a, fat-ha, fat-Ha. Capital H is used to transliterate letter Template:Arab /ḥā’/ as opposed to Template:Arab /hā’/ or Template:Arab /xā’/ and also indicates that it's not read as Lua error in Module:parameters at line 360: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "/ð/" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E. or Lua error in Module:parameters at line 360: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "/θ/" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E.. Spellings fatha or fathah are also but are more ambiguous to Arabic learners. --Anatoli 19:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we all know what the capital H is used for, insofar as it's used at all; but "fatha", despite its shortcomings, is many times more common than all of the alternatives put together. —Ruakh_TALK 20:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No question about that. So should this be moved to fatha and the rest listed as alternate spellings? (I'd like to see citations for most of those Anatoli gave; fat7a has no Google Books hits (as anything but bad OCR) and the Usenet hits were either Arabic or code switching.)--Prosfilaes 21:53, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ruakh, even if fatHa is less common than fatha, it is also citable, to avoid Lua error in Module:parameters at line 360: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "/ð/" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E. or Lua error in Module:parameters at line 360: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "/θ/" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E. pronunciation, fat-ha or fat'ha forms are also used. It's OK with me if everything is moved to fatha and other forms remain as alternatives (not redirects). The form "fat7a" seems to be only used in chats and Arabic language forums where the distinction between various realisations of "h" in Arabic is important. I think User_talk:Beru7 had a different view on the usage of numbers for letters. Me and User:Stephen G. Brown had to agree with him on using number "3" to transliterate Template:Arab - the sound Lua error in Module:parameters at line 360: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "/ʕ/" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E.. See also Wiktionary:About_Arabic, which could be revisited but by people who actually work with Arabic, you can see a few capital letters used for transliteration of Arabic. Prosfilaes, the hits you cited use "fatHa" as the transliteration. --Anatoli 22:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anatoli, I think we might be talking at cross-purposes here. It's obvious that 'H' is used in transliterating Arabic; no one would suggest otherwise. What's at issue here is whether "fatHa" is an English word. So Wiktionary:About Arabic is not relevant, and the phrase "as the transliteration" in your last sentence would imply that we shouldn't count those cites as English, which I don't think is what you mean to be arguing. Also, Prosfilaes provided those links to augment his sentence, "I think fatHa is probably citable too", so obviously he already realized that they use "fatHa". And he argued that said "hits don't seem to be using it as a transliteration" (emphasis mine), so you should probably be agreeing with him! —Ruakh_TALK 03:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thirded. The only issue is attestability in English. Give it a month (or two; we often do) and if it's cited as an English word, keep it. Otherwise don't. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:51, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And it does seem to be attestable; I disagree that the three Google Book hits are mentions or purely transliterations. I'd accept those three cites; and even if I didn't, there are another four Usenet ones that appear to be independent, meaning that as long as any three of the seven are ok, this is attestable. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:18, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, all seven cites are obviously uses. I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise. (They're not all quite in our sense — some are referring to the vowel itself, rather than to the diacritic that denotes it — but that's easily addressed by adjusting the definition.) —Ruakh_TALK 15:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for taking time to respond. I checked some books at home. The spelling "fatha" does indeed look more like English, rather than all weird spellings I have given before but the more academic the source is, the more strange the English spelling is both for the diacritic symbol Template:Arab and for the vowel it represents, cf. spelling Qur'an and Koran. Of course, "fatha" is used more often because it looks more English but this spelling is seldom used in serious books about Arabic. As you know, "th" can be interpreted as variation combination of Arabic letters, that's why it's avoided in Arabic dictionaries or textbooks. Hans Wehr uses "fatḥa" (deprecated template usage) فتحة‎‎ and "ḍamma" (deprecated template usage) ضمة‎‎ (Damma) (for diacritic Template:Arab) and a few other grammar references and textbooks. In the books where ḥ and ḍ are not used, H and D are used. There is no single transliteration, hence theEnglish spelling can also vary. As I already said, I don't mind fatha being the main entry and some others as alternative spellings. --Anatoli 23:26, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pit-yakka

—Ruakh_TALK 19:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Best I can do is some non-Usenet hits on Google Groups. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pedopath

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

I was going to delete it as a protologism. SemperBlotto 08:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pedopathy gets some Google Book hits, all in medical dictionaries and lists of interesting words AFAICT. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found two. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

business

Rfv-sense: adjective. Probably the attributive use of the noun. I probably should have been bold and just deleted it, but I suppose there is a change it could be cited. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd welcome collocation ideas for this. I've tried the most direct approaches that are somewhat selective. DCDuring TALK 03:39, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've cited a slightly different sense. — Pingku^dimmi 10:51, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good definition. Good cites, I think, except for the 2010 cite. It seems to show "fully" being a clausal/verbal adverb rather an adjective-modifying adverb.

Now that the adjectivity is cited in that sense, more central usage examples or citations would be desirable, reflecting common collocations in the sense given and possibly in attributive position.

One of the disadvantage of the adjective-proving citations is that they are not very representative of overall usage. Often these adjective uses seem "wrong" to me. It can keep me from seeing that a given collocation of the word is not of attributive use of the noun rather than of the putative adjective. DCDuring TALK 12:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the cite with one using what might be regarded a nonstandard parse/usage of business men.

Also some citations for the rfv'd sense. — Pingku^dimmi 15:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They also look good. I like the one with business once after "a" and twice it. "Solely" and "purely" should be on a list of adjective-modifying test adverbs at Wiktionary:English adjectives, which probably could use some updating. DCDuring TALK 18:03, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

supercompressor

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

Tagged def seems wrong. I have added another sense, which might be better, but would need some technical expertise to correct/verify. A more common spelling might be hyphenated. DCDuring TALK 03:30, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

quartzing

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

Quartzing certainly meets CFI one way or another; it could be considered only a present participle, but I think it's reasonable to call this a noun too, such as 1993: "Hence, it is expected that the Al dots were well annealed by quartzing and when they were cooled down to room temperature". Seems somewhat analogous with rowing, swimming etc. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

maze

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

supercolossus

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

Cited; more cites available if needed. Supercolossi is in fact easier to cite than this. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:17, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

paramukta

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

crusty

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

prisoner of war

adjective: head word and usex show prisoner-of-war. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

author

Rfv-sense: "a source of information". Looks odd. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My best guess is that this is a reference to uses such as those at google books:"quotes many authors" or "some authors have argued", where "author" is used in a sort of vague, complement-free way: note that "quotes the authors of many texts" and "the authors of some texts have argued" would both be very awkward. I don't think it's totally divorced from the first sense — to quote an "author" is to quote a written source, because an author is (usually) someone who writes — but on the other hand, it is somewhat divorced from the first sense, in that to quote an "author" is to quote an author's written work, not just to quote a spoken utterance by someone who's also written something. Overall, the problem here is not so much that we have two senses instead of one, as that we have two senses instead of five or six. If we had five or six senses, each with good example sentences and citations, then this one would fit in rather nicely (with a bit of tweaking). As it is, this sense really stands out as odd, because it's the only sense that we've separated out. —Ruakh_TALK 14:22, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I would argue that doesn't mean that this is a meaning of the word author no more than it is a meaning for "people". I'd be happy to have more than one sense, but not this on unless it's somehow justified. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

remaining

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

I agree that this sense is in clearly widespread use, but it doesn't "feel" like an adjective to me. On the other hand, several dictionaries (including various incarnations of Cambridge, Macmillan, and Encarta) do have it as an adjective; and the attested (deprecated template usage) unremaining is apparently Lua error in Module:affix/templates at line 38: The |lang= parameter is not used by this template. Place the language code in parameter 1 instead. rather than Lua error in Module:affix/templates at line 38: The |lang= parameter is not used by this template. Place the language code in parameter 1 instead.. And I believe that EncycloPetey (talk • contribs) argued that when a participle precedes and modifies a noun, that's adjective use in and of itself, though I'm really not sure if he's right about that. I think we might as well leave it here for a month to see if anyone has any brilliant cites to call attention to; if not, then move to RFD. —Ruakh_TALK 14:39, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

locational based marginal pricing

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

There are some hits for this, mainly uppercase (mea culpa, see page history) but I don't understand what our definition means so I can't cited it, or only blindly. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I presume it means marginal pricing that is based on location in a contextually sensible way. DCDuring TALK 19:49, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps marginal cost pricing. DCDuring TALK 19:51, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Read this of locational marginal pricing. If this was to be kept it should probably be moved to locational marginal pricing which for its part appears SOP as locational + marginal pricing. I think marginal pricing would merit an entry of its own. --Hekaheka 05:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A further notion: "locational based" appears an unhappy concoction of "locational" and "location-based". --Hekaheka 05:31, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SPR

Tagged but not listed: "Social Protection Regime". Mglovesfun (talk) 11:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, what is a "Social Protection Regime"? How can I cited it without knowing what it means. Clearly three cites for SPR won't be good enough as SPR will have various other meanings. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A true initialism, especially one found in academic works, will generally get some hits along with its full form; google books:"social protection regime" "spr", for example, would find hits. But this one doesn't seem to be real; all I can find is a single online PDF. ("Social protection regime(s)" does exist, but this initialism does not seem to have any uptake.) —Ruakh_TALK 14:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

själv

Rfv-sense: Swedish "the self". Mglovesfun (talk) 11:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this Swedish noun is listed in SAOL, the current standard for spelling. I've added the reference to the entry. --LA2 22:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shall it pass because it is clearly in widespread use? - -sche (discuss) 01:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hun

Rfv-sense

{{slang|derogatory|UK|Ireland}} A Unionist. (added in this edit)
{{slang|derogatory|UK|Ireland}} A supporter of Scottish association football club Rangers F.C. (added in this edit)

The first meaning is more plausible than the second. - -sche (discuss) 04:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the links on the talk page may be durably archived. - -sche (discuss) 04:40, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hypnopœus

Only in medical lexicons AFAICT from Google books and scholar, both spelled as hypnopoeus. DCDuring TALK 21:54, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this one uses the ligature; however, I agree that this is a proper candidate for Appendix:English dictionary-only terms. As a separate issue, the etymology should note that (deprecated template usage) hypnopœus derives directly from (deprecated template usage) Lua error in Module:parameters at line 360: Parameter "sc" should be a valid script code; the value "polytonic" is not valid. See WT:LOS.. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 11:45, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I mistyped aboved. I had meant to type "both spelled this way and as hypnopoeus." DCDuring TALK 12:50, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

¶ Sigh. I suppose that term is too technical then. You can go ahead and scrap my entry; as it is apparently worthless without recorded usage, which I cannot find. 75.142.190.21 20:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Pilcrow, but that's what the CFI require. Still, there'll be a stub in Appendix:English dictionary-only terms, if that's any consolation. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 14:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

¶ Conclusion: dictionary‐only term. --Pilcrow 01:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-ïng

¶ I have suspicions that this entry should be deleted. Particularity: is it un‐desirable to include any English words that could contain diaereses, as they could be protologisms? 75.142.190.21 20:15, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are many words with well-established spellings that include diaereses in English, like coördinate. That said, this spelling seems unsupported.--Prosfilaes 01:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

doïng

-- Prince Kassad 20:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A quick search at Google books suggests that there are scannos and uses in FL books about English. It would seem hard to sustain the notion that English pedants use this spelling. DCDuring TALK 21:39, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The creation of this word listed [55] in the edit comments. There are three pages of Usenet hits using this. Certainly not pedants, though.--Prosfilaes 01:26, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Snobs, perhaps? I found this title in BGC: "Doïng business with Ukraïne". Spelling "doïng" is probably used here as eye-catcher as "Ukraïne" is one way to transliterate Україна into English. Other uses were in French texts where it appeared to be used as some type of phonetic spelling. Unless valid permanently archived cites are provided, delete. --Hekaheka 05:08, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The best shot of the cover didn't look like it had a diaeresis. I think it's a scanno. DCDuring TALK 06:19, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Even more so, delete. --Hekaheka 07:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is invalid about at least eighteen of these?: [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75] — Unless the invalidity of at least that many can be shown, this term is clearly attested. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 14:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first is not durably archived IMHO. (The rest are, though.) —Ruakh_TALK 15:10, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So we have nineteen CFI-satisfying citations, yes? — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 15:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well it may pass the letter of the CFI, but to be honest it's pretty feeble. All of these are from newsgroups (and some seem to be from non-native speakers?). From what I can tell this has never appeared in a single printed book, even old ones. It's more like non-common misspelling, isn't it? Ƿidsiþ 16:02, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are no citations in the entry. What are needed are either citations that support the definition given or a different definition consistent with the citations in the entry. Our preferred practice AFAICT is to allocate citations to particular definition lines. DCDuring TALK 16:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the writers using this form in the examples above appear to be Dutch. There's also a Dutch family name "Doïng". Is this a typical Dutch spelling error? Anyway, the current definition appears to be wrong. How can this be a pedantic spelling, if no written sources mention it? --Hekaheka 05:18, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care what we call it. I just wanted to oppose the bizarre notion that this spelling is unattestable. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 12:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are still no citations in the entry. DCDuring TALK 16:31, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do note Talk:vacuüm, which was a similar case. -- Prince Kassad 16:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I edited definitions of -ïng and doïng according to the model of vacuüm. --Hekaheka 05:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ῥῆνος

In particular, the descendants. It seems very unlikely that all the people of Europe would have borrowed a Greek word for a river that wasn't even near Greece. Furthermore, many online sources show that the Germanic name for the river was taken from Celtic, which makes a lot more sense. The -i- of many of the names in particular is descended from the Celtic (later Germanic) name either directly or through borrowing, since Latin/PIE -ē- becomes Celtic -ī-, but remains in Germanic. So I doubt that all of these names come from Greek, although they were probably respelled with Rh- based on it. —CodeCa t 13:32, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But you are rfving the word itself, right? There is a template for check descendants, but I can't remember what it is. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No I'm rfving the descendants. I'm not sure what else I should do... there is something to be 'verified' isn't there? —CodeCa t 18:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Top of the page says

Overview: Requests for Verification is a page for requests for attestation of a term or a sense, leading to deletion of the term or a sense unless an editor proves that the disputed term or sense meets the attestation criterion as specified in Criteria for inclusion, usually by providing three citations from three durably archived sources.

That's why I'd like this page to be renamed to WT:Requests for attestation as we get a fair few non-rfv requests here. FWIW I can't cite it based on Google Books alone. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a request for moving it. —CodeCa t 13:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

neiyt

All b.g.c hits are scannos of either neigt or neige. There don't seem to be any legitimate hits. -- Prince Kassad 18:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This appears plausible to me, even if I don't find any traces of the nominative form in the net. That alone does not make it a non-word as Karelian is spoken by relatively few people in a backward part of Russia, and there's not so much of it in internet. But I found some uses of the inflected forms in quite noteworthy pieces of Finnish literature:

the nominative plural has been used by the poet Eino Leino in his popular poem "Joulun neiet":

Kulkevat korkeat neiet kolme kautta talvisen taivaan

kylvävät lahjoja ihmislasten murheeseen ja vaivaan

tekevät rikkaan rikkaammaksi, rakkaammaksi rakkaan

heittävät mieronkin mittelijälle kannikan kerjuuvakkaan.

the nominative plural and genitive singular "neien" appear several times in Kalevala, e.g. in its 24th poem:

Silloin seppo Ilmarinen koppoi neien korjahansa,

iski virkkua vitsalla, sanan virkkoi, noin nimesi:

"Jää hyvästi, järven rannat, järven rannat, pellon penkat,

kaikki mäntyset mäellä, puut pitkät petäjikössä,

tuomikko tuvan takana, katajikko kaivotiellä,

kaikki maassa marjan varret, marjan varret, heinän korret,

pajupehkot, kuusenjuuret, lepän lehvät, koivun kuoret!"

in another collection of old folk poems, "Kanteletar", the allative case is used in a poem Suomettaren synty ja kosijat" ("The birth of Finnish Maiden and her suitors") describing the creation of Finland:

Hierelevi, hautelevi,

Muna muuttui neitoseksi,

Mikä neielle nimeksi--

Sorsatarko, Suometarko?

Ei ole Sorsatar soria,

Suometar nimi soria.

These examples are from the period of "national romanticism" when the artists were seeking the roots of Finnish culture in Carelia which was regarded unspoilt by foreign influences. Therefore it's also plausible that the word should be Karelian. It's close enough to Finnish words (deprecated template usage) neitsyt and (deprecated template usage) neiti to be borrowed into some pieces of Finnish literature. It should probably be tagged "archaic", "poetic" or both but I'm quite convinced that the word exists. --Hekaheka 03:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Further research revealed that this word is mentioned in the foreword to 1909 edition of Kalevala as an example of the Karelian language feature of adding -ut and -yt endings to certain words when they are used in poetry. Other examples of this form mentioned in this source: (deprecated template usage) reki > reyt, (deprecated template usage) käki > käyt, (deprecated template usage) vesi < veyt, (deprecated template usage) kivi > kivyt, (deprecated template usage) meri > meryt, (deprecated template usage) neiti > neiyt, (deprecated template usage) veli > veljyt, (deprecated template usage) lehti > lehyt, (deprecated template usage) kesä > kesyt, (deprecated template usage) päivä > päivyt, (deprecated template usage) marja > marjut, (deprecated template usage) sampo > sammut, (deprecated template usage) sydän > syämmyt etc. Many of these forms have been used in Finnish poetry, e.g. neiyt, veljyt, päivyt, kuuhut, yöhyt, immyt. At least one has entered standard Finnish: (deprecated template usage) tiehyt --Hekaheka 05:44, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What language is it??? --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Originally Karelian, but also Finnish due to its use in poetry. One hundred years ago, when the poems cited above were written, Karelian was regarded as a dialect of Finnish, and many Karelian words were adopted into Finnish during the heyday of Karelianism. I noticed that it was categorized as Estonian noun and corrected that. I also added a new Finnish section. I'm not an expert in Karelian and it appears that I made a mistake above. The forms neien, neiet, neielle are not forms of neiyt but an alternative declension for the synonymous word (deprecated template usage) neiti. But the second comment beginning "Further research reveals.." is still valid. --Hekaheka 17:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

besonder

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

Definitely not English. I've added a German heading. Not the same as besonders, which is the German word that lists besonder as a related term. Maybe a German variation. Probably something someone heard, or thought they heard.--Halliburton Shill 06:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nah! (deprecated template usage) besondere means (deprecated template usage) special and (deprecated template usage) besonders means (deprecated template usage) especially. This doesn't seem to mean anything. SemperBlotto 08:00, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is the stem used for the adjective inflection... but it's never used on its own. -- Prince Kassad 08:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

undeadliness

Rfv-sense: Middle English; one citation is for vndeedlinesse, the other two seem to be modern English. --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The other two are Middle English as published in modern works. As published, Middle English is frequently coerced into modern English spellings to make it more transparent to modern readers. [76] is another example, and I find it provocative that the first cite under the Modern English heading is a translation of the Middle English; in fact, I would claim a poor translation, since undeadliness is a calque of the Middle English. Richardson's New English Dictionary cites Wycliffe as undeedlynesse, an example of the variety of spelling for even one source.--Prosfilaes 19:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is difficult. Wiktionary considers English and Middle English different languages, meaning the 1852, 1929, 1957 and 2007 books are all translations written in English (the texts they translate were written in Middle English). Thus, the English section has six citations. The Middle English word has only one, but it is a well-known work: moved to "vndeedlinesse" or "undeedlynesse" or both, it will pass for that reason. - -sche (discuss) 21:01, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

abarbeiten

Rfv-sense x2:

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

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

photoheliography

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

Although the definition might be slightly off: it's "The study of photography of the sun" but I suspect should be "Photography of the sun". But cites will tell.—msh210℠ (talk) 05:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have improved the definition. We have had (deprecated template usage) photoheliograph since 2006. SemperBlotto 08:10, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The word exists of course. Here's a good definition : [77]. --Actarus ^{(Prince d'Euphor)} 08:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

discrimineren

Rfv-sense: (math) differentiate.

An anonIP who geolocates to Holland doubted this at [[WT:FEED]], [[nl:discrimineren]] (the only other wikt to have the entry, according to our and their interwiki links) does not seem to have the sense, [[w:nl:discrimineren]] does not seem to discuss math, and google:discrimineren dx does not seem to show anything relevant, so I'm bringing it here.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:13, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

woot

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

ayo

An English slang greeting. I am unfamiliar. Distribution? Reality? DCDuring TALK 22:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cited as AAVE, apparently attestable only since 2000. DCDuring TALK 23:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

completely

This entry contains two definitions and two examples:

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

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

Move to RFD -- Prince Kassad 09:58, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both definitions are just one and same. There is no noticeable nuance between them. The second def. is clearly redundant. Actarus ^{(Prince d'Euphor)} 13:05, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is between "manner" and "extent". The first definition modifies a verb, saying how the action is done. The second modifies an adjective, and says to how that quality applies. DAVilla 14:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is such a thing as a "complete manner". It's true that (deprecated template usage) completely can modify a verb, as in the first example sentence, but then it indicates the extent of the action. —Ruakh_TALK 19:33, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Webster 1913 had "in a complete manner". I am unsure whether or how this reflects some subtle difference from current meaning.

In current English, I think this has two distinct senses, but not exactly the ones we have. There is a sense of "to a high degree" which is synonymous with a large number of other members of Category:English degree adverbs (which does not modify verbs, I think). Another sense is what Ruakh suggests: "to the fullest extent", which retains a connection to the specific sense of (deprecated template usage) complete (which can modify verbs, but also adjectives of some kinds, such as for colors and material, and adjectives derived from past participles. Not sure about adverbs.). DCDuring TALK 22:09, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be used with adjectives that are classified as uncomparable, including, for example, completely actual. Is this another sense - perhaps something like (deprecated template usage) unquestionably or maybe in all respects? Does it show that these adjectives can in fact be comparable, if to a limited extent? Or are we to say that all these usages are in error? — Pingku^dimmi 05:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Adjectives and adverbs can be attestably gradable while not attestably comparable, like actual. If something is gradable, however, it increases the odds that it will turn out to be used comparably as well, in my experience. In fact, this search suggests that actual is comparable in some senses. This is not the first or last time that our characterization of an adjective's comparability seems inaccurate. DCDuring TALK 06:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

without predjudice

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

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

anacoluthon

Rfv-sense: "A sentence or other structure with no grammatical sequence; especially when deliberate, as a rhetorical device." Tagged but ot listed. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This might be better considered an RfD-redundant. DCDuring TALK 21:48, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

consciousness

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

I've left a message on the talk page of the user than added it. I'll be damned if I know what he/she intended to mean. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They probably had in mind some variation of one of the seven senses and subsenses that MWOnline has, didn't think our single sense covered it, and did the best they could. Blame falls on our not having fully defined this word, not even retaining all three Webster 1913 senses. DCDuring TALK 15:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Victoria's Secret

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

This is for RFD. I would even vote delete, as this company name cannot carry any information that is of lexicographical interest. The section WT:CFI#Company names is an invention of DAVilla. Curiously enough, "Victoria's Secret" entry was created on 16 April 2007 by DAVilla. But I see that the company name just passed RFD on 10 February 2011. --Dan Polansky 08:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"...as this company name cannot carry any information that is of lexicographical interest." I suspect that twelve years ago the same would have been easily said about Enron. I agree that at the moment it does not carry any information which is significant to us here, but who knows what the future may bring! - [The]DaveRoss 10:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1. When an entry with citations is deleted, why aren't the citations moved to the Citations page?
2. Why was this put in RfV when it had been cited for RfD? DCDuring TALK 14:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

one

Rfv-sense: (Internet, slang, sarcastic) Used instead of ! to amplify an exclamation, imitating n00bs who forget to press the shift key while typing exclamation points. I have seen this before, but is it in durably archived media? -- Prince Kassad 08:46, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's in Usenet.‎‎‎ —Ruakh_TALK 13:37, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wikidiot

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

¶ I doubt somebody who believes anything is “100%” accurate would have the brain‐power to operate a web‐browser in the first place, not to mention that there are definitely non‐facts (opinions) on Wikipedia. This entry is fatuous, the word obviöusly serves as an insulting accusation. --Pilcrow 19:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately a descriptive dictionary does not have the authority to judge whether a word is accurate or not; all it can do is tell the reader if and how it is used. — lexicógrafa | háblame — 19:29, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but it could be that those who use wikidiot mean "someone who tends to believe things on Wikipedia that he oughtn't" even if they say they mean "someone who believes everything on Wikipedia".—msh210℠ (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Derogatory terms are often exaggerations of the truth, so both senses might warrant inclusion (although I don't know how exactly they'd be distinguished in citations); both what the speaker intends by the term, and what the referent actually is (does, believes etc.). — lexicógrafa | háblame — 18:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cabinessence

Definitely a song title, but searching for "his cabinessence" yields no hits on Groups or Books. But a further search may be productive.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Well-known work"? Or is that reserved for only a special meaning of "well-known"? DCDuring TALK 19:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The latter. :-) —msh210℠ (talk) 19:31, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The only hits on Google book search are "mentions". I can't find any usage beyond the Beach Boys record. SemperBlotto 13:31, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011

abatage

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

One OneLook dictionary (besides us) has it as an alternative form of (deprecated template usage) abattage, but only in the "slaughter of animals" sense. This seems like another instance of the all-too-frequent assumption by a contributor, usually completely unsupported by evidence or authority, that an English loan-word (usually a rare one) has all the meanings that it did in the source language. I have added abattage#English in one sense, added an alternative spelling sense at abatage and converted the RfV to 3 RfV-senses. DCDuring TALK 15:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not strictly relevant, but abatage looks etymologically correct to me. Abattage ought to have been spelled abatage in Old French, as Old French drops a lot of double consonants, many of which were later added back to reflect the original Latin spellings. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hunmin Jeongeum

Korean section, Korean Google Books only has hits in English, French, and German. Test case to see if Romanized Korean is attestable. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:15, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

move

Rfv-sense: A change in strategy.

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

It's certainly often used in reference to changes in strategy,‎‎‎ but I think it's part of a more general sense, which we're missing, something like "a change, switch, or transition".‎‎‎ (Even the more general sense is technically covered by our very first sense, "the act of moving; a movement"; but I think "a change, switch, or transition" warrants separate coverage, while "a change in strategy" does not, unless it's used complementlessly, or otherwise in a way that the general "a change, switch, or transition" sense is not.) —Ruakh_TALK 15:14, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A rare good edit conflict, as this is more or less what I was going to say. Seems valid to me, just could be broadened. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that I have ever heard it as unambiguously referring to a change in strategy as opposed to a particular operationalization of a component of a strategy. A strategy is a plan. Plans change. A change in strategy is implemented (PoV of implementer) or a strategy (changed or unknown) becomes apparent (PoV of outsider). I'm perhaps unable to perceive anything other than this because of my consulting and teaching in this area. DCDuring TALK 18:26, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Did you click my links? Are they not unambiguously referring to a change in strategy? —Ruakh_TALK 19:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pedophilia

We have:

Sexual or erotic feelings or desires directed by adults towards children.
A desire for overt sexual acts directed by adults towards children.
Whatever assumed manifestation of erotic feelings or desires directed towards children, for example using of child pornography, involvement in age unequal interrelationship with a child or an young person etc.

The first two seem basically the same. I can't really tell what the third is supposed to mean. FTR I did just edit the first two because they were badly written. I didn't intend to change the meaning, but it became more apparent that they were redundant. You can see what they used to look like if you want. I think the second two could just be completely removed without losing anything from the entry. WurdSnatcher 04:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what is is that we are supposed to be citing? --Mglovesfun (talk) 21:40, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Either of the last two, sorry I wasn't clear. WurdSnatcher 00:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sense 2 before it was edited referred to acts; now it refers to the desire for acts. That's quite a change (which makes the sense redundant to 1). I say revert that. (Sufficiently many, though not all, of the cites at google books:"engaging|engaged in pedophilia" are for the old sense 2.)—msh210℠ (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I cited both senses. The "acts" sense was later removed, but I have re-added it and cited it and the "desires" sense fully. The two senses are distinct. - -sche (discuss) 17:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Passed. - -sche (discuss) 07:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mock

Rfv-sense: to disappoint someone. Seems unrelated to other senses. Nadando 09:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, with such cases the best chance is to track down who added the sense using the diff function and find out what they intended to mean. If it's an IP, we're screwed as IP addresses change periodically. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:02, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mglovesfun kindly poked me in the direction of this discussion. I can't think of an unambiguous example of that sense, but here are the examples other dictionaries give:

Webster 1913 "To disappoint the hopes of; to deceive; to tantalize; as, to mock expectation. Thou hast mocked me, and told me lies. Judg. xvi. 13. He will not ... Mock us with his blest sight, then snatch him hence. Milton."
Webster's New Universal "to lead on and disappoint; to deceive; to tantalize; as, the weather mocked him"
John Ogilvie's old (1883) Imperial Dictionary "To fool; to tantalize; to play on in contempt; to disappoint; to deceive. 'To mock the expectations of the world.' Shak. Thou hast mocked me and told me lies. Judg. xvi. 10. Why am I mock'd with death, and lengthen'd out To deathless pain? Milton."
Writing about the line from Othello "It is the greene-ey'd Monster, which doth mocke The meate it feeds on", Heath says "'Mock' certainly never signifies to loath. Its common signification is, to disappoint."

Both lines from Milton seem like clear examples of "tantalize". The verse from Judges seems to mean "deceive". Collocation with "expectations" may be the best bet to find examples of it being "disappointing", eg 1812, The Critical Review or, Annals of Literature, page 190: The French revolution indeed is a prodigy which has mocked the expectations both of its friends and its foes. It has cruelly disappointed the fondest hopes of the first, nor has it observed that course which the last thought that it would have pursued. — Beobach 06:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely what the word used to mean, but it's hard because many of the examples are now interpreted as the modern sense of the word. The OED says this early sense is ‘now largely merged’ into later senses – always quite difficult to deal with. They don't mark it as obsolete, but their last citation is from Hardy's Tess of the d'Urbevilles (so more than 100 years ago): ‘Swayed by the antipathetic wave which warps direct souls with such persistence when once their vision finds itself mocked by appearances.’ Ƿidsiþ 07:47, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the citations User:Beobach972 mentioned above to the entry. So, cited. - -sche (discuss) 18:17, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-passed. - -sche (discuss) 07:06, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

œconom

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

Note: I don't think that the supposed precedent that gives priority to the first spelling entered is meant to contradict facts about relative commonness.

From what I gather, it was a rule to reduce conflict and create productive competition between UK and US spelling advocates. At the time there was no free access to a large American corpus to allow explicit comparisons of relative frequency of forms. There is now.

To this entry, furthermore, the existence of bgc provides a reasonably usable corpus for assessing relative frequency of terms such as this one, however much filtering of scannos, capitalized forms and abbreviations ("œconom.") may be required. DCDuring TALK 15:09, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a common spelling and a rare spelling, then certainly the rare spelling should not be the main entry; but in this case, even (deprecated template usage) oeconom seems pretty marginal. (In searching for cites for (deprecated template usage) œconom, I did find five or ten cites for (deprecated template usage) oeconom, so it certainly meets the CFI; but unless I'm failing to see something, it doesn't seem to be sufficiently more common for me to care which is the main entry, provided both meet the CFI.) —Ruakh_TALK 22:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hence move if and only if the ligatured spelling fails RFV. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

¶ I have not found any other good citations for this word. I think this should be classified as an alternative spelling of œconome or econome.--Pilcrow 22:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ọrunmila

I don't believe that any English word starts with a (an?) "Ọ".SemperBlotto 21:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you would like to check Orunmila, this starts with an "O". As for Ọrunmila the truth is they are one of the same, alternative spelling of each other. Moreover, the entry you make mention of makes clear reference to this. Otelemuyen 22:06 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. —Ruakh_TALK 22:24, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is quit odd, from a request for verification to deletion within minutes; withiout responding to my post! anyone care to explain? User: Otelemuyen 22:36 3 April (UTC)

I'm sorry, I guess I misunderstood your comment. I thought that you were acknowledging that "Orunmila" was the correct spelling. I'll restore it now. —Ruakh_TALK 00:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We are asking you (or anyone else) to provide evidence of the word (with a dot under the O) being used in English. SemperBlotto 07:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover which is the Yoruba spelling, if their? Both are currently English only, though the related terms look very un-English! Mglovesfun (talk) 11:31, 4 April 2011 (UTC

Thanks for your response, my contribution would be to suggest that both of these words are currently English spelling there pronounciation can be said to be relative to +ATR /-ATR. A typical example would be cafe and café, so which of these is the French spellling? my answer would be neither because they are both english spellings of a French word. Otelemuyen (talk) 12:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC

Well café, you can just read the entry. Ok rephrasing, what is the original Yoruba spelling, do you feel capable of creating an entry for it? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and No; Yes i could create an entry for the original Yoruba word. No, i wouldnt be creating an entry for the original Yoruba word because it would hardly be decipherable by readers as would contain analogies meant solely for the enjoyment (or entertainment) of the Yoruba reader. This is the reasoning behind the entry Ọrunmila, which in my opinion stands as one of the correct English spelling of the original Yoruba word.Otelemuyen (talk) 13:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But we have a policy of not including English spellings of Yoruba (or other foreign) words. (We call them "transliterations", by the way.) We allow Yoruba words as entries, and English spellings of English words.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But Category:Yoruba language says that Yoruba only uses the Latin script. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; so? Otelemuyen said the entry we have is "one of the correct English spelling^[sic] of the original Yoruba word" — i.e., a transliteration into English of a Yoruba word.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Otelemuyen has removed the English section (and, hence, the rfv tag) without closing this RFV and replaced it with a Yoruba section which no one has (yet) tagged.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have moved the entry into Category:Yoruba language (and replaced the rfv tag), could you check this out. Otelemuyen (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's procedurally difficult; essentially you've speedy deleted the English which could have been valid. I'd much prefer you to add a Yoruba section, keep the English and let the RFV continue. Speedy deletion, to me, say that this word has more or less zero chance of being attested in English texts. Is this the case? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have reverted to previous version as suggested. It probably could be attested in English text, as i've seen the word being used in an English context. Otelemuyen (talk) 00:17, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But you haven't provided any evidence. It's going to get deleted without any. SemperBlotto 07:13, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't suggest that change, I suggested having both English and Yoruba. And here's why, my quest for citation does turn up some hits in a non-English Latin script language. I assume that the language is Yoruba, though I can't tell. The English is attestable as Orunmila. So there is in fact, quite a lot of good news. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:21, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2001, Joseph M. Murphy, Mei-Mei Sanford, Ọ̀ṣun across the waters: a Yoruba goddess in Africa and the Americas, p. 142:

When both Ọ̀ṣun and Ọ̀rúnmìlà returned to the earth, they became much closer than ever before. It was probably at this time that Ọ̀rúnmìlà and Ọ̀ṣun became husband and wife.

Looking through b.g.c, there are many different variants with arbitrary amounts of diacritical marks. It may be attestable if you invest a lot of time, but I doubt it. -- Prince Kassad 09:59, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

dredge up

Rfv-sense: to dig up.

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

I think it refers to the figurative meaning of "dig up", which AFAICT is already covered by our sense #3. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right, but it difficult to tell because the amateurish definition uses a single polysemic term as the definiens. If we just worked on cleaning up such cases, it would be many man-years indeed. DCDuring TALK 18:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure there is a "used literally" sense for this; unless you are dredging in an upward direction. I'm quite tempted to rollback to before your edits, but use glosses to disambiguate as you say. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of course there is: as in the operation of dredging a channel. In so doing one "dredges up" the muck at the bottom. That seems as literal as it gets. DCDuring TALK 15:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of any 'used literally' sense so I've tagged it with rfv-sense. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You ought to get ought more. First hit from Google books search for forms of dredge + up:

I. Twelve species of Madrcporaria were dredged up, and the majority came from midway between Cape Wrath and the Faroe Islands. Others were found off the west coast of Ireland. Many varieties of the species were also obtained, and some forms which hitherto have been considered specifically distinct from others, but which now cease to be so.

II. Three species were found, known only in the area dredged, or in the neighbouring seas." DCDuring TALK 21:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cited one sense. Have we ever had to cite an {{&lit}} sense before? DCDuring TALK 21:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we have cited such a sense before (or at least attempted it). I'm not sure this is any more literal than dig up or bring up. What I'm really saying is I prefer a definition to an {{&lit}} template. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer that NISoP meanings not be treated as idioms. That is one of the advantages of {{&lit}}. I'm fairly sure that there are senses of dig up and bring up that are also non-idiomatic and would benefit from using the template. Not everything that has the surface appearance of a "phrasal verb" actually is an idiomatic "phrasal verb". CGEL doesn't think that phrasal verbs are grammatically distinguishable from verb + adverb/preposition. No one has proposed any specific semantic test either. I'll have to look more carefully at the adequacy of our coverage of dredge#Verb. DCDuring TALK 02:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nah if it were unidiomatic, you'd be able to dredge in any direction; I want to see proof that you can dredge down, across, left, right, sideways etc. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found no hits on Google Books for "dredged left" or "dredged sideways". I found many hits for "dredged down", some of which seemed to be using it as a direction. I found one for "dredged right" that seemed to be using right as a direction (the rest were hits of the form "dredged right up to town", "dredged right close to the edge"):

2009, Jonathan Lethem, Chronic City, page 440:
By the time I crossed Park and Madison, retracing the tiger's park-ward pilgrimage of the night before, the city had accustomed itself, struggled to a half-life, snow dredged right and left, most parked cars only sculpture.

I am undecided as to whether this is a sense/term like dig up, or merely {{&lit}} dredge + up. - -sche (discuss) 07:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cruft

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

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

Try google books:wiki cruft. [78], [79], and [80] have some sense of cruft that's not 1 or 2, and that seem to be targetted by this definition.--Prosfilaes 20:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those three seem to have it meaning "useless content". If that's what's meant here, this sense needs to be drastically reworded; OTOH, perhaps it's really part of one of the other senses (in which case it needs to be reworded). I didn't (yet) look further at the bgc results, though.—msh210℠ (talk) 20:16, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It could be the second one, but I would argue the second one inappropriately packs a very specific code definition in with clutter. It seems to me to be a very Wikimedia sense, which is why we don't find many cites. I think there needs to be a third definition, but this one seems unsupportable.--Prosfilaes 18:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

love bomb

This entry contains one definition:

(deprecated template usage) Lua error in Module:parameters at line 360: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "fictional" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E. A type of chemical weapon that makes enemy soldiers attracted to each other

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

I think it's a synonym for gay bomb. —CodeCa t 10:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At least "gay bomb" is (barely) attestable. Neither that sense nor the sense given for "love bomb" seem attestable AFAICT, nor do they fit the wide diversity of meanings for uses I've seen. The most common use seems to be something like "a conscious use of expressions of high regard to influence a person, especially to join a cult." A better phrase than "expressions of high regard" would be nice. DCDuring TALK 15:15, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you do a Google Book search for "love bomb", "gay bomb" together you'll see it. One Book attest though. There are other hits on the Web (Pentagon planned love bomb, --The Telegraph). Leasnam 15:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On a sidenote, I'm surprised we don't have sex bomb. ---> Tooironic 20:51, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We do now ;) Leasnam 21:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

padawan

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

camp

rfv-sense on verb sense 4:

To behave in a camp manner.

Don't camp up your performance of Malvolio in Twelfth Night this time.

But that example doesn't support it: the citation is of "camp up" used transitively (which feels like a productive sort of formation from the adjective), not non-phrasal "camp" used intransitively. Is the latter supportable? 4pq1injbok 17:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

flaccid

Rfv-sense: (Of writing) Turgid or overwrought.

The two citations are at best ambiguous. DCDuring TALK 17:30, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't flaccid and turgid nearly antonyms? All three words can be cited as negative remarks about writing but I wouldn't use them interchangeably. - [The]DaveRoss 10:42, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

unhug

Rfv-sense: cease to hold. Added by an en-3 who, when I asked her to use it in a sentence, balked.—msh210℠ (talk) 19:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

estamentally

I get only one hit on Google Books. —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 02:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

estament seems to be the Spanish equivalent of estate and occurs in English text about Hispanic cultures or by Hispanic authors. Derived terms like "estamentarian", "estamental", and "estamentally" seem to have similar occurrence patterns, though even less frequency. DCDuring TALK 04:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not estamente? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the lemma in Spanish. DCDuring TALK 02:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

gulch

Rfv-sense: A remote town or village, lacking in infrastructure and equipment.

Dictionaries don't have this sense, only a sense of a valley or a ravine. If it is clear to native speakers that the sense actually exists, I am okay with this RFV being closed without an attestation, to reduce workload. Sense added on 3 May 2010. --Dan Polansky 16:09, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

poll

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

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

Two cites added, although I'm finding Poll with a cap and Polled. A capitalised Poll is very common as part of a breed name, such as Poll Hereford and Poll Angus.--Dmol 20:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think "polled" means that the natural horns were removed by polling vs. "poll" meaning they don't normally grow for the breed. Now that I think of it, the inclusion in a breed name should count, especially if there is a cite that defines the breed as hornless. DCDuring TALK 21:52, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pæninsulae

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

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

Attestable as Latin. Not as English, though. -- Prince Kassad 21:08, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

"Clearly inconsistent" isn't a reason to speedy-delete an entry. Not really sure what your comment above means; but let's leave that out of the rfv discussion, eh? Use my talk page, or yours. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

¶ Since you think this entry is not “patently wrong” or invalid (otherwise you would have deleted it), may I ask if you could attest usage of this spelling? --Pilcrow 12:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't plan on trying. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pæninsulæ and pæninsulas aren't attested either (in places I've looked, anyway) so no plural form is attested. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:44, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

autoscope

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

Optical instrument is ok, you can even find pictures of it in Google Books. This sense is harder to find, could be a protologism. Asking the creator might be a good step here. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:42, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's poorly worded and I'm having trouble defining it with better wording. It is rather tempting to outright delete it. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't use Special:EmailUser either . --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:33, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

maniped

"Hacker slang for manipulated." Ƿidsiþ 06:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Both senses (including the one not tagged) would fail on Google Books alone. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First sense is found in books. For the other you'd have to look to the internets, but def out there:

Redneck Riviera by Sophie Dunbar - Page 105 - 1998: Today's been kind of slow, but tomorrow afternoon, ay chihuahual A weave, a pre light and tone, several haircuts and some manipeds.

What It Takes to Get to Vegas by Yxta Maya Murray - Page 88 - 2000: All the ladies were screaming and slapping their thighs while me and Lupe ran around and put the finishing touches on the mani-peds, wash-and-styles, makeup jobs, and mustache waxes, not even taking the time to sweep up the candy ...

Dirty Sweet by John McFetridge - Page 244 - 2008: "Had a facial and a maniped." Loewen asked what that was and she said, "A manicure and a pedicure."

No More Dirty Looks: The Truth about Your Beauty Products by O'Connor Siobhan - 2010: Also offerred are facials and mani-peds.

— This unsigned comment was added by 166.137.9.177 (talk) at 04:17, 13 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

pieni

Added March 16, 2006 by Yyy (talk • contribs) as a 'hypothetical plural of piens'. Since hypothetical word aren't allowed, this needs to be cited. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe we should just erase "hypothetical". Piens means "milk" in Latvian and I don't see why there wouldn't be a plural form of it. The plural forms appear on the declension table on entry for piens. --Hekaheka 02:02, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have expected this on the definition line, which would/should read "Nominative plural form of piens." — Pingku^dimmi 05:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it exists too, though I feel uneasy about an RFV-passed with no citations, we also don't have any Latvian contributors. It seems harsh to delete it if nobody has the language skills to cite it, but generous to pass it with no citations. Perhaps Dick Laurent can help (Opi) has he speaks some Lithuanian. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I added two citations. It might be difficult to add a third, because Google has relatively few Latvian books. Also, the 1979 song is in other books "Ganiem piens, ganiem siers", so the plural does seem to be odd. - -sche (discuss) 19:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to keep this in good faith as two citations in a poorly attested language (on the Internet) seems good. CFI doesn't explicitly allow this practice, but I like it. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Struck because the nominator appears to have withdrawn the RFV after two citations. - -sche (discuss) 07:31, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

balrog

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

宇宙艦隊

Tagged but not listed. I assume it needs out of universe cites rather than three durably archived citations or usage in a well-known work. Not sure how many Japanese editors we have at the moment; at least two mind you, so this could be cited. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:46, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

norm

Rfv-sense "Template:mathematics A mode or average", supposedly distinct from the no-special-context sense "Template:usually That which is regarded as normal or typical". I don't recall ever hearing this sense in math, and a quick look at google books:"the norm of these|the values" isn't showing me anything.—msh210℠ (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lilaceus

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

I don't know Latin to appropriately cite it, but there's at least a half-dozen hits in running Latin botanical descriptions in Google Books: e.g. "Calodon Ridleyi, Massee. Pileus suberosus, campanulatus, obtusus, e velutino glabrescens, in prima evolutione coelestinus, dein coeruleo-nigrescens, margine lilaceus, laciniatus, 3 cm. latus."[81]--Prosfilaes 23:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does look attestable. But why? Is it originally a typo, an error, or was the i deliberately removed for some reason or another? Mglovesfun (talk) 23:35, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

furcatus

Seems reasonable, but I can't find it in any Latin text. I think it is a Translingual term from botanical pseudo-Latin. SemperBlotto 19:03, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pæninsulas

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

See Citations:pæninsula, 1990 quot. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:34, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

digital audio broadcasting

Moving from RFD. This is a brand name, and requires cites per WT:BRAND. -- Prince Kassad 14:47, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pædiatrist

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

It looks like an alternative construction of pædiatrician (paediatrician / pediatrician). See the usage note at -iatrician. — Pingku^dimmi 15:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the true sense and changed the {{rfv}} to an {{rfv-sense}}. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:48, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

cuddy

Rfv-sense cuddly SemperBlotto 07:02, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried the following Google Book searches: "cuddier", "cuddiest", "more cuddy", "most cuddy" and "is cuddy". These all get nothing relevant. Mglovesfun (talk) 13:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

¶ “so cuddy” and “feels cuddy” do not turn up relevant results either, and I have personally never seen this word in literature; this sense is also not on etymonline.com. ¶ I doubt anybody is goïng to worry if an informal form gets speedy‐deletion. --Pilcrow 20:08, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I finished the set with am/are/was/were/be/being cuddy. I supposed I missed "been cuddy" in that case. I'm gonna go out and a limb and say that will give me zero relevant hits. Oh but may as well give it 30 days, or else what is rfv for? Mglovesfun (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted unverified. Ƿidsiþ 13:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

religo

English entry - religious person - only reference is Urban Dictionary. If OK, needs to be moved to top. SemperBlotto 07:07, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

schizosexual

The 1963 and 2011 citations look good, the other two look useless. Do three citations exist for any of these senses? Ƿidsiþ 15:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

AFAICT, this term has been coined on multiple occasions, always as a humorous / nonce word. Each sense has only one supporting quotation. The 1996 quot. is a mention, but the other three are uses, though I agree that the 2007 quot. is of negligible value. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 22:31, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cœmeteria

¶ Are the current citations acceptable? --Pilcrow 16:13, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it means "cemetaries" rather than being a plural of cemetary. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:30, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this is best described as the plural form of (deprecated template usage) cœmeterium, with that singular form described as a now-obsolete Latinate form of (deprecated template usage) cemetary. (BTW, (deprecated template usage) cœmetery exists, too.) — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 23:02, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into this and created (deprecated template usage) cœmeterium. I've redefined (deprecated template usage) cœmeteria and taken the liberty of removing the {{rfv}}, since I consider the new sense to be plentifully attested. I'll strike the header. — Raifʻhār Doremítzwr ~ (U · T · C) ~ 12:40, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rozen

Rfv-sense: A German or Japanese given or surname referenced in the Maiden anime series, meaning rose. See also: Roza Mystica.. Wrong lemma, and I doubt this is really used as a name. -- Prince Kassad 19:32, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

¶ Here are some usages as a surname. Howëver, I do not know why that sentence just randomly mentioned that animé series. --Pilcrow 19:41, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better example. --Pilcrow 19:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Delete). --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the "anime" part of the definition meets WT:FICTION, it doesn't warrant inclusion in Wiktionary (c.f. User_talk:Tyciol#Names_in_fiction). TeleComNasSprVen 23:55, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

beer

Rfv-sense (Chinese English) Any alcoholic beverage. --Porelmundo 19:33, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I have to say is WTF? It is true that "wine" often refers to any alcoholic beverage in Chinese logic but not beer. ---> Tooironic 22:41, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

core

Rfv-sense: "A disorder of sheep caused by worms in the liver". I bumped into this when trying to find fi-translations for the different senses of "core". This sense appears in 1913 Webster's, but more recent quotations are hard to find, except in dictionaries, in which the definition is mostly in its original Webster's form: "disorder of sheep occasioned by worms in the liver". The reason for listing this here is that I wasn't able to find the term in books specialized in sheep diseases. Might it be that Webster's has erred, or should this sense be tagged "archaic"? --Hekaheka 08:28, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I can find is this cite, in Lisle's Animal Husbandry (which uses a noun core referring to the disease, as well as an intransitive verb core meaning "to contract core", and an adjective or participle cored meaning roughly "having core"). A number of dictionaries refer to that cite, and I wonder if that's also the ultimate source of Webster's listing. —Ruakh_TALK 18:46, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The OED has four citations, but I can't find the original source for the first one online, and the rest appear to be from dictionaries. Maybe there are alternate spellings that we aren't seeing. Nadando 19:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might the disease be currently known as Fasciola hepatica or "common liver fluke"? The symptoms (anemia and oedema under tongue) described in Wikipedia and in "Animal husbandry" seem to match. Liver fluke is a common disease in sheep, and so appears core to be according to Lisle. --Hekaheka 20:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The original for the OED's first cite is here. I take its sense to be (as the OED puts it) "a tumor characteristic of" core. —Ruakh_TALK 22:22, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A rather fascinating candidate for Appendix:English dictionary-only terms. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mandrel

Rfv-sense: "an object used to shape material being worked". Any object to shape any material? In fact I suspect this is an error and that the two other senses define "mandrel" sufficiently and non-misleadingly. --Hekaheka 09:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I'd like to see citations like "a hammer is a mandrel", "a knife is a mandrel". But I second what you've said, I think this is just plain wrong. w:Mandrel copies our definitions. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:41, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact Wikipedia first read: "object used to shape machined work", limiting the sense to machining. It was then "copied" to Wiktionary in the current form and later copied back to Wikipedia. I believe that even the original Pedia definition was wrong. As far as I know mandrel is something that holds either the tool or the piece that is being worked with the tool, but it is not the tool. --Hekaheka 17:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Quite apart from the fact that we seem to be missing a basic meaning — metal rod, or (deprecated template usage) spindle — there is a bit of information tucked away in w:Tube bending#Mandrels that suggests usages may be based on particular applications. Here, the application is putting something in a pipe to support it so that it doesn't kink when you bend it, and it seems most anything that does this job can be called a mandrel - including sand! The information in this section appears to come from Todd, Robert H.; Allen, Dell K.; Alting, Leo (1994), Manufacturing Processes Reference Guide (1st ed.). — Pingku^dimmi 13:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have understood that not any rod or spindle is a mandrel, only one that is used for holding a workpiece or machining tool in its position during the machining process. For the second use you mention: this may be the one to which the rfv'ed sense refers. If that is correct we could combine the current senses #2, 3 and 4 into one and rewrite #1:

A rod, spindle or similar part used to hold a workpiece or a machining tool in its position during machining.
A part used as an aid for shaping a material, e.g. bending a pipe without creasing or kinking it.

How does this sound? --Hekaheka 04:15, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sex life

Rfv-sense: The frequency and quality of a person's sexual encounters. — Not backed up by the citations I found. It seems to be backwards anyway - it's the quality of one's sex life, not the sex life that is the quality. Despite these misgivings, I'm willing to believe it could be used this way. Proof, please! — Pingku^dimmi 16:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zohali

Article created yesterday by an IP, that indicates it's planet Uranus in Swahili. But w:sw:Zohali says it's planet Saturn... Anyone knows which is right? (We're having the same discussion on the French Wiktionnaire). --Actarus ^{(Prince d'Euphor)} 10:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zohali means Saturn Noun class 9. Uranus in Swahili is (deprecated template usage) Uranus. I corrected the entry. —Stephen ^(Talk) 10:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks. --Actarus ^{(Prince d'Euphor)} 11:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close this RFV? --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:05, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

unpack

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

wordgecwide

This looks a lot like a neologism, or at least a rather literal interpretation of the compound's parts. I think the word itself does exist, but its attested meaning is different. —CodeCa t 17:03, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OEME has it: wordgecwide [] n (-es/-u, -gecweodu) verbal agreement; as does Bosworth and Toller: word-gecwide, es; n. An expressed agreement, a formal contract :-- Eal ic him gelste ðæt ic him scolde swá forð swá uncre wordgecwydu fyrmest wron, L. O. ii; Th. i. 182, n. Gif hit heó gehaldeþ mid ðare clnnisse ðe uncer wordgecwædu seondan, Chart. Th. 481, 8.. Both the word and the usage are attested, but not in the grammatical sense. Leasnam 04:10, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected it. Leasnam 04:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFV closed per consensus between nominator/entry creator. --Mglovesfun (talk) 23:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

smack one's lips

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

Victionarium

(Cf. talk:Wiktionary.)—msh210℠ (talk) 20:00, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

et ceteræ

¶ Are any of the citations unacceptable? --Pilcrow 20:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Citations:et ceteræ. I think it's awfully fair-spirited of you to nominate your own entry for rfv even after providing 9 citations, but to be honest I'd rather you didn't. If nobody disputes the entry, assume it's valid. IMO rfv-passed (before it was even listed). --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

¶ This topic has not received many responses, so I am goïng to mark this as closed. --Pilcrow 19:37, 22 June 2011 (UTC)--Pilcrow 03:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

canontje

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

Surely the brand of camera would be Canontje. RFV only seeks to discover if the word exists or not (with the given definition), not whether it is disrespectful or not. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a go on Google News, Scholar and Books and got nothing for this. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

re-go

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

There are loads and loads of hits for this on Google Books, in the thousands, but at a glace they do seem to be false hits. Searching for "re-going" gets thousands upon thousands of hits for "we're going" as Google Books 'helpfully' considers a space and a hyphen to be interchangeable. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:49, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

NCMO

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

To my surprise [82]. Seems real. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There you go! Perhaps it should be "noncommital makeout" though? SemperBlotto 16:15, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can only get one 'true' citation, all the other hits on that link are either mentions, or when I click on them there's no preview. I'll bet there are at least two more citations using Usenet and/or Google Scholar. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rebound

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

I thought that I had already deleted this. It's just an attributive use of the noun. SemperBlotto 16:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though, there is no corresponding noun definition. We need that first. But, IMO it is citable as a noun. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:51, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In general our definitions are ok but it could be clearer. For example to what extent is the 'sport' different from the 'basketball' definition? Mglovesfun (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've cited the noun sense. They are under the correct definition as the entry stands, but I think we might need an entirely new definition to be more accurate. Mglovesfun (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

May 2011

米粟

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

benched

Adjective: (US sports) substituted (so has to sit on the bench)

Past participle, not adjective. See Wiktionary:English adjectives and bench#Verb. DCDuring TALK 13:05, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The definition we have is "Template:US substituted (so has to sit on the bench)". A more general sense of "sitting on the sidelines" sees an 1830(!) cite: [83]. [[Wiktionary:English adjectives]] includes the following test: "Can it modify a noun in attributive position (before the noun)? Only adjectives and nouns can." Is that accurate? Does a benched player not use benched as a past participle? If it is accurate, then there are sufficiently many cites (search for "a benched player").—msh210℠ (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O the irony. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. The many (???) authors and readers of the page seem to have missed that.

We could say that "adjective" functions can be performed by words of many types, but the lexicographic class at Wiktionary is reserved for words meeting some specific criteria designed to prevent needless and hard-to-maintain duplicative content, without doing too much violence to the understandings of language professionals or, especially, normal users. I'm no language professional and viewed Wiktionary:English adjectives as a draft to be improved in the wiki way by others. What it is the customary way of distinguishing adjective as functional role and as lexicographic category? Is there another way to look at it that makes it all clear? DCDuring TALK 19:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

retail

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

I've added cites. DCDuring TALK 10:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The second and third cite do not seem to have much to do with the definition "relating to the sale of goods or services directly to individual consumers". Are we missing a sense or two? --Hekaheka 21:21, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I jumped the gun a bit. Even if you accept any citations beginning with 'very' as adjectival, only the first one of these three supports, or unambiguously supports the definition. --Mglovesfun (talk) 08:44, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'-'

haven't seen this one so far -- Prince Kassad 15:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neither have I and I do do a lot of online chatting. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 04:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

homichlophobia

I see but one bgc hit (which I only saw on the list of results, didn't investigate). I haven't checked ggc (yet).—msh210℠ (talk) 22:35, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See Wiktionary:Sysop deleted#8. TeleComNasSprVen 08:22, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, had I seen no bgc hits, I'd probably have deleted it.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think as a rule of thumb, anything that gets one CFI-meeting hit should be allowed the standard 30 days to try and find two more. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

flink

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

Fwiw, google groups:-12 -twelve -dozen +flink +cows shows no relevant use.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's used as an undefined nonsense word in this grammar book, with sentences such as "The flink glopped." and "The flink glops and glarks." — Pingku^dimmi 15:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

leather

Rfv-senses:

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

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

The only sense of this verb I would use in normal conversation is to strike forcefully, as in "to leather a football" (to kick it very hard). --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:45, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia

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

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

It refers to the Wikimedia project, but not semantically I think. Because if it is a metaphor, then I'd say the entry is correct to a point: an encyclopedia in general - without the qualifier modern. --Biblbroks 20:13, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually if its sense is metaphorical, than only the first description would fit appropriately: a source of abundant encyclopedic knowledge. --Biblbroks 20:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

binary sexology

—Internoob (Disc•Cont) 04:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ioppi

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

Looks like it's attestable. Wonder why Wonderfool tagged it? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the cites I can find refer to Vincenzo Ioppi, who's also known as Vincenzo Joppi. Searching Wikipedia returns other people with the same; Roberta, Cristina and Marciallo Ioppi, none of which appear in Google Books (presumably too recent). Luckily CFI doesn't care whether the three citations refer to the same person or not; just three durably archived uses in the language. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:37, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are 37 Ioppis in Italy (link added) and b.g.c. also gives a Selenio Ioppi. I strongly oppose the idea that three citations about the same person would do. Otherwise if you want your name to enter the lexicon, just make up any name and then shoot ten babies and you'll surely be mentioned three times in the media. And every silly invention a pop star gives to his/her child would meet the CFI. --Makaokalani 15:29, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but CFI doesn't mention the matter. I wouldn't be so keen to change it just for given names and surnames. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:38, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that proper nouns generally can be said to have "entered the lexicon", different rules would seem to apply for many cases. Witness: taxonomic names and toponyms. Surnames would certainly be distinct. Are we saying that only surnames with famous holders should be included? Does the occurrence of a name as an author count? Doesn't this create a cultural bias? I don't see how we can avoid either more specific rules or much more casuistry on RfV and RfD. Or we could leave such matters to WP and Wikispecies. DCDuring TALK 16:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

dass

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

I've added some older cites. The Norwegian etymology seems preposterous. DCDuring TALK 23:25, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tôkyô

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

I found one cite in alt.sex.stories.moderated which discusses the use of it as a "proper" Romanization at the bottom. There was also a hits for a presumably fictional Tôkyô-2 and a hit on TV Tôkyô. I'm tempted to add a French section--Google Groups clearly supports it--but I don't know French.--Prosfilaes 01:12, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One, two, three, four, five. I would manually add these, but I do not feel trusted. --Pilcrow 12:50, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

juror

Rfv-sense: Portuguese noun. Italian section for juror turned out to be a total error, and I think this is too. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not Portuguese. Removed. —Stephen ^(Talk) 00:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Islamonazism

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

Looks easily verified via Usenet. DCDuring TALK 19:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

dookie hole

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

I can has cheezburger?

Is this real? --Hekaheka 18:36, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it's real, but why would we have an entry for it? Maybe it could be kept as part of an "Internet phrasebook". Nadando 18:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is an internet phrasebook already. It's called "Urban Dictionary". -- Prince Kassad 19:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're arguing deletion here rather than verification, I would say that it's idiomatic, but whether it is meaningful is a different story.... —Internoob (Disc•Cont) 22:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this really has a meaning at all. It's just something that people say because everyone else does, too. —CodeCa t 22:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking whether or not it is idiomatic or attestable? If the former, it might be easily derived from, as I noted in the etymology section, the separate components "I + can + has + cheeseburger" (though whether or not people can figure out cheezburger = cheeseburger can be questionable); and I'd say it's a valid entry as a popular internet meme. If you are talking about the latter, I'd say that it is in popular use, and as attestable as I can haz cheezburger? or can haz or lolcat(s) which are probably used just as often since the terms all originate from the same website. TeleComNasSprVen 23:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a WT:BRAND candidate to me, and not one I'd waste my time on either. DAVilla 08:18, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It needs attestation with the definition given, i.e. where it is being used to ask for a cheeseburger and not merely being parroted as a "meme" / popular phrase. Good luck! Equinox ◑ 09:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WT:BRAND can't apply, a slogan isn't a physical product. --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:46, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, haz and cheezburger are attested nonstandard forms of have and cheeseburger, I don't think there is any doubt about that. —CodeCa t 09:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is the gloss right? Would somebody actually use this line when ordering a cheeseburger? Or has this phrase a meaning that goes beyond satisfying one's physical needs? --Hekaheka 12:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does it mean anything at all? Mglovesfun (talk) 12:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Move to RFD (and hopefully delete). Ƿidsiþ 06:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though we don't have any citations for it. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:25, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why move to RFD? If people can't find citations for the entry, it should just get deleted by RFV. --Daniel 13:04, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

third person

Rfv-sense: noun "The pronouns he, she, it, they and one." Huh? Perhaps this should be at RFC or just deleted directly. Mglovesfun (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, move to RFC. Whoever added that def may have been bothered by the verb-centricity of our other defs — "he refers to himself in the third person" is not about the choice of verb — but the result is not useful. —Ruakh_TALK 15:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that with other definitions like third-person singular where of course pronouns as well as verbs (and probably more than that) can have third-person singular forms. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Detagged. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

todolist

Wonderfool entry: French noun meaning to to-do list. Google Book searches for "(la|le|un|une) todolist" and "(des|les) todolists" get absolutely nothing. Mglovesfun (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should be todo list. Moved. —Stephen ^(Talk) 20:11, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No objection from me. --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:55, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the many translations of Wiktionary

¶ Does anyone want to verify a translation here? --Pilcrow 18:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia

Wikipedia-Proper noun

Rfv-sense X 2:

1. (trademark) An open-content online encyclopedia, collaboratively developed over the World Wide Web.

2. [not challenged] (Wiktionary and WMF jargon) A version of this encyclopedia in a particular language.

3. A heterogeneity which encompasses this encyclopedia in its many language versions, the community that develops it and the process of its development.

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

Well, I think it is obvious that the second sense depends on the first, at least syntactically. But the second citaations given:

*2006, Cindy Long, "Getting WIKI With It", NEAToday 25 (2): 40 (October)

It’s because of this open editing feature that Wikipedia draws praise, criticism, and, at times, vandals.

has an interesting part - mention of vandals. So if one thinks of encyclopedia as a product of development (as the first sense suggest that this encyclopedia is), that one might ask where do those vandals come into "equation". For example in the FOSS community when a project is developed, I don't think that there are deliberate vandals, or even accidental for that matter. Of course, I may be mistaken, but even so a project is in my opinion interpreted differently than a product of development. Anyway if vandals are considered then maybe the second sense given would work, since in the part "a version of..." one could imagine that attraction of vandals is possible in some other version. But I may be completely mistaken, since the FOSS arguments I presented are from a person without much experience in that FOSS area. Anyway, your bet, DCDuring, might be profitable, but I wouldn't take much chance on it. ;-) Regards, --Biblbroks 11:47, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am simply interested in getting citations for the definitions given or for definitions that reflect actual usage. Much of what you say would be relevant to the word wiki, though most people seem to have exposure to wikis only through Wikipedia and seem to often confuse the general approach with Wikipedia specifically. DCDuring TALK 12:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if my question appears as one by an ignorant person, but I will nevertheless ask it: can Wikipedia itself serve as a source of citation? That is two of the WP five pillars' ledes give:

from Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not there's "Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and, as a means to that end, an online community of individuals interested in building a high-quality encyclopedia in a spirit of mutual respect."
from Wikipedia:Civility there's "Civility is part of Wikipedia's code of conduct, and is one of Wikipedia's five pillars." and "It applies to all interaction on Wikipedia, including on user and article talk pages, in edit summaries, and in any other discussion with or about fellow Wikipedians."

Regards, --Biblbroks 21:40, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No we don't allow citations from Wikimedia projects as they are 'not independent'. It would be a bit like me creating an entry, having it challenged and using it on my blog so as to show it exists. That's the sort of 'not independent' I mean. Some say that Wikipedia isn't durably archived, but I'm pretty damn sure it is. I consider 'durably archived' more of a buzzword than a term with any actual meaning. But I digress, that really isn't on topic. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment - I don't find it that digressive. I understand that it may be interpreted as such - I don't interpret it, though - but informative (to me). Anyway, sorry for _that_ digression. What I wanted is to ask if we find the citations from another Wikimedia project not dependent - 'not dependent' as in not created or used for the first time by the same user - then in that case we could allow such a citation, couldn't we? Because, although it might pose a danger of being dependent, it wouldn't be the same as in the described situation. Right? Regards, --Biblbroks 16:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ecoculture

A few Google hits, but the definitions given don't seem to actually mean much. SemperBlotto 21:07, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the noun should pass with some definition or another, but the verb, looks unlikely. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

g note

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

What about g-note, is that tagged, or are we simply verifying that it can be written with a space instead of a hyphen? Mglovesfun (talk) 11:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pabular

Maybe a candidate for our dictionary-only terms appendix. The OED has a Usenet citation (!). Nadando 03:42, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Better now? — Pingku^dimmi 12:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, yes. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:HTML

The following members of Category:HTML have been nominated for verification, presumably as they are listed as English, though in reality, they aren't. Listed in subsections as follows:

google groups:"an|a|the nbsp after|before|in" suffices to show use in English. Someone with knowledge of what collocates to use in other Usenet-popular languages can run a similar search for them.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest changing the language header to translingual. It's not really English.--Dmol 08:37, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent first step; the second issue, for me, I'm not the original tagger, that was Hippietrail in 2007, the second question is are these words in any language? Do they convey meaning for a human reader? Granted that's purely an RFD issue. Mglovesfun (talk) 23:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that these are purely English initialisms, acronyms and abbreviations. Nbsp, for example stands for the English words non-breaking space (c.f. the nbsp character), and surely not any other words in any other languages. The unicode then ends with a semicolon, much like how the period is a stopper to the end of a sentence. TeleComNasSprVen 01:07, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to find citations for these in English, go ahead. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not in that form, it isn't [84]. The attested versions of the term in the link always have an ampersand preceding the term and a semicolon following it, even though they are declarations of the unicode character. Having them treat it as a single form, however, would mean that nbsp needs to be changed to " " as an entry title. TeleComNasSprVen 00:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, could that be attested in English with any sort of 'meaning'? Is it a noun, or what? --Mglovesfun (talk) 13:43, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's like the literally thousands of keywords in computer programming languages. Not dict material. Equinox ◑ 15:29, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should be moved to WT:RFD. Used as jargons by a very limited group of people who deal with programming on a regular basis. Next thing you know people will start including common SQL commands like DBCC, sp_who and etc... Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 04:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Did no one notice the link I posted above to a list of sufficiently many hits, without ampersands, in running English text, of this term?—msh210℠ (talk) 06:44, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

get stuck

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

Can we replace just replace be with become? WordWeb gives "Be unable to move further" for get stuck, bog down, grind to a halt and mire. --Anatoli 09:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it just means "become stuck", then it would seem to be NISoP and a potential candidate for deletion. It wouldn't surprise me if it had the challenged meaning. DCDuring TALK 06:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trojan

Rfv-sense: A brand of condoms. Therefore, needs to meet WT:BRAND. TeleComNasSprVen 06:10, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

shwasted

This is a blend of shitfaced and wasted. But is it really attestable? A quick look on Google books doesn't indicate so. TeleComNasSprVen 00:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

as is

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

At COCA "as is" is nearly 1500 times more common than "as-is". DCDuring TALK 01:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

-muche

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

Hmm. See the etymology section of trucmuche on French Wiktionary - that's all I can find. SemperBlotto 14:36, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you try fr:Special:WhatLinksHere/-muche, that's the only one. --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this page is correct, but that this suffix is rather dated, except in trucmuche. It's also possible to find Ménil'muche (most common use, apart from trucmuche), lacromuche, loucharmuche, and also magistrat'muche (according to http://www.languefrancaise.net/bob/liste.php?motsclef=muche&submit=Gi!&moduless=siterech&exact=1). References: this suffix is mentioned in http://www.commerce-rh.fr/articles/42716914-le-louchebem-ou-loucherbem , http://www.docschnauzer.net/ref19.html Lmaltier 14:39, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

protestant

"Of greater quality or merit." Not in Chambers, although that does have our example of Protestant Work Ethic, saying it is associated with the religious movement and not with any generic sense. Equinox ◑ 19:56, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

verbid

Rfv-sense: Template:grammar A noun or adjective that can be used as a verb.

This is not a sense that appears in a OneLook reference, which define it as "a non-finite form of a verb, such as a gerund, participle, or infinitive." DCDuring TALK 15:04, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

chasmophilia

"The love of small places." Nowt in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 18:50, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google Groups only has it as a definition in word lists, and HathiTrust only gives one hit, to Sex crimes and paraphilia, 2006, but doesn't even give a snippet view, only that it's on page 91.--Prosfilaes 23:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

personal space

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

It's in the OED, as the earliest attested sense. They include the following citations: Ƿidsiþ 06:46, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1937 D. Katz Animals & Men v. 95 From the animal's point of view the spot in which it has lived undergoes an internal structuring analogous to the structuring of the functional or ‘life’ space of man. Such an internally structured ‘life’ space we shall call ‘personal space’.
1946 O. Klineberg Social Psychol. viii. 213 William Stern (24) speaks of a personal space and time, differing from one individual to another. Personal space refers to the region of possible movement and contact, and will obviously be different in the case of an international banker and in that of a farmer in the hills of Kentucky.
1958 M. Kerr People of Ship Street ii. 24 The reason seems to be a vague undifferentiated feeling of belonging and the security of moving around in a well-known territory. This may well be an example of Katz's personal space.

whereupon

I was under the impression that despite the components of the word, whereupon specifically did not mean "on where" — are there citations to the contrary? Conrad.Irwin 08:23, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly are authorities to the contrary at OneLook.com that have this sense.

I am more concerned with whether the causal and temporal senses exist separately, rather than something like "after and associated with." It seems to me that the temporal sense is part of the definition and the causal association is a consequence of our normal conclusion that a following event associated with a prior event is a consequence of that prior event, provided there is some accepted framework that supports the inference.

The citation effort for the RfV might also help with my concern. DCDuring TALK 16:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have found one citation so far. - -sche (discuss) 00:54, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited the third sense. The first and second senses (not formally subject to this RFV) remain to be sorted out. - -sche (discuss) 01:03, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

e-xuéxí

No hits on GoogleBooks. [85] ---> Tooironic 01:16, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

huǒzàngchǎng

No hits on Google Books [86]. ---> Tooironic 01:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

huǒzàng

No hits on GoogleBooks. [87]. ---> Tooironic 01:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I dare say most if not all pinyin entries would not have any google hits, as they are simply not used in literature (unless one that specifically deals with pinyin). The phrase 火葬, however, is a common term. I think ddpy (aka 123abc, even though he doesn't admit it himself)'s reasoning behind including pinyin terms is to make it convenient for people, not whether they are attestable in books. I don't have too much of a problem with that, except he doesn't create the corresponding character entries for the pinyin entries that he creates... - but I guess that's an issue for another topic. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 01:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toned pinyin entries are not disallowed but they should not encouraged (toneless pinyin entries is not allowed), so applying the attestability check is a method to restrain the flood of pinyin entries without character entries. The purpose of pinyin is to help learners to pronounce Mandarin words correctly, not to replace the writing system. Entries kaishi, kāishǐ (I added the 2nd etymology recently) make the work on the true Chinese entries duplicated - 開始 / 开始, 開駛, 开驶, creating a mess and inconsistency. I see no value and they are not citable, delete. (I have deleted the Mandarin section of kaishi - toneless)--Anatoli 06:17, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Toned Pinyin entries are allowed and they should encouraged. They have value, please see Wenlin Pinyin dictionary. 91.106.38.88 13:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Whether or not you think something has value is beside the point. Entries must pass Wiktionary's CFI. Anyway, even if someone were to type in toned pinyin (which is impossible to do without copying and pasting from another source anyway!) they could still find the entry under its hanzi equivalent. By the way we know you are User:123abc and have blocked you on the multiple accounts you are abusing under, so really your input is not required. ---> Tooironic 00:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if attestable. Otherwise don't. 'Nuff said. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

paperflier

Paper aeroplane. Nothing in Google Books/Groups. Alt spelling (deprecated template usage) paperflyer also seems suspect, but it's somebody's user name on a newsgroup so harder to narrow down. Equinox ◑ 15:58, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

enfold

To put in a folder (in a computer system). I googled around and found nothing. Equinox ◑ 18:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

biзin

The word is written in a mixture of Latin and Cyrillic. Is it really spelled that way at all? —CodeCa t 14:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW Special:Contributions/JoeyDeep, these were originally Montenigrin, which doesn't have an ISO 639 code or a Wiktionary only code. Mglovesfun (talk) 20:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

faзola

The same as above. —CodeCa t 14:09, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

goлub

The same as above. —CodeCa t 14:10, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According to w:Veps language#Writing system, Veps only uses the Latin alphabet, and doesn't list any Cyrillic 'loan letters'. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:16, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

quotidian

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

I think it is the adjective. The definition seems very similar to the one here; the latter seems not written with pos in mind, but could describe an adjective. I suspect a number of noun usages is causing confusion. — Pingku^dimmi 13:09, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't sense three even more clearly a normal use of an adjective as a noun (fused head}? — This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talk • contribs).

houseless

Noun: those who are believed to be without a right to use, through tenancy, ownership or license, any improved residential real property such as buildings, huts or other structures intended for human habitation; the unhoused.

Is it used? Is this the def? Context? Is there an associated adjective sense? Is the noun usage just a normal use of an adjective as a noun (fused head?)? Is it really synonymous with unhoused as a noun? DCDuring TALK 14:51, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Added by a new user Brothercanyouspareadime (talk • contribs), me feeling is that it's just plain wrong. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:14, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

tweetheart

—msh210℠ (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some examples of this word's usage at Citations:tweetheart. Astral 05:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For the first sense, the two headline-only senses don't provide sufficient context to make it clear what the meaning is. Could you provide more context that would do so? If a user has to read the whole article to confirm the sense, then we don't have a good usage example. Headline usage not repeated in the body often seems to me an indication that the neologism is used because it is not understood. In these cases, the author does not really have much incentive to make the meaning perfectly clear as the teaser value is what counts.

Also, the cites in each sense are supposed to span a full year.

The other senses seem OK. DCDuring TALK 12:01, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the two headline-only usage examples for the first sense per your comment. "Dannii Minogue is a tweetheart!" is a short piece about how Minogue sent InStyle a tweet "the minute she woke up" on the day an issue of that magazine with her on the cover came out, so they probably mean she's a "tweetheart" in the sense of being nice enough to take the time to send them a tweet. "Ashton Kutcher's a real tweetheart" mentions Kutcher was "the first Twitter user with more than one million followers," but in it Kutcher also discusses how he mainly uses his Twitter account to share "content that someone else created," new stories, quotes, and information about charities and causes because he "believe[s] if it's not inspiring, connective, entertaining or educating then you probably shouldn't put it up." So it's unclear whether they mean he's a "tweetheart" in the sense of being a popular Twitter user or being a socially conscious Twitter user.

I've added three other examples where "tweetheart" is used in the first sense in an article's body. One is from 2009, another from 2011, so now there's a two-year spread for that sense.

"Tweetheart" was also added to the Collins English Dictionary last year with the first sense as the definition. Astral 03:32, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

aqua

Sense 3 for the noun on this page refers to the NASA spacecraft, but I would have thought this was only found capitalised as Aqua or AQUA. Caladon 09:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the ones

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

nizoli

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

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

loremaster

¶ This is not really a protologism, but I think the definition needs official verification, if possible. --Pilcrow 09:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. Equinox ◑ 19:11, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Satisfactory. Closed. --Pilcrow 17:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pump ship

Appears in urban dictionary. No idea where in the world it's used or how prevalent it is. Can't find any written source for it. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 11:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be smatterings of results [88] and [89] ---> Tooironic 00:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

June 2011

theist

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

Added by an IP here in 2005. Probably nonsense; any other dictionaries have it? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have managed to find one quotation so far. - -sche (discuss) 16:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

'verse

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

Better? It also appears in combination. (deprecated template usage) Buffyverse we have; also possible are (deprecated template usage) Angelverse, (deprecated template usage) X-verse, (deprecated template usage) Jossverse and (deprecated template usage) Whedonverse—the latter two of course encompassing multiple universes. — Pingku^dimmi 11:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first cite is from a blog, which we don't consider durably archived. I appreciate how hard it is to find cites for this sense at bgc, but there must be a way to search for just a relevant subset of Usenet for the usage.

I would hypothesize that the sequence was: 1., blends ending in "verse"; 2., the shortening "'verse"; and, 3., a backformation "verse". DCDuring TALK 15:40, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a Usenet cite, based on a search limited to "alt.tv.*" groups. AFAICT, cited DCDuring TALK 15:56, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime I found another book citation. This makes it all Joss Whedon (apart from the blog cite, which I've commented out). That fits with something I read in my search, indicating it is/was usage within his fan base. — Pingku^dimmi 17:07, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this falls under “terms originating in fictional universes”. I’m pretty sure that the universe of Firefly and Serenity is referred to as “the ’verse” within the works themselves — it’s not like (deprecated template usage) Buffyverse, which I presume was originated by fans — and all four of our quotations are referring to that universe, rather than supporting a general “fictional universe” sense. Admittedly, one quotation has “In the Firefly/Serenity ‘verse (as in ours)”, which tends to imply that “’verse” is simply “universe” (no one would ever write, “In the Star Trek Federation of Planets (as in ours)”, even after pages of explaining how the Federation is that universe’s U.N.), but even that implication doesn’t quite support a “fictional universe” sense. —Ruakh_TALK 16:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

majusculation

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

A verb majusculate looks plausible, though rare. I found hits for majusculated and majusculating. — Pingku^dimmi 07:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

in the driver seat

Possibly a variant of in the driver's seat. I'll try to attest it later, if no one beats me to it. --Daniel 16:15, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard of driver's seat and driving-seat but not driver seat. Equinox ◑ 23:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would write it "in the driver's seat". Much to my amazement, in various google searches drivers seat/drivers' seat is more common (sometimes much more common) than either. driver's seat is the least common form. Adding "in the" doesn't change anything.DCDuring TALK 01:07, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Medusa

Can we show that Medusa was "killed by Perseus"? Citations must be independent to references of Greek Mythology, per CFI. DAVilla 15:48, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Citations added. OK now? — Pingku^dimmi 18:18, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't citations necessarily all refer to Greek mythology, by referring to Medusa? This passes, though, as far as I can tell. - -sche (discuss) 16:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

※

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

contradiction

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

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

moe

Interjection "used to accuse someone of being a moekko" (whatever that is). Really English? And really an interjection? (Saying "Idiot!" or "Pervert!" is using a noun for example, not an intj.) Equinox ◑ 21:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thoroughbred

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

ganno

Supposed Latin verb. Not in any Latin dictionary I can find. SemperBlotto 06:45, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And if the creator doesn't specify a conjugation, we only have this form to work with. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

santorum

Shorthand for 'social conservative'. Equinox ◑ 16:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could be an 'attack sense' based on the other sense of santorum. Mglovesfun (talk) 22:30, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:cite journal

The paper, titled "Natality in the Private, Public, and Political Spheres: When Santorum Becomes santorum", dealt with the impact of new media on various spheres of influence. The paper's abstract noted, "The specific issue used as an example for this analysis is Dan Savage's internet media campaign to transform former Senator, Rick Santorum's name into a new sexualized word, to retaliate against and increase awareness about the senator's issue stances regarding sodomy, other sex acts, and GLTB rights."

Additional quotes:

"The internet picked up the new santorum definition as evidenced by two searches. One search was of the internet, while the other searched major news outlets. A Google search of "santorum" and "frothy" produced 33,900 sites including the following outlets. Santorum is an entry in wikipedia and urbandictionary.com."

"Other articles called the term disgusting, but recognized that it had become shorthand for 'social conservativism'"

Can't seem to actually get to the paper online today, maybe someone else will have luck. Its fully cited and sourced in its own text. -- Avanu 16:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

These citations aren't valid without valid referencing, authors, years, titles. Only the last one seems to support your meaning anyway, proving that the word exists isn't the issue, it's whether it has the meaning you say it has. --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If I could actually pull up the paper today, this wouldn't be a problem. It has cites for everything. -- Avanu 16:27, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/5/9/4/9/p259493_index.html one just says 'page not found'. Oh and which paper, one paper could only give one citation anyway (three independent durably archived citations) --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that we need "uses" not "mentions". See w:Use-mention distinction. DCDuring TALK 17:01, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting mention of this in 2006 Partridge's. The word was not included then or since. In contrast WP has had numerous articles about the word/concept/smear. It is an interesting example of propaganda. We should have a category for pejorative eponyms, that is those intended to denigrate the specific person (entity ?) from whose name they derive. DCDuring TALK 17:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Partridge does mention the word in the original sense ("a frothy mixture of...") but not this new sense. The original sense is also recognized by the American Dialect Society.[90] Gacurr 17:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting how few cases of this kind of "reverse pejorative" seem to exist. gerrymander may once have been intended to be disparaging of Mr. Gerry during his active political life. I'd be interested in whether there were other instances. We regularly remove this kind of thing as vandalism when it involves persons who could sue. Perhaps some rhyming slang is similar.

The new sense seems an inside joke intended to disparage social conservatives. Language change by group intention at internet speed. DCDuring TALK 20:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The new sense social conservative does seem to have no sources. The related sense, social conservativism, only has the one example. I would tend to agree that either of these new senses is pejorative. I had thought removal of the new un-sourced sense would be indicated but the editor who came up with it reverted back to the entry page with it. Gacurr 22:00, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Folks are slow to speedy words that are controversial, even when they are likely not to meet WT:CFI. Here at RfV, the standard is four weeks/one month to allow time for the work of attestation. Sometimes an imaginative advocate can find attestation that a person ill-disposed to the entry can or will not. DCDuring TALK 22:21, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The new sense is given above and at the entry as "...conservative". But the only example to support it says "...conservativism". Gacurr 17:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to make the definition change to "conservatism"; it seems like a fairly minor/inconsequential difference to me. If I could pull up the paper, I could grab the sources used. Otherwise I will just have to wade through a bunch of Google hits, but from what I can tell we do have a couple of days here, so I'll work on it later when I get home. -- Avanu 23:05, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is best to go by what our source says. A cache page of the paper says "conservativism". (I corrected my two posts above.) The paragraph for context:

A Lexis Nexis search of major US and word publications and News Wire Services for the terms “Santorum” and “sodomy” garnered 242 articles beginning with the original April 22, 2003 date. A search of “santorum” and “Dan Savage” garnered 17 articles, one of which was a New York Times guest column by Savage himself on April 25, 2003. Other articles called the term disgusting, but recognized that it had become shorthand for social conservativism. Others reported on Bob Casey’s (a Senate candidate and challenger for Santorum’s seat) return of Dan Savage’s campaign donations due to the columnists role in minting the “raunchy definition” (Budoff, 2006 for instance).

So, the number of articles found by the author to recognize the shorthand for social conservativism sense is not given, other than being more than one. Gacurr 00:22, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cell mates: Casey casts a Santorum vote against research

Post-Gazette

Used as an adjective in the headline.

Help Us Give Christine O’Donnell The Santorum Treatment

http://jezebel.com/5664107/help-us-give-christine-odonnell-the-santorum-treatment

Again used as an adjective, but in the sense of beginning an attack.

"And that is partly because his name is forever associated with something he would consider disgusting and probably evil, and that serves to remind the rest of us just how reprehensible Santorum's politics actually are."

Huckabee Pulls a Santorum

http://wonkette.com/346053/huckabee-pulls-a-santorum

Nekkid Wimmen, Faggots And Rick Santorum | TheCanthook

www.canthook.com › Blogs › Dr. Harl Delos's blog

Apr 17, 2011 ... If you want to piss off a gay guy, you'd call him a Santorum. Call him a cocksucker, and he'll likely say, "Yes, and a good one, too!

Government Shutdown Looms As Boehner Rejects Funding Stopgap

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/biglith/john-boehner-wont-back-budget-stopgap_n_824633_77712053.html

biglith - Commented 4 months ago in Politics

“He's a "Santorum".”

mnwildfan - 08:26 PM on 2/17/2011

Now that's low. :-}

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/jnratliff/rick-santorum-john-ensign_n_861930_88265689.html

jnratliff - Commented 1 month ago in Politics

“All GOPteapers are santorums? LOL!” — This comment was unsigned.

Of these, only the Post-Gazette quotation seems to be from a site we would consider durably archived. That quotation ("Casey casts a Santorum vote against research") does not seem to be in the sense given. It is readily interpreted as a metonymous reference to the senator, specifically to an action or a position he might have taken (like "Huckabee pulls a Santorum"). Analogous uses of different proper nouns ("to pull a LaBron", "He's no LaBron", "Is LaBron our Michael Jordan?") might help show how many proper names can be used this way.

If someone said that someone in Egyptian politics was the "Santorum of Egypt", that might be more interesting. But it is still a long way to from that to the uses of Hitler#Noun that have gone far beyond mere allusion. DCDuring TALK 00:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will continue to Google this. Its a little difficult, since the most primary results are always about the Senator/candidate himself. (unless you search for the word by itself, then the 3rd entry and beyond are about the Senator himself) These results confirm, to me at least, that the primary definition is the Surname of the senator, the other two definitions are hard to determine which is which, but judging at least by the examples I'm finding, the *wink* *wink* use, where a person uses it to make fun of political opponents seems to be more common. Sort of like saying "Republicans are shit", but substituting the word santorum. It seems to convey simply a general disdain for all things in opposition to the speaker saying the word. -- Avanu 07:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I commented at the entry talk; in sort, the literal definition is well established and I think a fair number of people use it figuratively in the same sense as bullshit, but with a liberal vs. conservative connotation. Wnt 18:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(repeated from Talk page of entry) I guess that 'connotation' sense is what the paper from the Wikipedia article was citing, but I'm not an expert in Wiktionary so I'm not totally certain yet how we go about things. Do we include connotative senses of a word or just literal? Does it depend on how pervasive it is? Who decides that, etc etc.... -- Avanu 20:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Effort and imagination may be able to produce cases of the word being attestably used in ways that an ordinary countable common noun is. If such effort and imagination fails to produce evidence in a month, then the matter might be closed by a trusted resolver of such items. If there is no effort to forthcoming, then the matter might be kept open for longer. Similarly if there is non-conclusive, but suggestive evidence.

Countable nouns form plurals and collocate with "a", are modified by determiners (eg. "many", "few", "other", "some", "another", "any") and adjectives. All of this unambiguously or, at least highly probably, in the sense given. The searching is difficult as the big corpora do not facilitate searches for lower-case forms. It might be necessary to search the web for some distinctive common collocations in the sense given, then to search Usenet (via Google groups) and Google News for durably archived instances of the same collocations. Tedious. DCDuring TALK 20:50, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of santorum:

use: What a bunch of santorum.
use: I think this is a load of santorum.
use: Lou Dobbs is a pustulent sack of santorum
use: Alberto Gonzales - lying sack of santorum
use: Rove and Gillespie - filthy, lying sacks of santorum
use: I think he just needs a nice steaming cup of santorum and he'd be fine.
use: Same goes for that cowardly sack of santorum ...
use: a lying sack of santorum. Look it up.
use: If you store up a supply of santorum, they're likely to shuck off more easily.
use: Yes, I have been following that and my understanding is that O'Keefe is a lying sack of santorum and ...
use: I stepped in a nasty puddle of santorum in the rest room at a roadside park the other day.
use: This is due to its rather unkempt appearance, its quite thin wallet, angry and bitter affect, and its odor of santorum about its person.
use: Scumpy Goebels chortles, through a mouthful of santorum:
use: I just keep getting an image of santorum......just not Rick.
use: You are nothing but a night's collected amount of santorum
use: Breitbart, that big fat lying sack of santorum, posted an edited videotape
use: Yeah , I'm tired of fucking around with what is essentially a shallow puddle of santorum .
use: I would lean more towards an aborted buttfuck because of an excess of santorum (google is your friend)...
use: ...remains in its bladder-acid-soaked latrine-hole, quaffing liberal quantities of santorum - directly from its sources, no doubt, as they "visit" said hole'...
use: Nydia, you worthless cuntload of santorum(the frothy mixture of fecal material and lube) mind using your own handle?
use: There you squeegee up a palmful of santorum after a messy assfuck and fling it into the face of the bottom, screaming "Bam, ya nasty bitch!"
use: I think I detect the sickly sweet odor of santorum in the room.
use: This is a vile dripping mess of Santorum.
use: Yeah, but it's elaborate, they gotta do a lot of toe tappin' and hand waving' and always have gobs of Santorum to clean up afterwards.
use: Sounds like a load of Santorum to me, but ...
use: I Can Make The Sad Sack Of Santorum Dance At My Beck And Call, At My Will.
use: [snip remaining lines of santorum]

Gacurr 10:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are off-topic, relating to the unchallenged sense. The definition that is challenged is the one that says the term means "social conservative" or "social conservatism". DCDuring TALK 13:44, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does a new entry on this page need to be opened for the sense of "bullshit" suggested by another editor above? Toward the top of the list, it seems like it might be used that way (or in the sense of "shit"). Also, toward the bottom, santorum is capitalized. Is this sufficient to support an alternative form (like jack-o'-lantern)? On the challenged sense, in culling the above, I searched through about 20 pages of results and no instances of use in the sense of -ative or -ativism (or -atism) were found. Gacurr 19:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no formal need to vett a distinct sense here before adding it to the entry. OTOH, it is wise to take advantage of the attention being devoted to the entry while this is open, especially if you are uncertain. I would exclude the examples that were capitalized. The capitalized common noun sense would have to stand on its own for verification, IMHO. These cites don't seem to support the "bullshit" sense. I'm not sure that they support the sense "shit" vs. the more established sense. The mere presence in a slot commonly occupied by "shit" in a common phrase doesn't mean it has the identical meaning as "shit": See google books:"lying sack of" -"lying sack of shit" -"lying sack of crap". DCDuring TALK 21:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the "social conservativ(e/ism)" sense as unattested and therefore RFV-failed. I have added the "shit: rubbish, nonsense" sense the citations Gacurr provides use. - -sche (discuss) 22:10, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

操心

First time I've seen Hmong written in Han ideographs. Does that really exist? -- Prince Kassad 14:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No idea but the link in the edit history is gives txhawj siab as the word (Latin script). --Mglovesfun (talk) 16:33, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Mg's observation. The link provided has txhawj siab as the entry title as the Hmong uses Latin script as its most recognized writing system. 操心 is only there to provide a reference to the word's etymology (Chinese). I doubt the anon who created the entry knows much about Hmong. I am going to just remove the Hmong entry. Let me know if you disagree. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 23:27, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

bitcoin

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

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

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

It's very honest of you to nominate your own entry, I commend you on that. Regarding the nomination itself, 'created in 2009' so yeah I'd imagine citations are quite hard to come by. There's a chance that even if it fails now, if the concept remains in use then it might meet CFI later on (2012 or 2013, for example). Mglovesfun (talk) 18:18, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say I chose to nominate it purely myself. Leftmostcat suggested it, and I chose to do this myself as it would just be more experience. The two things I'm looking at are CFI, as above "right now". I'm sure in the future this *will* be an interesting topic so long as it doesn't go belly up, as well as the stylisation of "[B|b]it[C|c]oin" AbstractBeliefs 18:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would be citable on usenet, I think. We need to consider whether "bitcoin" is a common misspelling in English of "Bitcoin" or "BitCoin". DCDuring TALK 18:47, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a matter of some thought. There's a brief discussion on the talk page. Main issue here though is CFI. Depending on if you have free time, would it be possible for you to pick up one or two older, well discussed threads on Usenet? And if you don't have the time, possibly point me on? Thanks AbstractBeliefs 18:55, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of the current references: the Guardian article takes pains not to use bitcoin as a common noun, only using Bitcoin in the manner of a trademark; and Forbes and SmartMoney use it freely as a common noun but always capitalised (a Bitcoin, Bitcoins). As yet we have no valid citation for a lower-case bitcoin or bitcoins. Equinox ◑ 20:48, 13 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

one-to-one

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

...which latter is already covered by the other (not nominated) adjective sense "Matching each member of one set with a member of another set".—msh210℠ (talk) 15:20, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

broster

—msh210℠ (talk) 17:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Only relevant entry is found in Urban Dictionary. Otherwise, it seems to be a surname with a capitalized B. I would've deleted it on sight as a protologism. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 23:18, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sweater vest

Rfv-sense. Really? Usage in which region(s)? Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 23:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zero relevant hits at google groups:"sweater vest" OR sweatervest ketchup|catsup.—msh210℠ (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

google books:"sweatervest" OR "sweater vest" yields about 5,000 hits, mostly in the open and hyphenated forms. Widespread use. My late father owned and wore some. DCDuring TALK 20:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not spoken much in warmer climes. Possibly on a comeback with higher heating costs and aging population. DCDuring TALK 20:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's an rfv-sense. See the entry.—msh210℠ (talk) 05:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

D'oh. Sorry. DCDuring TALK 05:33, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Caen

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

newmodel

There is one quotation for this spelling (vs. hyphenated or open). DCDuring TALK 21:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a few cites. Leasnam 14:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The cites look good to me. I had never heard this before. I still find no on-line dictionary that has it, rather than new-model. I expect the facts (identity of meaning and relative frequency) will support it being an alternative spelling of new-model. DCDuring TALK 14:57, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For example, I don't find either spelling of the verb at COCA or BNC. DCDuring TALK 15:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether the term and its relatively short life are attributable to Cromwell's w:New Model Army (1645-1660). That would give it an atypical etymology, not true prefixation. DCDuring TALK 15:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This really doesn't surprise me at all, since I find a LOT of words which are not entried anywhere, but are apparently, and have apparently, been in use for quite some time. Leasnam 15:31, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

COCA and BNC are corpora of contemporary English, American and British respectively, not dictionaries. I think dictionaries follow, with a lag, contemporary usage. The dictionaries that had new-model were older. Webster's 1828 and 1913 have the hyphenated spelling. Contemporary dictionaries, Webster's Revised Unabridged (1996-8) excepted, have neither spelling. DCDuring TALK 16:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the cites, by Burke and Madison, are not properly dated. Is the Shakespeare edition cite from an introduction, a preface, a footnote? It certainly isn't by Shakespeare. The cites otherwise seem valid. DCDuring TALK 16:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe from a footnote. I have replaced it with another, better one (I hope). Leasnam 18:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

bone

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

Not strictly on topic, but why have the adjective before the noun and the verb? Mglovesfun (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What's the best order is not always clear. IIRC some page recommends alphabetical order absent a reason for another order: I thought it was ELE, but apparently not.—msh210℠ (talk) 05:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Meconomy

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

corner

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

xiāngzào

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

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

esipikkuaivo

Tagged for speedy deletion; I moved it here as it is a question of attestation. --Mglovesfun (talk) 14:06, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(deprecated template usage) aivot by itself means brain, and is a plurale tantum. I imagine all the terms derived from it are, as well. So I don't think the singular form exists. (I've added an etymology to the plural entry) —CodeCa t 14:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The entry for (deprecated template usage) aivo is a redirect to (deprecated template usage) aivot, because the word does not exist in singular. However, I think it's justified to keep aivo as redirect, because somebody not too familiar with the language might want to look it up. Also, the singular is used as modifier in compound terms, e.g. (deprecated template usage) aivolohko, (deprecated template usage) aivokäyrä. However, anybody who needs the word esipikkuaivot (archicerebellum) must be advanced enough to know that aivot and thus esipikkuaivot is a plurale tantum, and at least I'm not aware of compound terms in which esipikkuaivo- would be used as modifier. --Hekaheka 14:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect would be better than deleting it. Finnish grammar is regular enough that someone might see an unfamiliar word, try to 'undo' its declension, end up with aivo or (assuming consonant gradation) aipo. And then they might try to look that up, because dictionaries generally don't list inflected forms. A regular Finnish paper dictionary would list aivot where aivo would be, but we don't have that luxury on Wiktionary. So I think it would be a good idea to give the users a little hint in the right direction somehow. A redirect is good, but we can't always redirect (if the entry is used for other words). —CodeCa t 15:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then perhaps we should add redirects for väliaivo ((deprecated template usage) väliaivot), pikkuaivo ((deprecated template usage) pikkuaivot), iso aivo ((deprecated template usage) isot aivot), housu ((deprecated template usage) housut) etc. Another aspect is that a horde of net dictionaries uses Wiktionary as a source and any incorrect expression we have spreads all over the cyberspace. Thirdly, esipikkuaivot is no more part of everyday language than archicerebellum, and likelihood of anyone ever looking for its singular form is iota. If it ever happens, there will be only one alternative left in the search drop down list long before he has finished writing e-s-i-p-i-k-k-u-" in it. --Hekaheka 18:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not everyone searches for words using the search drop-down box though. I don't... —CodeCa t 12:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Esipikkuaivot is a very rare word. I can understand aivo as a redirect but not this one. By the way , why are there two search boxes in the main page? --Makaokalani 12:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ork

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

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

legerrio

sole sense: (music) Lightly, delicately, or gently.

Not in any other OneLook reference. Is this spelled correctly? Is it used in English? DCDuring TALK 14:48, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps (deprecated template usage) leggero. — Pingku^dimmi 14:53, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. This is a misspelling (no hits in Grove music online). SemperBlotto 14:57, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of further research suggests leggiero, to which this can be moved. DCDuring TALK 15:12, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

auscultation

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

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

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

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

The first 100 results at google books:+auscultation -body -stethoscope -intitle:auscultation -abdominal -abdomen -bowel yield only one not in the not-nominated sense, at [91], but I see it as a "snippet" and can't tell what the word means in it. There's also [92]: again, I have no idea what the word means. (See also [93].)—msh210℠ (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

inscriptionist

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

The definition appears as is in Urban Dictionary under inscriptionizer, to which they redirect inscriptionist.— Pingku^dimmi 08:22, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ASD

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

hero

"Someone who possesses supernatural powers (in fiction) such as Superman." Needs to be verified in a manner that distinguishes it from the other sense "A real or mythical person of great bravery who carries out extraordinary deeds" (but possibly without superpowers). Also this definition appears to cover anyone with supernatural powers, like Stephen King's Carrie, who is not exactly a superhero. Equinox ◑ 16:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFV failed; sense removed.—msh210℠ (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

priar

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

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

erize

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

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

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

burbavore

"(US, Philadelphia) A person from the suburbs who visits the city centre to dine etc." I can find absolutely nothing about this anywhere online. Seems to have been originally created at (deprecated template usage) burbavores, where I see in the history "A term coined in Philadelphia, on Phillyblog.com" — a site that ceased to exist in 2009. Equinox ◑ 18:44, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, I've speedily deleted this. From the above, it was clearly an Internet invention (which hasn't lasted at all). Equinox ◑ 23:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

bacn

A kind of spam. This is one of those words that was invented recently, blogged to death, and mentioned a zillion times without really being used. CFI-compatible citations would be nice. Equinox ◑ 21:07, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

crossroads

Added today: "(nonstandard) A fork in the road." Equinox ◑ 21:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me like a synonym for sense 3, the decision-point sense. And figurative doesn't mean nonstandard. The contributor must have been thinking that "Y" is not equal to "X" or that a dilemma is not the same as a trilemma. DCDuring TALK 21:18, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought he/she intended a literal sense relating to physical roads. Equinox ◑ 21:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think the contributor meant a fork in a literal road, similar to sense 2, "an intersection of two roads". - -sche (discuss) 23:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've found two citations that refer to a fork (Nordyke and Thayne), and two that might be referring to a fork, or might be referring to an intersection (Dürrenmatt and Hobson). - -sche (discuss) 23:48, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Pol/Duerrenmatt quote seems good. The Hobson seems ambiguous. It might be construed figuratively or as a pun, some kind of comment on the volume of previous travel. DCDuring TALK 00:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, RFV-pass (using the 2005, 2010, and 1955 citations)? - -sche (discuss) 22:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

xanthopous

Only in dictionaries. Nadando 13:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

mean as a Jew

Entire first page of google results are more like "I mean, as a Jew I think..." or things of that nature. — [ R·I·C ] Laurent — 15:13, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SOP anyway. Delete.—msh210℠ (talk) 15:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

google books:as mean as a jew generates sufficient hits. It certainly seems NISoP. The only question might be whether we have anything useful to say about the usage. I think not. DCDuring TALK 16:00, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

gandoo

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

heilsgeschichte

English? "salvation through reading and understanding scripture" DCDuring TALK 20:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, cited (but I moved it to (deprecated template usage) Heilsgeschichte). Ƿidsiþ 09:23, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

halfpastthreeintheafternoonmare

midnightmare

morningmare

Need sources. halfpastthreeintheafternoonmare doesn't exist on google. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 21:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderfool entries, deleted halfpastthreeintheafternoonmare but afraid I don't have time right now to check the others. Mglovesfun (talk) 07:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

morningmare now has two citations, and seems to be humorous in intent.

For midnightmare, I haven't found citations for the disputed meaning, but as a variation on mid-nightmare it looks OK, at least as an adverb. More citations (including any corresponding to the noun sense of mid-nightmare) would help, but then the undisputed meanings are, um, not in dispute. At least not yet. — Pingku^dimmi 10:32, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

steel guitar

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

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

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

free reed instrument

See steel guitar above, but ask anyone familiar with free reed instruments. --Lo Ximiendo 15:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gmailer

This was added by a user who hasn't made any edits for four years. I don't know if branding applies here, but I wonder if it's attestable at all? —CodeCa t 20:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. Equinox ◑ 21:07, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ngan

Some person who made this in Vietnam might have some motive. --Lo Ximiendo 06:55, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Might, perhaps. But a request here makes only sense if there is some content that could be verified. Here, some IP (geolocated in Vietnam) created a new page, claiming this to be an English (!) adjective, with the meaning "Of or pertaining to [[{{{1}}}]]". Judging from the incoming links, the word has a meaning in some language but this is not the place for random guesswork. Bring it to the appropriate requested entries page. -- Gauss 07:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

clee

The person who created it came from New Zealand. --Lo Ximiendo 07:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, what kind of request is this? The entry contains nothing except the vague claim this might be an English noun. In particular, no possible sense of clee was indicated that could be verified here. The provenance of the "creating" IP is not relevant to the subject. -- Gauss 08:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

idgas

I don't know if it's made up but I never use something like that, honestly, when I type on the forums. --Lo Ximiendo 17:59, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

draw a line in the sand

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

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

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

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

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

yiff

(furry jargon, interrogative) “Anyone willing/desiring to have sex?”, and “Are you willing/desiring to have sex?” Equinox ◑ 15:34, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is just a shortening of a phrase, not a seperate sense. You could ask someone 'Sandwich?' in much the same way. —CodeCa t 18:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rinderkennzeichnungs- und Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz

Per (deprecated template usage) Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz, which appears to have just failed RFV. Equinox ◑ 20:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn’t have failed. This was all discussed and agreed upon some five years ago. At any rate, there is a valid link provided with the quotation. —Stephen ^(Talk) 21:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any talk page or citations for Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz, and as for "discussed and agreed upon some five years ago", consensus can change. Stephen, please don't bully other editors because they don't agree with you. I'd love to say you're not that sort of person, but you are. --Mglovesfun (talk) 21:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pointing out that this was discussed and agreed upon five years ago is not bullying anyone. Pointing out the link to the German law where the term is used is not bullying anyone. Accusing someone of bullying others without any evidence of it is bullying. Bringing an action to desysop Daniel, and trying to bring a second one, accusing him of not caring about Wiktionary, and showing no evidence to back up your accusations and no evidence against Daniel is bullying. We have a saying where I’m from...when you point your finger at me, your other four fingers are pointing back at you. —Stephen ^(Talk) 21:50, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rindfleischetikettierungsüberwachungsaufgabenübertragungsgesetz failed RFV because no citations of use were provided. There was a proposal in 2009 to include words established by governments, which would have allowed yottalumen and other possible SI units, and possibly the R-law, but that proposal was not adopted. - -sche (discuss) 18:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, to pass, it needs three separate citations that "use" the word rather than "mentioning" it, right? Or it could be flagged with the "nonce" gloss, which seems a bit weird for a sort of legal term, but might be okay...? Equinox ◑ 21:52, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The objective of this rule was to make sure that a word really exists. If you can be sure that the word exists through other means, the word should be included, according to the main CFI rule (first sentence): according to this first sentence, all words are welcome, and this is one of the basic rules of the project. Lmaltier 14:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

snert

Three senses, all slang and all highly dubious. "1. an annoying user of a bulletin board etc. 2. yellow snow. 3. troll who preys in spiritual chat rooms, forums, etc, getting the title snert. snot nosed egotistical religious twit." Equinox ◑ 20:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

becomable

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

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

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

quandrance

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

death star

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

wah

"Used within the British Army in response to an answer to an obvious question. This is a question that you have set the other person up to answer. Can become quite frustrating as you become paranoid answering any question in case it is a Wah!" Equinox ◑ 16:44, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The wording is certainly too informal; I agree that attestation is the best place to start with rewording a definition like this. --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

leukophobia

Fear of the colour white. Only in phobia lists. If unattestable, move to "invented phobias" appendix. Equinox ◑ 20:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I could only find two, not three, printed citations which actually use the word; however, there are many more in blogs and suchlike, so in this case I'll judge that this passes and mark it rare. Ƿidsiþ 08:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

kastoranthropy

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

smashpot

"A pot into which baristas eject used espresso grounds with a vigorous smashing motion." See Talk:smashpot from 2004, and note that Google still has nothing on this most of a decade later. Equinox ◑ 21:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ACME

The etymology given is "Lua error in Module:parameters at line 360: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "A Company that Makes Everything" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E.". Can we provide some evidence of this? Also, if there is evidence, is that the source of just the Looney Toons incarnation or of the term as a generic company name in general. This is a term with a lot of folk-etymology baggage. - [The]DaveRoss 10:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

beetle

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

shíyóu

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

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

We should follow rules.

'“Attested” means verified through

Clearly widespread use,

Usage in a well-known work, or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Out of those hits only one of them is in running text in Mandarin [94]. Delete. ---> Tooironic 22:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

empty-handed

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

The IP users who added it are highly suspect. The same editor is responsible for a number of sections below. Haplology 14:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

do it up

"To do something, usually with purpose." Ultimateria 21:44, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lemma should be do up or do something up or do someone up. At "do up", MWOnline has a few senses relating to clothing or hair, "prepare", "fasten", "can/preserve", and "exhaust". bgc has usage of a sense related to sex, possibly "beat someone up" and "scold/berate someone". Our entry for do up needs to be done up right. DCDuring TALK 23:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete it. Mglovesfun (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

thriambus

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

time and tide stay for no man

I don't know if this is an idiom or a proverb. (I want a response for my Beer parlour post "Wymysorys or Vilamovian?", do so or I'll feel ignored.) --Lo Ximiendo 05:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No content - deleted. "time and tide wait for no man" seems to be a well attested proverb. SemperBlotto 06:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like one of a few attestable older alternative forms. Perhaps it should appear as a black link in the entry. DCDuring TALK 13:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rescue squad

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

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

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

crêpe

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

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

effemimania

Only in Serrano's paper, which does not seem to appear on Google Scholar. Equinox ◑ 00:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PlayStation 2

PlayStation 3

Need citations meeting WT:BRAND criteria. (PlayStation, on the other hand, appears to be cited already) -- Prince Kassad 15:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hard to see how this will meet WT:BRAND. It is definitely too new to have any generic usage. IMO having these is like having specific models of car (e.g. Ford Sierra Sapphire) and risks us becoming a sort of weird historical product catalogue. Equinox ◑ 23:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

goniolatry

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

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

webalist

A huge mouthful of a definition with nothing I can find on Google Books or Groups. "(Internet) A designer, developer or administrator that is versed in the building and maintaining of websites, web servers, routers, and web applications. One with the understanding of all things web-related, having a high understanding of the web as a whole. Their functions include, but are not limited to, the following: building pages, writing code, administering servers/routers." Equinox ◑ 22:17, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

frogging

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

podview

"(slang|internet|neologism) A podcast interview." Nowt in Google Books and Groups. Equinox ◑ 23:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2-up

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

chantpleure

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

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

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

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

ὦ

If this isn't real, we could use it as a Greek letter with an accent. --Lo Ximiendo 19:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

¶ The definition is complete and utter nonsense. The actual term is βοῦς. --Pilcrow 23:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea about the noun, but there is an interjection and another sense which I don't know what to call and have left as interjection. DCDuring TALK 00:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No noun meaning in Liddell & Scott. You can't prove a negative, but this is strong evidence against the existence of the noun. I'm removing it now. —An gr 15:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Luser Attitude Readjustment Tool

If this does exist, the three senses should probably be merged. Ƿidsiþ 16:13, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree they should. Here's one to start us off.—msh210℠ (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted unverified. Ƿidsiþ 08:37, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

agrémens

Agreeable qualities or circumstances. Supposedly English. DCDuring TALK 14:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Three quotes added from Google book search. Very many more available without the é. SemperBlotto 07:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cited DCDuring TALK 12:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

corniche

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

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

cotton-picking

Rfv-sense: Template:US Describing a black person.

Lua error in Module:quote at line 2972: Parameter 1 is required.

I don't think the cite supports the definition, nor that other cites can by found to support the definition. "Cotton-picking" is a general purpose, sometimes pejorative intensifier. In this quotation, it might be taken as literal or to indicate a "field" Negro, rather than a "house" Negro. DCDuring TALK 04:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 06:38, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

marttakerho

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

Wikiccionari

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

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

Biquizionario

-- Liliana • 12:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

try

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

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

Chinglish

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

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

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

ʟ̆

Looks dubious. -- Liliana • 14:18, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gonna be hard to Google, but see [[w:velar lateral flap]]. I'll try and remember to check whether I still have my copy of Ladefoged and, if so, whether he uses this.—msh210℠ (talk) 15:29, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

spell model

"The intricate or complex structure(s) of a spell, especially intricate or complex enchantments, (think like a mathematical or data model.) Often involved in the creation of new spellwork and spells." Equinox ◑ 20:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

note

Rfv-senses for all of Etymology 1 section.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have tagged the verb senses:

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

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

acabame

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

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

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

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

For this noun, I knew el acabose [95] (literally, "the it finished"), but not el acabame. -Aleator 22:09, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ngcha

"(South African, slang) Cool. lekker". Tagged with RFV in 2007 by Rodasmith, but apparently never listed here. Equinox ◑ 15:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to outright speedy it, unless someone disagrees. Absolutely nothing on Books or Groups. -- Liliana • 00:53, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

鹹甜，汫無味

Zero hits on Google and Google Books. ---> Tooironic 01:04, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can change the comma to a standard unicode one, or take it out all together and still get zero hits. Shall we stop wasting time, chaps? --Mglovesfun (talk) 11:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The entry has been deleted, so I am striking it. - -sche (discuss) 06:40, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

hummusiya

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

give it some welly

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

dampen

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

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

googolplexfold

Added by User:Dekoshu, who added quite a lot of dodgy "ultra-", "super-" terms, anything about enormousness. Nothing usable on Books or Groups. googolfold looks like it might not pass either. Equinox ◑ 21:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted unverified. Ƿidsiþ 08:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sightseeing

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

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

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

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

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

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

bouncebackability

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, apparently, at least I understood you accurately.

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

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

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

AFKAFK

-- Liliana • 19:12, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find a single web reference that isn't from Wiktionary. Even Urban Dictionary doesn't have it. Kill. 81.142.107.230 13:06, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

油炸鬼

Tooironic, what part of speech is this word? --Lo Ximiendo 00:43, 13 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's a noun. I added it already. ---> Tooironic 00:00, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

teethly

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

Mew

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

三級片

Tooironic, I have another request again; it's the same as last time for the word that's about some food. --Lo Ximiendo 05:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It might not be "nevermind", but this [96] explains the word. --Lo Ximiendo 05:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's definitely a real word, but the definition is a copyright violation. Fixed it now, striking. ---> Tooironic 00:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

high-heeled

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

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

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

hatefuck

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

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

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

Yosemite Sam

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

practice

Rfv-sense According to Compact OED 3rd Ed (2008) the verb and noun are "pratice" for US English, with UK English being "practice" for the noun and "practise" for the verb being correct. Therefore in UK English law you practise law but have a legal practice. In the US both senses should be spelt with a "c" — This unsigned comment was added by 86.142.28.90 (talk) at 15:41, 15 July 2011.

The entry already mentions this under usage notes, so I'm not sure what you want us to do. What exactly needs to be verified? --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wikcionarista

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

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

faute de mieux

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

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

cheeseeater

--Yair rand 15:27, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderfoolism just before he got blocked. Hmm. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hyphenated cheese-eater does get some mentions (if not uses) on bgc with a variety of slang meanings. —An gr 15:39, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily deleted. Equinox ◑ 09:14, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

quadfurcate

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

Microhoo

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

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

Transference

German noun, 'transference', tagged in 2008 but not listed. Mglovesfun (talk) 11:03, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can just confirm what the talk page says: The translation of transference (psychology) to German is Übertragung. And there may be Transferenz Template:f, but definitely its not male and German would use -enz instead of -ence endings. I've never heard Transferenz either but that would at least sound like a German word. -- Gauss 20:35, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

三菱商事

Needs citations meeting the company name CFI. -- Liliana • 11:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wraught

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

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

catataxis

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

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

e学习

e-xuéxí

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

Craftsman

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

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

beer o'clock

Most citations seem to use the phrase in quotation marks. Current quotes need formatting if this is OK. SemperBlotto 07:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Cited. Ƿidsiþ 08:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Does this only work with "beer"? Perhaps there's an informal sense of "o'clock" just meaning "the time for something to happen". Equinox ◑ 19:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a general informal extended use of "o'clock"; for example, "stupid o'clock in the morning" and "ass o'clock in the morning" are both citeable (the former by a very wide margin), and "midnight o'clock", "lunch o'clock", and "dinner o'clock" all get some relevant b.g.c. hits. —Ruakh_TALK 19:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've also heard "balls o'clock [in the morning]" for the range of times one is only up at if up very early or very late. A search of Google Books turns up only hilarious scannos for that, though. - -sche (discuss) 07:11, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Sex o'clock" has been used moderately often to describe a time when sex became prevalent or socially acceptable to discuss. Equinox ◑ 17:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TOYA

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

autoeponym

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

debtquity

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

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

Commons

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

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

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

Wikinewsie

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

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

memoaccess

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

smail

--Yair rand 01:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Verb cited, IMHO. DCDuring TALK 02:42, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem like dated is an appropriate tag to me. DAVilla 07:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that would get a reaction. What amazed me is that it was almost impossible to find a valid citation at usenet in the last five years. I may have missed something among all the uses there of "smail" to mean "smile".

Noun cited, IMHO. Wording adjusted, context provided. DCDuring TALK 02:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to only appear in the phrase "by smail". DAVilla 07:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That was how I searched because of all the false hits due to the "smail" program included with Debian. DCDuring TALK 11:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to find use outside of that phrase and came up empty-handed. DAVilla 06:23, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The trick is to try other likely phrases that filter out enough bad hits while leaving in enough good ones. (Oh, and the other trick is to quickly skim a page of ten hits to quickly rule out the eight or nine bad ones. Even the best/luckiest searches are likely to require a lot of that.) After a few false starts (such as "my smail" — too many bad hits — and "email or smail" — no good ones), I hit upon three good ones in a row: "smail address", "junk smail", and "smail order". I've added one cite from each. "Smail box" also has good hits, but I think we have enough variety even without it. :-) Interestingly, "in the smail" (cf. "the check is in the mail") does not get any relevant hits, whereas I did find some hits where "smail" meant "snail-mail address" (cf. "I don't have his e-mail", *"I don't have his mail"), which I think means that "smail" takes its range of senses/grammatical frames from "e-mail" rather than directly from "mail". But of course, "e-mail" obviously managed to develop its range of senses/grammatical frames without a previous non-"mail" analogue, so who knows? —Ruakh_TALK 02:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should we add the definition of the unix program? DAVilla 07:00, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IMO no because that's not a "word" with a definition, but the arbitrary name of a product — commercial or not. Equinox ◑ 22:03, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

firsthand

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

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

lygokinesis

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

anomalous

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

Weird. Is someone getting confused with (deprecated template usage) analogous? Ƿidsiþ 12:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, never mind. I thought you said equivalent. Ƿidsiþ 12:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

whacker

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

legilimency

Only in Rowling, I imagine, so fails fictional-universe criteria. See [97]. Equinox ◑ 20:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin the Martian

"(trademark) A fictional Martian who is a character of Looney Tunes." Needs to meet WT:BRAND I think. Equinox ◑ 09:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tredezillion

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

accountment

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

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

roncus

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

Perhaps this [98] is where the anon found this? From googlebooks I could only find [99] and [100] and I don't know how relevant these are. Caladon 14:08, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Novarbo

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

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

theftless

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

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

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

loopie

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

良気

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

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

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

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

「良気な」(えげな)とは・・・よさそげな、ないすふぃーりんぐな、思いも

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

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

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

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

갂

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

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

Tusayan

Rfv-sense: "An archaic name for the area including today's Hopi villages on Arizona's Colorado Plateau". This was originally considered to be the Spanish name. Does this have anindepdendent existence in English, and is it distinct from the other two definitions? --EncycloPetey 20:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your attention to my work. I embarked on this definition of Tusayan because Tusayan AZ and the Tusayan ruin are named after the centuries-old region surrounding the Hopi villages. I've had a great education building the page. I began thinking it was Spanish, but found it was used by the Spanish, originating from unknown indigenous people of the Colorado Plateau. No web reference provides the facts on which one or ones. Coronado et al didn't seem too interested in linguistic and etymological fine points. The main documents mentioning the Tusayan Province or Region, are online. Tusayan is also mapped on the earliest southwest cartography.

In the late 19th century, authors referred to the area as Tusayan, per the citation, and the Hopi as the Moqui (Hopi word for "The Dead.") Nobody refers to the region as Tusayan, just as the Hopi are not called Moqui. That says archaic to me.

You have your hand in lots of Wiki items. That's interesting. My major online publishing efforts are building the Historic Marker database (HMdb.org) and Yelp*. Yelp* is the easiest-found webby place to write about micro businesses with no fixed address, phone, fax number, web presence and such. Like Native American roadside food stands. I document them. When I get enough I create a list in my Yelp* blog. Because my mind is a trivia fish-net, I'll use names like "Apacheria" (Spanish, and archaic, I think) or Tusayan (uncertain and archaic, I think). I foolishly imagine using those old words might spark a search to find out "What is he talking about?"

Wiktionary, the only definition source I use for another blog, and Wikipedia are great resources if someone decides to search for a word like "Tusayan." They might find out that if they make a fry bread quest via the back road loop to the Hopi and Navajo Reservations, they are traversing Old Tusayan, instead finding a romantically named tourist trap on the edge of Grand Canyon National Park (Hualapai, Havasupai and somewhat Hopi territory in the past), and one of Emil Haury's excavations nearby. With the additional Wikipedia links, the surfer gets depth and history about the first European contact in the American southwest. That's hot stuff to me. That can also be built into an HMdb link too. But there's no historic marker where the Hopi killed the Spaniards and all men at Awatovi, took away women and children, then razed it to the ground to remove the influences changing their lifeways. Darn.

I am willing to learn the Wiki Culture, Language, and Coding rules. I am ready to deepen my knowledge and skill in writing dictionary entries. I foolishly assumed Tusayan was of Spanish origin. In this instance, my second Wiki authoring outing, I am getting a feel for the environment, and learning what's under the hood. I'll get better. I was abysmal my first time out.

If I've over-reference and over-cited the archaic "Tusayan", I'll be happy to prune. Some dictionaries cite multiple sources. I used the word archaic because I didn't want to use, "Lost in the mists before writtten history" I'm not sure if "Unknown Origin" is acceptable. I'd have to crack my OED and read a lot of definitions. Tusayan has become part of English because of new placenames, but has a centuries-long history pre-dating Archaeology and Grand Canyon National Park.

These are my reasons. I deeply apprecite any coaching offered, like the clean definition and citations for Tusayan put up for me yesterday. That was uplifting.

Thanks again,

Chris English

transfluorescence

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

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

lose the plot

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

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

矢#Japanese

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

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

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

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

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

palaver

RfV-sense: Lua error in Module:form_of/templates at line 132: Parameter 1 is required. Disagreement

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

かなりしてください

Previously tagged as {{rfd}}, but never listed. Doesn't get any hits at b.g.c from what I can tell. -- Liliana • 16:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Google is mostly showing what appear to be song lyrics, glossed to "pretty please" in some hits, which might be where the original contributor got this. It's been a few years since I lived in Japan, but I've never heard this used to mean "pretty please" quite the way "pretty please" is used in English -- a closer gloss might be "give me a lot" or "do [something] a lot for me" or something in that direction.

Considering also that this is a full sentence comprising the three words かなり, して (the -て form of する), and ください, I certainly wouldn't mind if this entry went away. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 21:48, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't just delete sentences. We have phrasebook entries. — [Ric Laurent] — 13:01, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let me consult a native speaker and get back to you. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 22:08, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a native speaker's reply: The Wiktionary entry is meant to be the Japanese equivalent of "pretty please" but かなりしてください does not mean that (or anything in Japanese). Hope that will convince the crowd here. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 01:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

police car blue

I can hardly find any usage of the term, let alone any information that would support the specific color chosen to illustrate the entry. DCDuring TALK 00:10, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 22:23, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ƪ

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

D

Rfv-sense: Abbreviation of deny.

I can't imagine the context and don't know where to look for usage. DCDuring TALK 17:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A pretty pointless entry. D is an abbreviation for many many things. Different offices etc have various conventions. D = deny, decline, delete, divert, duplicate, etc etc. We should D this entry, imho -- ALGRIF talk 12:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

prima capita

Sole sense: "A group of individuals integral to a defined population."

At bgc, I couldn't find any use in this sense in English. I could scarcely find this alone in italics. DCDuring TALK 20:07, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011

status

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

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

zoöglœae

¶ I would nominate this for deletion since it is extremely unlikely that this is attestable; æ and œ often accompany one‐another. Since this was an accelerated creation, I am quite sure this is an error. --Pilcrow 05:49, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ladybug juice

I don't think there are three durably attested cites for this or any non-NISoP sense. DCDuring TALK 14:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rainburn

Rfv-sense "Emotional grief resulting from excessive rains and flooding." This sense was added around the time of the most recent Australian floods. I tried looking for "Australian + rainburn" and "feeling + rainburn", but found nothing relevant on Google Books or Usenet. - -sche (discuss) 19:33, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find anything either. Might have just been an invented term used among a small group of people at a certain point in time. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 22:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I specifically suspect it was coined at the time of the floods, but never used. - -sche (discuss) 01:08, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

霊漿 / 霊法

Not in my Japanese dictionaries to hand. Not in JA WP despite interwiki link. Entry created and edited by suspect IP users. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 21:20, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually doubt the validity of these entries. I have a problem with the anon listing non-synonyms as synonyms. I digress. Anyway, take a look at this:

霊法会 on the Japanese Wikipedia.Wikipedia ^ja (reihōkai). Essentially, it refers to an spiritualist offshoot of Shinto Buddhism. I am not into religions, so I don't understand most of it. As for 霊漿, here is a passage from a book by

徳冨蘆花 on the Japanese Wikipedia.Wikipedia ^ja, a 19th/20th century Japanese humanist/philosopher - 巖の如く頑なる魂を透して一滴したたり落ちた天の霊漿. I think in this case, it refers to some sort of spiritual liquid that drips from heaven. Note that this anon seems to be dedicated to editing mysticism/spiritualism/magic related terms in Japanese, which are all attestable as far as I am concerned. The entries are, however, a little too detailed for a dictionary. I've tried talking to him/her about that, but his/her English seems to be limited and I also have a feeling that the person is quite young as he/she talked about receiving instructions from her mother all the time. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 22:14, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks James. One of the IPs listed in the history looks like an IP user I've conversed with successfully in the past, who then amended their editing to be more in line with Wiktionary style and formatting norms. If it's the same user, they are very interested in manga, but they apparently don't have access to any dead-tree reference materials and get all of their definitions from manga, anime, and online sources.

This leads me sideways to a separate question about attestable -- would use of a term in manga be sufficient to warrant inclusion in Wiktionary? -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 22:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. As long as it's used in more than 3 separate manga/anime universes, which in the two examples we have here, I have no doubt. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 23:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

O/T question, but is there such a thing as "Shinto Buddhism"? My understanding was that the two remain largely distinct. The

霊法会 on the Japanese Wikipedia.Wikipedia ^ja article describes the sect as part of

法華宗 on the Japanese Wikipedia.Wikipedia ^ja, itself part of Japanese Buddhism. Then again Japan is known for its syncretism... -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 22:45, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shinto Buddhism is a synonym of Japanese Buddhism AFAIC unless I am horribly mistaken? Religion has always been a mind-boggling exercise for me as I am more of a logical thinker. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 23:13, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm no expert, but what I remember from uni is that the two are separate. Broadly speaking, Shintō covers the living, and Buddhism covers the dead. So you take newborns to the Shintō priest for a blessing, and you bury your dead in a Buddhist cemetery. -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 22:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. I think I should do more research on this in the future. Thanks for that. Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 22:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is a JA WP article on w:ja:霊法会, apparently one of Japan's new religions (新宗教). However, a quick read through the top of the JA WP article indicates that this is a proper religion deriving from the Lotus Sutra of Buddhism, and not just the vague spiritualism or magicalism indicated by the 霊法 definition given.

I rather suspect that the contributing editor, the suspect IP user, based their content solely on their limited understanding from anime / manga, and that 霊法 is either:

not a real term at all, or
a term actually used, but only in certain manga / anime.

I am not a manga reader nor much of an anime viewer, so I have insufficient familiarity with such materials to tell if 霊法 is used in enough manga / anime universes to merit inclusion. If no one else can fill in and confirm this term, I suggest it be deleted. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 06:45, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cartman

Was marked with {{attention}}. Needs whatever a fictional character needs for citation. Has no cites now. DCDuring TALK 04:25, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to rfv-sense, I added the surname definition. Also, is there no English word (deprecated template usage) cartman? We don't have it. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:51, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do now. 81.142.107.230 09:31, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

予史実

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Schafsnase

Supposed to be German for (deprecated template usage) dope (unclear as to which meaning). But seems to be some sort of apple. SemperBlotto 10:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't that be Schnapsnase instead? Reference. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:52, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. This listing includes both meanings: "a variety of apple or pear", and "a dumb person". -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 19:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK. SemperBlotto 14:19, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

cash instrument

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

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

hosemonkey

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

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

medician

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

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

octaviate

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

toey

Rfv-sense: (Australia) lustful or sexually aroused.

Not in Macquarie's or OneLook references in this sense, except for Urban Dictionary. Could use citations, presumably from fiction or Groups. DCDuring TALK 11:37, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Widespread long-term use. I've heard it and used it for 40 years. It's well cited under the linked article on toey as a Roman sandal, but the word is used on its own also.--Dmol 23:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I looked on Usenet and Google Books for "feeling toey", "felt toey", "was toey", but couldn't find quotations that were clearly using it to mean "sexually aroused" as opposed to generically "excited, anticipatory". Still, given the cites Dmol points out at toey as a Roman sandal, it seems quite plausible. - -sche (discuss) 01:05, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems plausible to me too, but Macquarie's has 4 senses, according to Talk:toey, not including the one in question. I've seen usage that implies that someone can feel (deprecated template usage) touchy, restive, apprehensive as a result of being sexually frustrated. The cites at , to the extent that they are intelligible to me and durably attested, don't clearly exclude that interpretation. DCDuring TALK 03:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. - -sche (discuss) 03:41, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

toad-strangler

Could benefit from some more words. Like ones from books. — [Ric Laurent] — 12:54, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cited as "toad-strangler". Hard to find "toad strangler". DCDuring TALK 16:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

toss

Rfv-sense: To search.

"Akkarat shouts orders in Thai to the men tossing Anderson's apartment." Bacigalupi, Paolo. The Windup Girl. 2009. London: Orbit, 2010, p. 382. MacJohnson87 14:59, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reworded the definition and added a usage example. You could add the quote yourself, possibly using {{quote-book}}. I realize the RfV tag was added two years ago, not by you. DCDuring TALK 16:42, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Particularly common in reference to a prison cell. See:

2003, Joseph Wambaugh, Fire Lover, p. 258:
John Orr had occasion to complain in writing to the senior supervisor that his Playboy and Penthouse magazines had been stolen by deputies. And he believed that was what prompted a random search of his cell for contraband. He was stripped, handcuffed, and forced to watch as they tossed his cell.
2009, Thomas Harris, Red Dragon:
Rankin and Willingham, when they tossed his cell, they took Polaroids so they could get everything back in place.

Cheers! bd2412 T 23:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know; google books:toss the room comes up with a bunch of valid hits, just like google books:toss the cell:

2011, Linda Howard, Kill and Tell: A Novel:
Hayes had watched him toss a room before. He had tapped walls, gotten down on his hands and knees and studied the floor, inspected books and lamps and bric-abrac.

--Prosfilaes 01:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great citations! :) I have added them to the entry, and modified the definition on the basis of the 2009 quotation. RFV-passed. Feel free to tweak the definition further. - -sche (discuss) 21:48, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

qymyz

Alt spelling of koumiss. Evidence of this in English, please. All I can find is one Google Books result where it is italicised as a foreign word. Equinox ◑ 20:57, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

copsed

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

GOAT list

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

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

父時間 / 父天空 / 父土地 / 母自然 / 母地球 / 母土地

None of these are valid by my ken. All created by IP user Special:Contributions/90.209.77.109.

父時間 should be 時の翁 instead
父天空 should be 父なる空 instead
父土地 should be 祖国 instead
母自然 should be 大自然 instead
母地球 should be 母なる大地 instead
母土地 should be 母国 instead

All contain links to JA WP, which this user loves to add to entries even when there is no such JA WP article -- as is the case for all six of these entries.

If no one can verify these, could we put them on the list for speedy deletion? -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 20:56, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can't seem to find any google reference that uses any of these words in the way they are defined on wt. I have informed the author about this thread. Maybe we should wait to see what he/she can come up with? Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 21:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the cool head, James. :) By way of background, I have tried numerous times to contact this user, as have others, as noted on User_talk:90.209.77.109 and also over at Wiktionary:Requests_for_cleanup#90.209.77.109 and Wiktionary:Requests_for_cleanup#90.209.77.109_2. I feel a sense of frustrated anxiety, as this user, while apparently acting in good faith, seems very much the bull in the china shop. When I start seeing pidgin Japanese (as the above) echoed across the intarwebs by the various WT mirrors, some purporting a certain amount of authoritativeness, my sense of urgency increases.

That said, that's my problem, and waiting a (short?) while for the user to pipe up is likely the best course of action. -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 22:07, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's the kid that creates entries from Anime and Manga, isn't it? Jamesjiao → ^{T ◊ C} 22:28, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think so, one of the same IP users for Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification#霊漿 / 霊法 above. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 22:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The very same, and the same user who created 良気 which I added to this page too. I believe it is the same user at User_talk:90.209.77.78 who was blocked at that IP for a longer period, and Special:Contributions/2.221.151.186, which the user seems only to have access to occasionally. I generally avoid messing with entries related to magic or religion, but when they concern the real world I check them and usually find it necessary to edit or undo them. Haplology 04:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the time to assume good faith has passed. Anything that gets zero relevant hits on Google Books/News/Scholar/Groups and also very few relevant Google hits in Japanese should get deleted. There is a danger of us having a few dozen made up words simultaneously. And the edit in question hasn't replied here, two days later. --Mglovesfun (talk) 10:06, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Googlenope

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

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

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

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

alicorn

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

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

stalkować

Maro 19:42, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

鬼哭女

Another apparently made-up Japanese entry, brought to us by IP users known for suspect entries. If no one can verify this (it's not in any Japanese dictionary I can access, and the only non-Wikimedia Google hits are on a sparse handful of Chinese sites), I'd recommend deletion. -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 21:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No hits on Google Books either. ---> Tooironic 00:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gets all of four hits that are not directly from Wiktionary. And if Eirikr says they're Chinese and Japanese, I'm sure he (she?) is right. --Mglovesfun (talk) 09:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hiragana and romaji (both forms) also get zero hits apart from our Wiktionary entry. Delete, made up word. --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Mglovesfun -- "Eiríkr" is the Icelandic form of the more common name "Erik" - ergo ♂. :) -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 20:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

jackpot

Rfv-sense: "A variant of draw poker in which players contribute equally to the pot and in which betting may be started only by a player with a pair of jacks or a better hand. In some variations the pot accumulates if no player is able to start." I was in the belief that this variant is called "jacks or better". --Hekaheka 07:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult. Even if what you say is true, and I have no reason to doubt it, it doesn't preclude this usage. Perhaps more likely is that "jackpot" is any game that involves an accumulating prize pool. One such is described here. Such a sense would possibly be deemed derivative to the prize pool sense. It seems to me that it would be difficult if not impossible to provide three citations that prove the rules of the game. The existing citation, for example, merely hints that they are playing for money. — Pingku^dimmi 09:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is also that there are several variants of poker, which may by played under "jackpot" rule, i.e. there's an accumulating pot involved. In case of "jacks or better", only the variant in which the pot accumulates could be called "jackpot". I think the definition for "jackpot" poker should be something like this: "Any variant of poker in which the pot accumulates until one of the players gets a hand which qualifies for collecting the pot" (which would bring it so close to def #2 that they could be merged). --Hekaheka 16:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This definition was added by User:Pingku. Maybe he knows better. --Hekaheka 16:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah.. A mistake, by the look of it; I think I was looking for a definition to match the usage. Thanks for picking this up. Maybe "jackpots"; it's apparently from here, but not backed up with other mentions/usages, as far as I can tell at the moment. — Pingku^dimmi 02:59, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I read a number of poker rules available in the internet. Seems that the original definition is almost correct in the sense that "jacks or better" is usually played with jackpot rule. However, there are many other ways to accumulate a jackpot. I think we should delete the sense on the grounds that "jackpot" or "jackpot poker" may mean any of a number of game variants, and cannot therefore be a set term. --Hekaheka 16:59, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

confuscate

"Alternative spelling of (deprecated template usage) confusticate." However, everything I can see in Google Books is an error for (deprecated template usage) confiscate. Equinox ◑ 09:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What about

to further confuscate matters, Williams' accession to this "post-Modern" title is neutralized in abstruse modifications (William Carlos Williams Newsletter, Volumes 1-4)
For practical purposes, the distinction between the constitutive and declaratory theories of recognition is often of only marginal importance and frequently serves to confuscate rather than elucidate (International Law: Cases and Materials with Australian Perspectives - Page 248)
'Cause Mr. Theophilus Woolson kin confuscate you with his big words (Ballou's monthly magazine: Volume 56)

Fugyoo 08:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

short sweetening

Tagged (in 2006!) and not listed. US regional noun meaning "sugar". --Mglovesfun (talk) 12:20, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cited, IMHO. Also long sweetening, from which I removed the RfV tag. DCDuring TALK 13:22, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The 1986 quotation looks like a mention rather than a use, but I added another quotation. - -sche (discuss) 00:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

祝呪い

Another, again by Special:Contributions/2.216.205.44. I was tempted to put this on RFD, but it does appear that this term is used on the Japanese web -- at least, Google is returning what look like valid hits. From the context I see in the hits, I suspect this term is an alternate spelling for まじない or のろい. The content given on the 祝呪い page is in need of massive overhaul at any rate, since the user just copied the content from 祝呪 in the mistaken belief that these are the same words.

Can anyone verify what this word is supposed to mean? Even just a confirmed reading would be useful -- 2.216.205.44 used しゅうじゅい by extension from the しゅうじゅ on the 祝呪 page, but that reading is also wrong (it should be しゅくじゅ). -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 17:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

višemuštvo

Tagged by creator, Ivan Štambuk, in 2008, about a month after he created it. Serbo-Croatian neuter noun, also by extension the Cyrillic spelling listed in the entry. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

截氣神功

Eirikr tagged with rfd, I changed it to rfv and moved it here. Does this term get enough hits to avoid speedy deletion? --Mglovesfun (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Googling to exclude Wikimedia sites and mirrors shows 42 hits here. Adding "の" to search specifically for Japanese entries gets nine hits here, but all of them are actually Chinese sites showing Chinese usage, where someone just happened to use Japanese elsewhere on the page.

I'm not that up on Chinese, and still a bit fuzzy on WT's criteria for inclusion, so I have no clear idea whether these 42 hits constitute enough to keep this entry (reworking it to be a Chinese term instead of Japanese, of course). -- Cheers, Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 15:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should I delete my post from WT:RFD#截氣神功, then? -- Eiríkr Útlendi | Tala við mig 16:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Probably should remove it, yes, I can see why a user might think that Requests for deletion is the place to request any form of deletion. Anyway, what I actually meant was in practical terms, anything that's very unlikely to pass - no Google Book, Scholar, Group or News hits - is susceptible to get speedily deleted. It's not a 'policy' it's just that this page is so massive, that we need to spend our time trying to cite the borderline cases, ones which may be citable, but also which may not be citable. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

determinatyw

Maro 20:14, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In general, if an entry was written by Tbot (as this one was) and you're pretty sure it's wrong, you can {{delete}} or delete it without bringing it to RFV. Also please fix the entry it's based on. (The template added by Tbot at the end of the entry indicates which that is.)—msh210℠ (talk) 20:13, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

svetilnik

Rfv-sense. Serbo-Croatian noun. Tagged by Ivan Štambuk. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

zmijak

Rfv-sense. Serbo-Croatian noun. Tagged by Ivan Štambuk. Mglovesfun (talk) 21:00, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

purification

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

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

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

PASSLQ

Doesn't seem attestable on Google Books. ---> Tooironic 04:19, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

amuse

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

psychophant

Really? SemperBlotto 21:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up and added citations. ---> Tooironic 12:14, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

stupid

"Dangerous, obstructive. I fell over the stupid wire." I think this is just a term of abuse for the wire (like "get that damned dog out of the way") and does not say anything about dangerousness. If I am wrong, please cite it. Equinox ◑ 21:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. Mglovesfun (talk) 08:36, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. But this abusive sense should itself be out there. Needs a rewrite -- maybe something like "(deprecated template usage) Lua error in Module:parameters at line 360: Parameter 1 should be a valid language or etymology language code; the value "abusively" is not valid. See WT:LOL and WT:LOL/E. Annoying, darn." -- · 16:11, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

insensate

"Having two or more of one's own senses absent (i.e. being blind, deaf and/or mute), either by having been born so or having lost them due to sickness or an accident." Equinox ◑ 22:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the OED, American Heritage, MacMillan, Collins, any of the 4 Webster's at OneLook (1828, 1913, 4th ed., 11th ed) or Random House Unabridged. ~~Move to rfd and get rid of it~~. -- · 16:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need an RFD if it's unattested, that's what this page is for! --Mglovesfun (talk) 20:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are, Mglovesfun. Lost my head for a minute there. I expect we'll soon be rid of it, in any case. · 14:48, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

steamie

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

گهوڑا

Could someone knowledgeable in Urdu verify the word گهوڑا? It is given as the Urdu translation of horse, but I think there is a strong possibility that it is a misspelling of گھوڑا caused by confusion between ه and ھ which look the same in medial position. If it is an alternate spelling, then the two entries should be cross linked. — Carolina wren discussió 20:32, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is a misspelling. Only گھوڑا is correct. —Stephen ^(Talk) 20:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. —Stephen ^(Talk) 21:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

pyxidium

"(botany) A seed capsule in the form of a box, the seeds being released when the top splits off." I just can't seem to find evidence for this in usage. Equinox ◑ 22:39, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Brown

"(trademark) One of the main characters of the Peanuts cartoon strips by Charles Schulz." Needs to meet WT:BRAND. Equinox ◑ 22:45, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redrum

Murder. Equinox ◑ 00:27, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will be surprised if I can't also find a few uses of a verb re+drum; I'm about to go look... - -sche (discuss) 00:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I found "re+drum", I didn't find "murder". I tried phrases like "commit redrum", "is redrum". - -sche (discuss) 07:27, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

wickmaker

Someone who makes wicks. I can't see any usage with a single word, other than user names on blogs etc.--Dmol 01:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Side-comment: the user who created this page was indefblocked as a suspected wonderfool sock. Tempodivalse [talk] 02:05, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suspected that was the case. Very good formatting for a new user. Perhaps someone might like to cast an eye over his Esperento edits also.--Dmol 03:03, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did go over his Esperanto contributions, and found only one obvious error, at eltrovo. Wonderfool also made some Catalan entries, those need to be checked as well. I'm really annoyed with him, after wasting an hour coaching what I thought was a "newbie" on my talk page. Should've put two and two together ... Tempodivalse [talk] 03:10, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cited, though it does not appear to be common. - -sche (discuss) 00:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, -sche! Tempodivalse [talk] 00:28, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels

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

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

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

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

geo-volunteerism

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

聖気

One more page from the suspicious IP user, a word which I cannot find in any dictionaries but which has some hits on Google. They created 魔気 at the same time which seems to get some legitimate hits on Google and Google Books but somebody should check the reading and meaning. One more was created which exists but which has a definition different from what I can find: 妖気. Can anyone verify the manga/anime sense? I don't know anything about that stuff. Thanks Haplology 14:54, 14 August 2011 (UTC) To add to that: I can't verify 神縛 or 聖縛, but there seem to be hits in Google Books. Haplology 16:16, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

freeware

Rfv-sense "free software". If we ignore this challenged sense, then freeware is "Complete and functional software that does not require payment or other compensation (and) may be a proprietary license with no access to the source code", while free software is either 1. "Software that can be freely copied, redistributed and modified, including source code; software that is libre" or 2. "Any software that is free of charge, such as freeware." The challenged sense is evidently saying that freeware can be sense 1 of free software (i.e. open and modifiable); I dispute this (even if freeware can coincidentally also be open and modifiable, that's not what it means); please cite. Equinox ◑ 19:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

crocklet

Young crocodile. Equinox ◑ 22:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 2,423: / Line 2,423: @@
 ::: I'm confused. Did you click my links? Are they not unambiguously referring to a change in strategy? —[[User: Ruakh |Ruakh]]<sub ><small ><i >[[User talk: Ruakh |TALK]]</i ></small ></sub > 19:32, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
-== [[pedophilia]] ==
+== <s>[[pedophilia]]</s> ==
 We have:
@@ Line 2,437: / Line 2,437: @@
 :I cited both senses. The "acts" sense was later removed, but I have re-added it and '''cited''' it and the "desires" sense fully. The two senses are distinct. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 17:50, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
+::Passed. [[User:-sche|- -sche]] [[User talk:-sche|(discuss)]] 07:33, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 ==<s>[[mock]]</s>==

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup add new request \| history \| archives Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.	Requests for verification English add new request \| history CJK add new request \| history Italic add new request \| history Non-English (all other languages) add new request \| history Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.	Requests for deletion English add new request \| history CJK add new request \| history Italic add new request \| history Reconstruction add new request \| history Non-English (all other languages) add new request \| history Requests for deletion of pages in the main and Reconstruction namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.	Requests for deletion/Others add new request \| 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 request \| history \| archives Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.			Language treatment requests add new request \| history Requests for changes to Wiktionary's language treatment practices, including renames, merges and splits.
{{attention}} • {{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfeq}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

Wiktionary:Requests for verification: difference between revisions

Revision as of 07:33, 15 August 2011

July 2010

August 2010

September 2010

October 2010

November 2010

December 2010

hipje, hypje, and hipi

njer, njeri

January 2011

家里 - home

家里 - wife

February 2011