Wiktionary:Requests for verification

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

See also:

• Criteria for inclusion
• Format for citations
• Standard entry layout
• A list of searchable external archives, useful for finding durably-archived media to quote.

Overview: This page is for disputing the existence of terms or senses. It is 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 citations from three durably archived sources. Requests for deletion based on the claim that the term or sense is nonidiomatic or “sum of parts” should be posted to Wiktionary:Requests for deletion. Requests to confirm that a certain etymology is correct should go in the Etymology scriptorium, and requests to confirm pronunciation is correct should go in the Tea Room.

Adding a request: To add a request for verification (attestation), add the template {{rfv}} or {{rfv-sense}} to the questioned entry, and then add a new section to the appropriate subpage. Those who would seek attestation after the term or sense is nominated will appreciate your doing at least a cursory check for such attestation before nominating it: Google Books is a good place to check, others are listed here (WT:SEA).

Answering a request by providing an attestation: To attest a disputed term, i.e. prove that the term is actually used and satisfies the requirement of attestation as specified in inclusion criteria, do one of the following:

• Assert that the term is in clearly widespread use. (If this assertion is not obviously correct, or is challenged by multiple editors, it will likely be ignored, necessitating the following step.)
• Cite, on the article page, usage of the word in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year. (Many languages are subject to other requirements; see WT:CFI.)

In any case, advise on this page that you have placed the citations on the entry page.

Closing a request: After a discussion has sat for more than a month without being “cited”, or after a discussion has been “cited” for more than a week without challenge, the discussion may be closed. Closing a discussion normally consists of the following actions:

• Deleting or removing the entry or sense (if it failed), or de-tagging it (if it passed). In either case, the edit summary or deletion summary should indicate what is happening.
• Adding a comment to the discussion here with either RFV-failed or RFV-passed (emboldened), indicating what action was taken. This makes automatic archiving possible. Some editors strike out the discussion header at this time.
  In some cases, the disposition is more complicated than simply “RFV-failed” or “RFV-passed”; for example, two senses may have been nominated, of which only one was cited (in which case indicate which one passed and which one failed), or the sense initially RFVed may have been replaced with something else (some editors use RFV-resolved for such situations).

Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request should be archived to the entry's talk page. This is usually done using the aWa gadget, which can be enabled at WT:PREFS.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Oldest tagged RFVs

• No pages meet these criteria.

July 2015

make to

I stumbled across make to ("to close or shut" something) and thought I'd find which dialect it is specific to, but I can't find any uses of it at all. Given the example sentence, I'd have thought "make the door do" should come up with something, but it produces nothing relevant. I also tried it with "lid" and "window", neither came up with anything. WurdSnatcher (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

This is a usage often heard in the US South for "closing" a door = make ( the door ) to. Sometimes also "push" it to. Perhaps this should be at to ? Leasnam (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

MWOnline has 7 definitions for to#Adverb; AHD has 5; Wiktionary has 3. DCDuring TALK 17:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I've heard "pull the door to" (i.e. closed). Equinox ◑ 13:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

• AFAICT to occurs adverbially after collocations of the form pull|push|slide|slam [determiner] window|door|shutter|hatch. Make is a not-very-common occupant of the push|pull|slide slot.

A (real) usage example is: Once inside I eased the door to and made my way down the steep stairs.

IOW, even if attested, make to should be RfDed. DCDuring TALK 15:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

We have an entry for make fast. Is there some subtle distinction I am missing? We could also add the meaning to make off, in the sense of make an end such as "make off the rope" meaning to tie off the rope. None of these are SOP. Possibly they are all some specific meaning of make, but none of our entries seem to fit. "To arrive at a destination" seems to be the closest. SpinningSpark 13:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• RFV failed: no citations provided. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 01:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

mine arse on a bandbox

A famous entry in Grose's Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue, but as far as I know with no actual usage in print. Ƿidsiþ 14:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• I find multiple uses, but all but one are by the same author (Dewey Lambdin), see, for example [this]. Other than that, I found [this], which still leaves us one short if you want three authors. Kiwima (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• Here's a "my arse on a bandbox" by another author (Maureen Jennings, Except the Dying, p. 305). "Ass in a bandbox" and "ass in the bandbox" also generate Google hits, although apparently with an unrelated meaning. -- · (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• It's also worth noting, I suppose, that, although Grose's dictionary dates from the 18th century, all of the above quotations are from contemporary works affecting old-timey language, so they constitute no real evidence of actual usage back in Grose's day (although contemporary usage still counts as some kind of usage). -- · (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
  • This hits upon a problem I wrote about at WT:RFC#1811_Dictionary_words. - -sche (discuss) 00:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Ah yes, -sche, we've been thinking along the same lines. -- · (talk) 18:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

bust the dust

I'm sure I've seen dustbust used as a verb, but I've never seen bust the dust, which also doesn't appear on google that I can find. (aside from dusting the bust in a SOP way). I call shenanigans! 50.195.84.65 15:42, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

• What I found was [this], [this], [this], and [this]. Kiwima (talk) 00:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• And this and this. We do have an entry for dust buster, which originated as the brand name of a vacuum cleaner made by Black & Decker. -- · (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

• Of the six links Kiwima and Talking Point provided, this one doesn't have anything to do with vacuum cleaners. Neither does this one or this one. This is a poem that doesn't make it clear it's referring to a vacuum cleaner. This is the only clearly valid use, and I'm not sure it's durably archived -- even if it is, I'm not really sure it should count: it looks an awful lot like an ad for one vacuum. So that's at best two tenuous cites for the given def. WurdSnatcher (talk) 17:46, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• The first one you link most certainly does refer to vacuum cleaners: "Heavy-duty vacuum and drop cloths. The latter protect your rugs, carpets and furnishings, while the former busts the dust produced by sweeping." (my emphasis). Anyway, I've modified the def so that it is not explicitly vacuum cleaners any more. Which means we can now count this one as well: "Use a paintbrush to bust the dust", from Boys' Life. SpinningSpark 23:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

five second rule

Rfv-sense: "The thesis that food fallen on the ground remains equally edible and healthful if lifted therefrom within five seconds."

I didn't find it at Google Books, though I found a basketball rule of that name. DCDuring TALK 20:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

• There are a number of citations in the Wikipedia article on the topic. bd2412 T 20:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
• I see lots of citations for the spelling "five-second rule", but none for this spelling. If citations can be found for this spelling, I think it should be turned into an {{alternative form of}} entry. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 01:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Oh, definitely. Right now we have two different definitions for the same thing. We should only have one, combining the best features of each, and at the most common usage. bd2412 T 01:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

  I guess I didn't filter very well again. DCDuring TALK 02:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

  I went ahead and merged them. No sense in having a content fork. I retained the rfv-sense tag, but it's hard to imagine that an attested hyphenated form doesn't have at least some unhyphenated usage. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I've never encountered five-second rule in any sense other than the one involving dropped food. I think we can dispense with the primary sense, unless evidence can be found to support that the term is used this broadly. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 03:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

There's also some variation on the number: I first heard it as the "15-second rule", and I think one can find usage as the "10-second rule". Unfortunately, the construction "the x-second rule" is used by just about every self-help and how-to book out there, with dozens of different contexts and dozens of different rules- so finding variant forms of this sense isn't easy. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Non-food uses for a "takeback" concept are likely referential, but see Lee Rowland, There Is No 5-Second Rule for the First Amendment, Ferguson. bd2412 T 04:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: I've had some success by adding the word "germs" to the search. With searches like that, I think ten-second rule is attestable, and possibly also three-second rule. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 04:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

• RFV failed: no citations of this form provided. The form five-second rule has been cited and kept. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 01:53, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Donetsk People’s Republic translations part 2

Given that the Donetsk People’s Republic was only proclaimed in April 2014, I hereby request verification of the various translations of the name that have been given entries. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

République populaire de Donetsk

French. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't have time to write these up, but here you go. To be honest, I don't see any reason to doubt these. They are all translations of the original Russian/Ukrainian name in just the same way that the English is, and "People's Republic" is a standard phrase.

• Ukraine: Donetsk proclame sa souveraineté, Kiev dénonce une agression russe
• Élections rebelles pour la «République populaire de Donetsk»
• « C’est un avion civil » : une vidéo montre les rebelles prorusses découvrant le crash du MH17

Smurrayinchester (talk) 06:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

@Smurrayinchester: Thank you. The La Presse and Le Monde citations both look good to me, so I've added them to Citations:République populaire de Donetsk; however, the La Dépêche article has « En fin de matinée, barricadés dans les locaux de l’administration, les séparatistes ont proclamé sous les vivats une “république populaire de Donetsk”, comme le montre une. » (“…the separatists proclaimed to cheers a ‘people’s republic of Donetsk’…”, emboldenment my emphasis), which is a common, rather than a proper, noun. We need one more citation, dating from the 17th of July 2014 or before.

I don't doubt that these languages each have at least one name for the Donetsk People’s Republic; however, in the same way that there is no grammatical reason why the English name could not be “the People’s Republic of Donetsk”, there may be no reason to assume that the prevailing names in these languages are as given. For example, it would be quite plausible for the French name to be « la République populaire donetskaise » or even « la République du peuple de Donetsk » or « la République des Donetskois ». That is why it is necessary to look at actual usage and to gather quotations. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

This term still needs another qualifying citation, either dating from the 17th of July 2014 or before or dating from six days hence (the 23rd of September 2015) or later. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:51, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Volksrepublik Donezk

German. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't have time to write them up, but here are three spanning a year:

• "Volksrepublik Donezk" wünscht Russland-Anschluss
• Ein Jahr Volksrepublik Donezk: Die Separatisten und ihre rechten Freunde
• Separatisten kündigen Wahlen für Oktober an

Smurrayinchester (talk) 06:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

That shouldn't count: web sides usually aren't durably archived (cf. WT:CFI). Regarding books that are durably archived there might be the problem that books do not appear as fast as news paper articles, i.e. it might take some time till the word is attestable with book quotes. -eXplodit (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

We generally accept the websites of newspapers, under the assumption that what appears there most likely also appeared in print. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

tagesschau.de shouldn't appear in print, and I doubt that n-tv.de does. Well, both should also appear in TV, but maybe another wording is used there, and TV news shouldn't be durably archived too (at least not publicly durably archived). Anyways, google books has ~11 results for "Volksrepublik Donezk" from 2014 and 2015, though sometimes maybe selfpublished e-books.

Do quotes with quotations marks count such as the following one?

• 2014, Ukraine: Der Weg in den Krieg, Die Welt (ISBN 978-3-944166-54-4) (e-book version without page numbers):

  Inzwischen sind es die militanten Separatisten, die die "Volksrepublik Donezk" komplett kontrollieren.

BTW: Maybe it is also "Donezker Republik" in German?

-eXplodit (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

"Donezker Republik" and "Donezker Volksrepublik" are both quite rare. At Google News, the two terms are used almost only by the German-language version of the pro-Putin Sputnik, and only vanishingly rarely by anyone else. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

This term currently has four citations, dating from the 16th of June 2014 – the 22nd of May 2015. It still needs one more qualifying citation, either dating from the 22nd of May 2014 or before or dating from the 16th of June 2015 or later. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:38, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• 2016 January 26, K von Beyme, Der Ukraine-Konflikt, Die Russland-Kontroverse, 2016 (DOI 10.1007/978-3-658-12031-3_7):

  Ein Drittel der Bevölkerung wäre nach Umfragen lieber Teil der prorussischen »Volksrepublik Donezk«.

Cited. - -sche (discuss) 16:37, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Донецкая Народная Республика

Russian. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

This term currently has three citations, dating from 2014–2015. @Cinemantique, can you provide the exact dates of publication, please? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

It would appear that all three citations date from 2015. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

jail lock

I can find some mentions of jail lock as a name for Scandinavian lock which seems to have been a particular kind of lock, but I can't find enough uses to attest to the term in an idiomatic sense. The entry was taken from Webster 1913, as are the other lemmings' entries to be found at “jail lock”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. DCDuring TALK 15:26, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm also having trouble finding out what it is that makes a Scandinavian lock a distinct thing, even at Google Images. DCDuring TALK 15:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

It is difficult to find quotes that clearly mean something other than a lock on a jail door, but I think I have found enough. I also added a picture. Kiwima (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

signum crucis

English entry. I have a feeling it might just be Latin. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:11, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

geek chic

The two senses that start with "the notion" both seem strange to me - I'm struggling to come up with a sentence where you could reasonably substitute either of those for the phrase "geek chic". Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Not sure about slangy "cool" within a definition line, either. Equinox ◑ 18:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

The use of geek chic to mean the social desirability of geek culture is definitely attestable:

Also with a hyphen:

Although I agree, with Equinox, that the definition is too slangy. I have not found anything yet to support the meaning of social desirability of gadgets. Kiwima (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

farand

farrand (and the other spellings)

Did this make it into modern English? Searching for "farrand", "farands" and "very farand" in an attempt to find the noun and the adjective, respectively, only turns up hits of "far and". (For that matter, did this exist even in Middle English? The U Mich Middle English Dictionary doesn't seem to have it.) I see some mentions (not uses) of "farand man" to mean "travelling man" (using the old participle of fare). - -sche (discuss) 09:59, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

1. • 1756, William Hamilton, A New Edition of the Life and Heroick Actions of the renoun'd Sir William Wallace, etc.:

     Likely he was, right fair and well farrand, Manly and stout, [...] Leasnam (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• It's easy to cite as an adjective in Scots, especially in the phrase "auld-farrand" ("sagacious, prudent", according to Jamieson's Dictionary of the Scottish Language):

  1603, Robert Chateris, Scotish Poems: The three tailes of the three priests of Peblis. The palice of honour. Squire Meldrum, page 5

  Syne in ane hal, ful fair farrand, He ludgit al the Lords of his Land.

  1820, Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, page 659

  Od but she'll find he'll lead her an auld-farrand hallowmass rade

  1822, John Scott, John Taylor, The London Magazine, page 10

  But as I was saying, mony a happy night have I spent at the hearth of Lyddalcross  ; but for every night of howff and shelter have I rewarded him with some cannie auld-farrand tale.

  1897, Lord Ernest Hamilton, The Outlaws of the Marches

  (Scottish English?) You appear to doubt me, friend; but see to it that you yourself can show a clean record, for an I find aught against you, by my faith you shall swing as high as any, for all you 're so big and weel-farrand.

  (Definitely Scots) No but what she 's weel enough, though maybe just a wee thingie pauchty and dry-farrand, but t' ither yin!

No really English looking hits. I can't find any evidence for it being used in Newcastle in the last 150 years, so even if it did exist in England at some point, "Geordie" is the wrong term anyway. Changed that to Northumberland. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

1. 1660, Dickson, Writings:

   • A sore matter for a sinner to be corrected, and yet to go light-farrand under it. Leasnam (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

hlista

Slovak would-be word entered to mean "earthworm" by User:Drago. Absent from Slovak dictionaries, which is a hint that this might be unattested; I only find hlísta, with "í" accute, and the meaning seems different there, being a different sort of worm. Is this really used in Slovak, meeting WT:ATTEST? Auxiliary search: google:"hlista" site:sk. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:41, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

• RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 01:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

malajština

Slovak. Is this real? malajčina seems to be real. --DPMaid (talk) 11:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Majalština might be used colloquially or improperly because of Czech influence, but malajčina definitely is the official word. Mutichou (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 13:39, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

piqwana

Quechua. Sumiaz could not find evidence of use, although they did note that it is plausible. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 01:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

prisudok

Slovak. Is this real? prísudok is real. --DPMaid (talk) 08:30, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It must be a typo, prísudok is indeed correct. — This comment was unsigned.

• RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 13:41, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

tien

Slovak, indicated to mean shade. Is this real? tieň is real. --DPMaid (talk) 08:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Definitely wrong, accent marks are not optional in Slovak. Tieň is the correct word. Mutichou (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 13:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

have fun

Rfv-sense

Any evidence that "blondes have more fun" doesn't just mean "blondes enjoy themselves more" (even if that enjoyment does ultimately come from attention of the opposite sex)? I could say "I had fun at the theme park", meaning "I rode on rollercoasters at the theme park", but that doesn't make "have fun" a synonym of "ride rollercoasters". Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It was a good faith addition by User:Tedius Zanarukando, but I agree that the sense belongs (if anywhere) to the full phrase he had in mind, not to the "have fun" entry. The words can be used as a euphemism, of course, but so can "enjoy yourself". Dbfirs 13:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I've never, ever understood "blondes have more fun" to mean "blondes attract the opposite sex more". Just looks like a total error. Can't hurt to give it 30 days I suppose. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I thought it meant that; you know, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes and all. What do you think it means? Equinox ◑ 02:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure it just means blondes enjoy themselves more. Even if sense 2 does belong (and I don't think it does), it needs to be rewritten so as not to be heteronormative: some of us prefer having fun with the same sex. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 05:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

embólie

Slovak, entered as embolism. Is this real? embólia is real. google:"embólie" site:sk finds embólie as an inflected form of embólia, e.g. in "pľúcnej embólie". --DPMaid (talk) 08:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I added a definition line for an inflected form. If this fails as a lemma, please keep the inflected form. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:14, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Embólia is definitely the correct word. Embólie is its genitive singular, nominative plural or accusative plural. Mutichou (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• RFV failed. I've kept the inflected form sense added by Dan Polansky. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 13:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

jahňačina

Slovak. Is this real? jahňacie is real. I find only one attesting quotation, by Martin Kukučín, of the inflected form "jahňačinu". --DPMaid (talk) 08:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Correction: "jahňacie" is barely attested in Google books, while being plentifully found on the web. It seems found as an adjective, e.g. "jahňacie mäso". I don't know what is going on there. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

opat

Slovak. For real? opát is real. --DPMaid (talk) 09:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:02, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

despidida

Claims to be Spanish, which is probably wrong (correct is despedida of course). It is valid in Asturian meaning a farewell, as all of us are bound to know. Perhaps it means a farewell party in Filipino English or even Tagalog, but I'm not confident about that. --A230rjfowe (talk) 20:20, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 13:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

apricide

List-only word. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 22:09, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

• RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:04, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

pretheism

Any evidence of this word, with this meaning? SemperBlotto (talk) 06:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• Commonly in use as a nonce word, but I can't see any evidence of a consistent meaning:

One hit meaning "belief that humanity may become like a god"

I believe someone (God) already exists who has figured it out, and just needs humanity's cooperation. You don't think that someone yet exists, but you do think that because we "are an ingenious species" that maybe "we'll find a way out" on our own.I am what I call a general theist. You are on the verges of what I call pretheism.

One hit that seems to have something to do with messianism:

Check up pretheism, they have some good arguments

One hit meaning "beliefs of the pre-religious era"

The same goes for a hypothetical prereligious era, which should, perhaps, rather be referred to as pretheism (or pre-animism even, since animism is often seen as an older, sometimes pretheistic type of religion).

One hit meaning "belief that god is thought rather than being":

This schema also and at once illustrates the division of the Hegelian theism of absolute self-consciousness into the atheism of Sartre (for whom the idea of God is significantly the unrealizable human value) and the pretheism of Levinas (for whom the idea of God contests itself in the form of the thinking otherwise than being)

(Although in the text, there is a hyphened linebreak in pre-theism, the index shows that this is a single word)

pre-theism gets a few more hits, but still nothing relevant or consistent. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

• I note that pretheistic is well enough attested, referring to a point in society preceding the development of theism (see, e.g. 1997, Sarah C. Humphreys, Cultures of Scholarship, page 69: "Though not jeopardizing the human status of its practitioners, however, the lowest, dream-related form of animism was categorically pretheistic in Tylor's scheme, merely furnishing the ground upon which gods would later develop". bd2412 T 14:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
  • But that's not how it's now framed. There ought to be a posttheism/pretheism comparative pair, instead of what is presently there. Pandeist (talk) 05:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

gaddi kutta

A mess that I was going to clean up until I realised it might not be citeable anyway. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 08:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Same for bully kutta. They should both probably be Gaddi Kutta and Bully Kutta according to WP. —JohnC5 14:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

lagerene, lagerenes

These are not accepted forms of lager in Danish. See DDO [1], [2]. Moved from RFC. Donnanz (talk) 08:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Then how do you explain google books:"lagerene"? Is that a different language? (Same for google books:"bestilledes" for the section below.) —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

After looking at those sources I would discount most of them, hardly any for lagerene are in Danish (some are Norwegian actually), and for bestilledes they seem to be rather ancient. You would be better off doing research on Google Danmark IMO. As they are not accepted current spellings in Danish, Bokmål or Nynorsk, they could be misspellings, a problem I come across all the time when researching Norwegian words on Google Norge. Donnanz (talk) 09:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Old spellings are still acceptable when marked as such. "All words in all languages". —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

So you've got an old Danish dictionary tucked away in your library somewhere? I found some evidence to support your theory in the Historisk Ordbog 1700-1950 for bestille [3], but it's unhelpful for lager, only giving the indefinite plural [4]. As for passive forms of verbs such as bestille, dictionaries don't usually list them and they have to be checked individually for actual usage. Donnanz (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

On second thoughts, bestillede may have been just the (optional) simple past form, with the past participle being bestillet, in line with usual practice. Compare with bestilte and bestilt. Donnanz (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

You just claimed it was an old spelling, I'd imagine Metaknowledge assumed you were telling the truth. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I assume Metaknowledge is quite capable of reaching his own conclusions. Donnanz (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

@Donnanz: RFV is evidence-based, not dictionary-based. It is based on WT:ATTEST. We don't go by dictionaries, except for less documented languages (LDL); we go by actual use that we can find. Dictionaries are not evidence; your finding a would-be word in an Ordbog is not finding evidence. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

In a case like this I feel that all evidence should be taken into account. If you don't accept it that's fine by me, and you are quite welcome to carry out your own research. Donnanz (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

bestillede, bestilledes

These are incorrect forms of bestille in Danish. See DDO [5]. Moved from RFC. Donnanz (talk) 08:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Note to closer: See discussion above. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

metagrobology

Equinox ◑ 13:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

w:David Singmaster has written a book called Problems for Metagrobologists. SpinningSpark 21:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

queen knight pawn

Oddly, BGC will only turn up hits for "queen's knight's pawn" when I search this, even in quotes. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

There are hits also for "queen knight pawn" if you filter out the apostrophe versions: [6] --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

It should be renamed to queen's knight's pawn, which is much more common anyway. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Multiverse

I'm not sure what the given definition, "our multiverse", is supposed to even mean. Is it referring to the philosophical notion, or to the cosmology notion? In the latter case, "our" happens by default. Citations would certainly help. Choor monster (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

BTW, I am aware of the DC Multiverse and similar usages, presumably these don't pass WT:FICTION. Choor monster (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

It refers to the cosmological notion. The existence of other multiverses suggest that the "our" is not defaulty.78.146.107.245 21:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Seems stupid. But we seem to have the same problem with universe, Universe. Defining any X as "our X!" is silly. Equinox ◑ 01:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

This is tosh, possible even "Tosh" (as it's our tosh). Delete. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Delete. Dbfirs 08:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no objection to defining "Universe" as "our universe", since that usage and meaning is well-attested. In various parallel universes, my user name is Choor niceguy or Choor kelpie or Choor chupacabra or Чур монстр, but in our universe, the one where you're reading what I've typed here, it's the name down in my sig. Regarding capital-M "Multiverse", I have never seen that used outside of titles and comics, and need convincing, because off-hand, the "our" doesn't make sense, being redundant. (It's entirely possible that "multiverse" is not an "omniverse" in some usages, so to speak, I have not followed this closely.) And again, regarding the comics usage, that needs to pass WT:FICTION, which is why we don't have Watcher, but WP does have Watcher. Choor monster (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

• Delete: I've done some looking around, and have found only one "Multiverse" outside the comics [7]. I found this high-level reference Universe or Multiverse?: the contributors use "multiverse" exclusively. And Tom Holt, in his last four novels, uses "multiverse" exclusively. Choor monster (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

• A dynamic model of the wormhole and the Multiverse model

  Superposing enough dust matter, a magnetic field, and a Λ term can produce a static solution, which turns out to be a spherical Multiverse model with an infinite number of wormhole-connected spherical universes. (abstract)

• THE /F/-LANDSCAPE: DYNAMICALLY DETERMINING THE MULTIVERSE

  This Multiverse landscape of solutions, which we shall refer to as the /F-SU(5)/-Landscape, accommodates a subset of universes compatible with the presently known experimental uncertainties of our own universe. (abstract)

• CiteSeerX

  End users encapsulate tasks for the crowd in VMs that are then replicated on the Multiverse server and controlled by crowd workers via a web-based VNC connection. (abstract, probably proper noun use unfortunately, using Multiverse to name a system of operating system(s) and software.)

• Ghost spinors, shadow electrons and the Deutsch Multiverse

  So and David Deutsch [1] makes an attempt logically to explain the phenomenon of an inter- ference of quantum particles and comes to a conclusion about existence of the parallel worlds, in all set representing Multiverse [1]. (pdf of article)

• The theory of Multiverse, multiplicity of physical objects and physical constants

  Correct description of the Multiverse can be done only within the framework of the quantum theory. (pdf of article)

Amgine/ ^t·e 19:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

• Item 3 is a proper noun, as you note, so of no relevance here. (Google "multiverse crowd algorithms" if you want more specifics.) None of the others refer to the "our multiverse" definition, but are merely a capitalized "multiverse". We normally don't include separate entries for terms that sometimes or even often get capitalized (we have general relativity but not General Relativity). Note too that the fourth and fifth items are non-native speakers (and colleagues). Choor monster (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. The Multiverse as a proper noun is a well-established cosmological concept. It refers to the multiverse in which our Universe is located. Whether or not more than one multiverse can exist though (and would thus necessitate capitalization to distinguish from other multiverses) is a tetchy subject since the multiverse exists outside of our spacetime. However, the capitalized form should still be kept since it refers to a specific place, even if that place is unique (and outside of "placeable" space). Multiverse (capitalized) refers to the specific location of our Universe, whereas multiverse (uncapitalized) refers to the concept of multiple universes. Nicole Sharp (talk) 05:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • This is why I placed the RfV in the first place. What usages of "Multiverse" can somebody cite where distinguishing "our" (hypothetical) multiverse from all the other (hypothetical) multiverses is part of the writing? I only get the impression that some people like capital-M, some do not. Choor monster (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

θετικός/θετικόν

• LSJ: "θετικός, ή, όν, [...] 2 Gramm., positive, τὸ θετικόν the positive degree, Sch.D Il.4.277"
• Pape: "θετικός [...] positiv. [...] Der gradus positivus, Schol. Il. 4, 277"

Pape doesn't mention a Greek gender but (compared with other terms for the degrees and the Latin term) it does imply that it is "θετικός" (masculine) and not "θετικόν" (neuter). So, while both (seem to) refer to the same source, one dictionary could be wrong. Therefore, RfV for the gender please. 84.161.9.65 00:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

necrobump

Can't find attestation. I find some hits in Google groups but only in the parts that are not Usenet, and we need Usenet I think. Anyone has a better luck? google books:"necrobump", google groups:"necrobump", “necrobump”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Cited? -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

We could probably quibble over the individual forms (how many -ing, -ed, etc.) but I think this is a good adequate set. We should still consider the "alternative forms" at the lemma, though, e.g. "necro bump": is this a verifiable form, or just someone's arbitrary idea of a different way to write it? Equinox ◑ 23:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

My experience is that verb inflections and plural forms of nouns don't require individual attestation. Not unless they don't follow standard English grammatical rules. As for superficially-different alternative spellings - i.e., solid, hyphenated, spaced - I don't think there's any agreement. I've seen things pass RfV with two cites of one type and one of another (e.g., two solid, one hyphenated), but I've also seen stuff get deleted even with five cites because said cites were spread between solid, hyphenated, and spaced forms. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

This is a commonly-known term now. While it didn't seep through the book writing process yet, it is easily recognized, and liked by Internet forum lurkers of all kinds. Yurivict (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

We've tended to consider different spellings to require their own citations. However, I've managed to find a few more citations. At least one of the spellings is cited now, on the citations page. - -sche (discuss) 09:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

...namely "necro-bump" (and possibly "necro bump"); so I suppose this page should be moved to the hyphenated form. - -sche (discuss) 00:47, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

栩

Listing is for "be glad, be pleased" definition entry. Using several online sources (plus my attempt at reading/translating from the KangXi dictionary) did not show this usage for 栩. Bumm13 (talk) 20:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

doufuhua

This came up on the Tea Room. I did a Google Books search, and it doesn't seem to be citable; all the hits seem to be for doufu hua and occasionally other variants or cites of Chinese (that are undebatably Chinese, like phrase books). Maybe I missed something; there's one idiot who has produced many books about soy that I'm guessing all are nigh identical, no matter what the name, that added a lot of noise. (That's not even one cite: the line is "Curds Made from Soymilk (Soft, Unpressed Tofu) as an End Product or Food Ingredient (Oboro, Daufu-fa, Doufu-hua, Doufuhwa, Douhua, Doufu-nao, Fu-nao, Toufu-hwa, Tow-foo-fah).") Nothing against creating doufu hua, which looks citable, but this spelling doesn't.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

• RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 13:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

deep web

Attributive use, like "tractor" in "tractor parts"; not a true adjective. Not comparable etc. is it? Equinox ◑ 14:00, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't have to be. Purplebackpack89 14:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Zero hits for the term, in quotes, in Google Ngram viewer. (ordinary Google search is not case-sensitive) SemperBlotto (talk) 14:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

That's weird, cuz when I browse through Google Books, I get a mix of "Deep Web", "deep Web" and "deep web". Purplebackpack89 14:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Google Ngram Viewer stops at the year 2000. So we need to see your hits - presumably later. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, there's your problem...the concept of deep web/Deep Web/deep Web is primarily a post-2000 concept. Purplebackpack89 14:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It's nobody's problem. All you have to do is supply the citations. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

p.s. That 2013 quote is just attributive use of the noun. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Purplebackpack89 14:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Google Ngram Viewer goes up to 2008, you just have to set the end date to that (or to a later date). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be comparable, no, but it does have to be adjectival to be an adjective. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

What we have now is two citations that are clearly nominal. Remember any noun can qualify another noun. Literally, any. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Uncited for just under six months, clear fail. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't uncited...it had two... Purplebackpack89 15:41, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

2 < 3. DCDuring TALK 15:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, 0 < 3. None of the citations showed adjectival use that could not be construed as attributive use of the noun. DCDuring TALK 15:55, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The challenged sense has zero citations, the unchallenged sense had 3. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

桉

Can't verify "desk" definition sense as it's not in any of the major online Chinese dictionaries. Bumm13 (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

@Bumm13 Well, the Kangxi Dictionary says that 桉 is the same as 案, which does have the meaning of "table; desk". It might be better to put a {{zh-see}} so that we don't have to put all the sense of 案 in the 桉 entry. — Justinrleung ^(t...)⁄_c=› 21:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

mix it up

I added a couple quotes, but I'm not sure that I correctly understood the meaning of the expression in these two interviews. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 18:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you've got it right. DCDuring TALK 19:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

evolutionary theory

Rfv-sense "any of several theories that have evolved over time". Concurrently in RFD, but perhaps it belongs here more. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:13, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Surprisingly, this may actually be used; I'm not sure if I'm interpreting it correctly, though. See google books:"is an evolutionary theory". —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

IMO, most of the citations don't support the either the sense under challenge or RfDed sense, though they may support SoP definitions or an idiomatic sense not yet provided. I would certainly need to see specific citations that purported to support the challenged sense. It should be clear that the use of "evolutionary theory" in all the social sciences is not very closely related to the use in biology. Many of the uses would seem to be efforts to associate some social theory or author with the success of "the" biological theory of evolution. A definition for these might be "A theory resembling the biological theory of evolution." DCDuring TALK 20:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Added three quotes. Theories evolve, they are mutable. I think one quote is solid but the other two might be better in a sense like DCDuring wrote above. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015

goto

Is there such a verb goto? It looks like this may have been the result of vandalism that went undetected. It surely is a well known C/C++ instruction though. Yurivict (talk) 00:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

It is a well-known FORTRAN/COBOL instruction that newcomer C happened to copy. Any cites for the verb are likely to either be errors or jocular.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Looks like GOTO might meet CFI as a verb, but the two lower-case cites just look like typos or scannos where the space is missing. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The programming sense is sometimes verbed: [8] [9] [10] Also, "Goto" refers to a popular kind of telescope, and the name has also been verbed: [11]. Choor monster (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Is the noun nominated as well? Renard Migrant (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

No, noun wasn't nominated. Thanks, I am removing the rfv tag then. Yurivict (talk) 10:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Slough of Despond

No use outside of given work. DTLHS (talk) 17:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• ... and may need moving to lowercase (as in the example sentence). SemperBlotto (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

  I think there is use outside of the work; search for "sloughs of despond" in G.Books. Equinox ◑ 23:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• “slough of despond”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. DCDuring TALK 02:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

  I've created and cited an entry for slough of despond. It would be easy to cite the challenged entry as well as that form is used in allusion to Bunyan or in discussion of his famous work. If we wish to apply a tougher standard than we do for more favored authors, cites not in such works can be found also. DCDuring TALK 03:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Verizon

WT:COMPANY says: "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." Somehow I don't see it coming for this entry. -- Liliana • 09:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Keep; stop removing lexicographical material. The cited policy is not supported by consensus: 1) Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/CFI and company names, 2) no argument for excluding company names was ever presented other than that they are not words, in the same vein that given names (Peter, Martina) are allegedly not words. In general terms, attesting quotations are at Citations:Verizon. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Citations are just using it as a company name. (But do people ever talk about "my Verizon" meaning their mobile phone?) Equinox ◑ 02:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

That's fine. Citations of "gold" using it just as the name of a metal would be also good enough. We do not need to show that "gold" is used in a way from which it is not obvious that gold is a metal. Same for New York, Atlantic Ocean, and Betelgeuse. Anyone remembers those "useful" RFV nominations like that in Talk:Xenophanes? Fortunately, they were stopped via Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Names of specific entities. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Enforce the rule. If you want to try and get that clause removed from CFI be my guest (I don't like the way it's worded much either) but it is there. Dan Polansky as the number #1 enforcer (or attempted enforcer) of rules I don't think you can just duck out of rules when you don't like them. Also that vote is from two and a half years ago so I'd discount it just for that. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't know how you arrived at the idea that I am somehow "the number #1 enforcer" of "rules". A quick glance at e.g. Wiktionary:Votes/2014-11/Entries which do not meet CFI to be deleted even if there is a consensus to keep suggests otherwise. The only "rule" I am trying to enforce is not even a rule, it is a principle. It is the principle of consensus. It is on this principle that the "rule" on company names that got into CFI without discussion and consensus should be ignored. I do not share your obsession with statutes and other "rules" not supported by consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Amended. I do try to ask people to abide by a host of principles or "rules" other than consensus. Whether I am "number #1" I do not know, but I am not sure it matters. Here I invoke the principle of consensus as one that is above an unvoted-on regulation; I think I have been pretty consistent in this over the couple last years. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/CFI and company names is actually a vote to try and change a rule, which was voted down by a majority (bear in mind votes on Wiktionary can also be voted down by a minority) so surely posting that link is self defeating. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The vote was my attempt to have CFI reflect consensus. If it passed, CFI would have accurately stated, for company names, that "A name of a specific entity must not be included if it does not meet the attestation requirement. Among those that do meet that requirement, many should be excluded while some should be included, but there is no agreement on precise, all-encompassing rules for deciding which are which"; that is so since company names are names of specific entities. The vote shows the state of consensus or its lack at the time. If you draw from the vote the conclusion that the controversial part of CFI was ever supported by consensus, you are wrong in that. If you think that it deeply matters that the vote was for removing the part rather than keeping it, as for what the consensus on the matter actually is, you are wrong in that as well. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Getting back to Verizon specifically, it seems to me that the citations given are inappropriate, and that this should be moved to rfd, where I would vote to delete. -- · (talk) 03:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

  @·: What is the rationale for removing Verizon, together with the potential pronunciation? Again, referring back to the controversial part of CFI is not a rationale; the controversial part itself needs a rationale, and close to none was provided for it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

ic

Rfv-sense: Translingual abbreviation - "in this case". Obviously English --Zo3rWer (talk) 22:33, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

梯

For "lean" sense as given in Unihan Database. I wasn't able to find that sense in any online dictionary source. Bumm13 (talk) 21:53, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

@Wyang, Kc kennylau Can you verify the existence of this or remove it if it doesn't exist? Thanks. PS I gather from the other sense that it means "lean" as in "be at in incline" rather than "lean" as in "not fatty"; is that right? - -sche (discuss) 17:40, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

@-sche: Would classify as "in compound only" or "literary", although I have not attempted finding a literary usage. "梯栏远瞩, To lean against the rail and gaze from afar" from http://www.dictall.com/indu54/72/5472325B7EB.htm. --kc_kennylau (talk) 17:47, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. - -sche (discuss) 10:12, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

secundation

I can find very few legitimate citations for this word. The "prosperity" meaning is propagated throughout dictionaries, but I can find no examples of its actual usage. There was a request for definition on a second meaning related to botany, but after looking at every citation in google books, it is clearly just the f/s ambiguity in old texts and the word in every case is really fecundation. I DID find two actual citations for the word: One as a synonym for secondment: * and one as a protoneologism for killing every other one: *. In any case, not enough to keep the word. Kiwima (talk) 08:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The 1951 quotation looks to me like it fits the challenged sense. I found two more quotations—the first one seems to support the challenged sense, but I'm not sure about the second one.

—Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 13:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

That second one looks like fecundation to me - especially when read in context. Kiwima (talk) 04:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

I would agree if it were written with an f/ſ, but it is clearly written with an s. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 12:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The context leads us to expect "fecundation" and leads "secundation" to make no sense, the work is on Hindu law and seems to be working from or transcribing other documents, which could have had "ſ" (and for that matter some of the authors, of the cases at least, probably didn't speak English as their primary and/or native language and so they may have misread/mis-entered "f" where they meant "ſ")... I think it's likely the writer of the Selection either misread a source document with "ſ", or simply made a typo. - -sche (discuss) 21:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• RFV failed: At best, only two citations for the challenged sense have been found. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 13:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

flag jacking

Could not be attested per WT:RFD#flag jacking. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: There are HuffPost and CNN articles pertaining to this phenomenon. Not sure how to turn that into the durable URLs on this topic, but there is information out there. Purplebackpack89 13:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

All the references in the Wikipedia article are clickbait based on a YouTube video created as viral marketing for a travel website. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cloudcuckoolander, are some of them durable links, though? Whether the origin of the article was grassroots or astroturf is irrelevant; if it is used enough, we can still have it. Purplebackpack89 12:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• RFV failed: no durably archived citations provided. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 13:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

flag jack

The two forms that do not have interference, google books:"flag jacked" and google books:"flag jacking", have zero hits on BGC, and I could not find any to support this at google books:"flag jack" either. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

So? Just because there's no BGC hits doesn't mean it's unattestable. Purplebackpack89 11:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

He never said it was, he just said it wasn't on Google Books. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

@Renard Migrant Maybe not here, though he did blast me (unnecessarily, IMO) on my talk page for creating these (even though some were created by User:IQ125 and not I). Purplebackpack89 16:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

• RFV failed: no durably archived citations provided. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 13:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

flag jacker

No BGC hits for singular or plural. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

• RFV failed: no durably archived citations provided. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 13:30, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

desu as a purportedly English term

Can anyone confirm and document 1) whether this is actually in widespread-enough English usage to potentially meet WT:CFI, and 2) whether such usage really qualifies as English, as opposed to intra-speech-community code switching, using desu precisely because it is specifically a Japanese term? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The good news: the definitions are accurate, and the term is used in certain restricted (chiefly online) communities. The bad news: I can't figure out for the life of me how to find cites. BGC gives up naught I can find, nor does rec.arts.anime.misc on GGC. Looks like a job for... @Cloudcuckoolander! —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

(*looks up into the night sky and sees the Cite Signal*)

(*climbs in Citemobile and rushes to RfV*)

So I was able to cite the second sense. There were just enough viable cites to be found in rec.arts.anime.misc, but they were buried among instances of romanized Japanese. I also took the liberty of converting it to an interjection, since it definitely wasn't functioning as an adjective. Not sure about the first sense. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 06:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

The desu in English seems a particle rather than an interjection. In all the citations, it is used at the end of a sentence. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 10:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

• Can anyone cite the adjective sense? The interjection examples are all clear cases where desu is being used precisely because it's a Japanese term, in a kind of code switching. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 07:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

  Code switching is subtly different. Probably a majority of uses of desu in this kind of context are grammatically incorrect if you translate the sentence to Japanese, because a copula isn't needed or suru would be used, or whatever the issue may be. The use of desu has new rules: it indicates Japaneseness (or really weeabooness), and its new syntactical rule is that it goes at the end of a sentence, sometimes preceded by a comma, regardless of whether the sentence is complete or a fragment. That's a lot different from code switching by bilinguals, which is a purely social phenomenon that preserves the original semantic and syntactic metadata for words used as much as possible even when switching languages. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, code-switching is when people who fluently speak two languages blend both during spoken conversation, as is the case with "Spanglish." It's the unconscious byproduct of being bilingual, and thus thinking in more than one language. Whereas "desu" is a deliberate borrowing of a Japanese term by English speakers. It's selectively plucking a specific word out of Japanese and inserting it into English sentences. That doesn't require fluency in Japanese to do. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you both for the cogent explanations. I am convinced in this case. I think it's worth noting that code switching does not require fluency, merely familiarity; that said, the changes in how desu is used in English utterances vs. Japanese utterances appear to be significant enough to warrant recognition that EN desu != JA です.

I would still like to see the adjective sense cited. This usage is more linguistically interesting to me, as a clear innovation in use and meaning, and not just copycatting. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 00:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Interjection sense passed; adjective sense failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 01:27, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

hemo

Is this attested in Classical Latin? Old Latin is a separate language on Wiktionary. —CodeCat 01:17, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Obviously this is Old Latin, but it appears that Cicero used it once (Epistulae ad Atticum 8.15.1.7). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

lectic

Sense - to do with words etc.

It is certainly a word - but I think it is only used in mathematics. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• RFV failed. I have left the mathematics sense, which was added after the entry was RFV-ed and is easily citeable from Google Books. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 01:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

graphism

Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 13:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I've added three quotations. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

graphist

Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 13:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: On the first page of BGC, there's not much hope for the current definition, but a couple citations for what appears to be a participant in logic experiments. The logic-related term appears to have been coined by Charles Sanders Peirce. Here's a quote related to the logic term:

Purplebackpack89 13:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

• Cited on citations page. The Marcovitch cite makes it clear that art graphist is a synonym for graphic artist. Many, but not all, of the other cites may have this sense. Also, I have removed creature from the def. Clearly, there is only one creature that does this. SpinningSpark 22:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

protophoton

Well proto-photon exists, but with a different meaning. I can't find any mention of this thing. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:34, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I can, but only in French. (and one blog entry). Perhaps, if I add proto-photon, someone can create the French entry and link to it. Kiwima (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

This looks like argot. It looks like one guy's idea, I removed one quote that failed verification and both remaining source are from the same person. I also removed the dead synonym link to paleophoton which seems to be fictitious. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, it should be noted that the quotes for the physical particle actually use the form proto-photon, with the hyphen. Kiwima (talk) 03:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Snow Queen

This was kept in RFD but it still needs cites meeting WT:FICTION rules. -- Liliana • 09:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Added some citations that I think pass (the latter two are not directly related to the Hans Christian Andersen story). Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

non-lectic

This was added by an anonymous user, who first put a request on my talk page. I hunted down the two quotes that the user then added in creating the entry, but I can't find a third. Kiwima (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, in looking for references on lectic, and adding the mathematical definition, I realise that one of the two quotes for non-lectic relates to the mathematical definition, so there appear to be two definitions, each with one quote. Kiwima (talk) 04:02, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

pornabilly

Tagged but not listed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

• This is yet another dodgy entry from the same anon. All his contributions need looking at. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Managed to find two cites. Appears to be a genuine thing, but extremely obscure and/or a flash-in-the-pan trend in the early '90s. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I think it's a variant of pornobilly, which is more citable. WurdSnatcher (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

I found a third hit. However, all the hits I can find (for both pornabilly and pornobilly) refer to the same band (Buck Naked and the Bare Bottom Boys). I suspect that they were the only "pornabilly" band to have existed. Smurrayinchester (talk) 06:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

shut-up

Alt form of "shut up" (verb), hence "shuts-up", "shutting-up" etc. I wasn't aware that hyphenation could be done with this kind of verb. Equinox ◑ 23:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

It tends to be nonstandard with not all forms attested. I've seen top-up in a television advert ("top-up your mobile") which would I think count as durably archived. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

fuckabilly

There's at least one attestable sense, but it isn't on the page at the moment. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

• More crap from the above user. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Found two cites. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 07:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know whether this counts, and if it does, how to go about formatting the citation, but it appears with that sense in the title of a series of films: [[12]] and a song called Fuckabilly Boogie. Kiwima (talk) 06:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Some libraries keep copies of commercially-released cinematic films, so we've tended to consider them durably archived (along with songs commercially released on CDs or vinyl or other physical media) ... but I don't know if they keep pornographic films, so I don't know if those films count as durably archived. I'm also not convinced that the films are using the musical sense of the word.
In some citations, it seems to be an insulting term for a person (perhaps a combination of "fuck" and "hillbilly"?), e.g. on Usenet someone says "You really are spanked hard, aren't you, fuckabilly?" and "I'm voting for Fuckabilly. Its what the Dems need to perminently^[sic] destroy the GOP in Merka". And on Google Books:

• 2016, Dee Carney, Hunger Untamed (ISBN 1459290402):

  The phone rang twice in his ear before the call connected. Cicero's cultured voice came on. "Gave the job to someone else." "Yeah, fuckabilly. Hello to you, too."

This might be the general insult:

• 2014 January 17, joebr...@gmail.com, Re: Studies:Secondhand Smoke Not a Significant Health Threat, in alt.atheism, Usenet:

  Your real name is Pussy F Fuckabilly. Yep, I think you are a fag. Read the link, stupid asshole. Fuck you. Go fuck yourself, you looney bitch.

Or, it might be a gay sense, like this is suggested to be:

• 1983, Winston Leyland, My Deep Dark Pain is Love: A Collection, page 303

  It was the epic poem "In Praise of Fuckabilly Butt," an ode to homosexuality written by Jack Fritscher and published in the magazine Skin. A magazine freely sold on newsstands in the United States, Skin is devoted to the cult of the male body […]

It also seems to be a general term for "fucking around" (noun), as in:

• 2003 November 17, gair rhydd: Cardiff's student weekly, issue 750, page 26, television review:

  19.00 Children in Need Inane tedious bugger-for-nothing scroungers being thoroughly un-hilarious. Although it's for a good cause, so that makes all this fuckabilly acceptable.

And here, "as all fuckabilly" seems like it means "as all get-out", although given the musical context I suppose this could also be read as supporting the sense in question:

• 2003 October 4, Doug Boucher, What's in your...(Hi, Everybody!) :-), in alt.music.mike-keneally:

  His voice might make some people run away screaming, he's twangy as all fuckabilly, but I dig the heck out of him.

- -sche (discuss) 23:00, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

October 2015

Australiana

Rfv-sense - "a pizza with bacon (or sometimes ham) and eggs."

These citations are not particularly helpful. —JohnC5 21:44, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Recorded also in Macquarie Dictionary online -- Australiana2 adjective → Aussie (def. 2). [Australi(an)1 + -ana common Italian ending]. Where Aussie def 2. is defined as: Also, Australiana (of a pizza) having bacon and egg as a feature in the topping. Though, defined there as adjective rather than noun.Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Are restaurant menus, as a form of print media, considered "durably archived?" Some menu citations from the Australian National Dictionary can be found here. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think menus are durably archived, but the dictionary exists in print and it is presumably durably archived. Adding, to the one quotation we've already found, citations of only two of the four quotations AND has, and attributing them as "quoted in" that dictionary, would pass the durability criterion, wouldn't run afoul of the ban on other dictionaries' made-up usexes (since these would be real things merely quoted by the dictionary), and might not represent a copyright issue because lawyers have told Wiktionary that independently-verifiable facts are not copyrightable, and our presentation is different from the AND's (however, I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice). - -sche (discuss) 18:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, it seems that "Australian" is also sometimes used in this sense, although I can only find on citation and it's of the phrase "Australian pizza" rather than bare "Australian" (as AND suggests this can be).

• 2013, Joyce Hatley, Digging Oz, page 74:

  We walked around the town for a while, and then had an Australian pizza for dinner – egg, ham, bacon and mozzarella.

- -sche (discuss) 18:46, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

RFV-passed. - -sche (discuss) 02:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

intermeation

I added the only citation I saw. DTLHS (talk) 16:43, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

• RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 01:38, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

grandevous

No usage. DTLHS (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Added one bad citation (the sentence is a thesauric list of synonyms for "old"). That's all I found. Equinox ◑ 15:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

[Here] is another citation; it's a dictionary, but it is using the word in a definition, rather than defining it. Kiwima (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Not what I was expecting this word to mean at all. I figured it was a rendezvous over a Starbucks grande. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

There is a "Leo's Grandevous" in Hoboken, named for just this reason. Equinox ◑ 19:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

curglaff

Dictionary-only word? SemperBlotto (talk) 07:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

It looks like it. From what I can tell, it's Scotts dialect, and obsolete, which will make good citations difficult. I added a handful of more modern citations, which clearly found the old definition in a dictionary and used it for effect. Kiwima (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

ヌーブ, ぬーぶ

The normal Japanese word for this is 初心者. —suzukaze (t・c) 22:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

As far as I know, those words are used only to explain the English word noob. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

• RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

ser

Rfv-sense: “to be correct, to be true; particularly as answer or reaffirmation of a previous statement”

I’d like to see some quotations of this that are not the interjections é and não é, nor any of the other senses used in a response. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 23:23, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

椋

Rfv-sense for "fruit" sense. Might be related somehow to the Cornus hemsleyi definition I recently added but I'm not sure on that. Bumm13 (talk) 17:01, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Cornus hemsleyi seeds produce an oil used to make soap, but I can't find any reference to the fruits themselves, except to mention their color in describing the plant's appearance. There are Cornus species well-known for their fruits, such as the cornelian cherry, but this isn't one of those. Of course, this has no bearing on the rfv (I don't speak Chinese well enough to do anything useful in that regard). By the way, for taxonomic names that have no Wiktionary entry, it would be nice if you learned to use the {{taxlink}} template. It links to Wikispecies, but more importantly, it puts the page in a category for candidates to have taxonomic name entries created. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

phalaena

Latin. May be attested in New Latin to mean "moth", but I'm not sure what else. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

See (deprecated template usage) [etyl] Ancient Greek φάλαινα (phálaina), alt form of φάλλαινα (phállaina) ("whale, moth, monster"), related to (deprecated template usage) [etyl] Latin balaena (“whale”), cf. baleen whale. I don't know quite how to sort this out. DCDuring TALK 00:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

To start with, we don't have Ancient Greek sections in either of those entries. As far as I can tell, the one with the double letter is the original form, but it has been displaced by the later form with the single letter, which was also borrowed into Classical Latin, except the "ph" changed to a "b", for some reason. I think we're dealing with two different, but homographic words in Ancient Greek, with only the one meaning whale making it into Latin. The one meaning moth is used in taxonomic Latin, giving rise to the obsolete generic name Phalaena, and appearing in compounds such as Phalaenopsis. Even if this spelling exists, it should be changed to an alternative form of balaena, which was the only form common enough to have descendants among the Romance languages. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

So far I've only been able to find this and this. Note that both are discussing Ancient Greek word use in Ancient Greek texts. This is a mention in an English footnote that seems to say that phalaena is found as a variant in one manuscript that contains a fragment of a Latin text. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Polandball

There are currently two quotations in the entry and the citations page, from the same source, which does not appear to be durably archived. The entry needs three independent, durably archived citations spanning at least a year to be kept. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 12:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Multiple archives to w:Internet Archive. -- Cirt (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The w:Internet Archive backs up the links so they will never be dead-links. -- Cirt (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

1. I just read the relevant portion on what it means to be durably archived at WT:ATTEST.
2. WT:ATTEST specifically says: "Where possible, it is better to cite sources that are likely to remain easily accessible over time, so that someone referring to Wiktionary years from now is likely to be able to find the original source. As Wiktionary is an online dictionary, this naturally favors media such as Usenet groups, which are durably archived by Google.".
3. Google is seen, therefore, to be a reliable company to back up hyperlinks = "durably archived".
4. Why is the company Google being given higher preference than the w:Internet Archive ?

Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 23:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The Wayback Machine isn't considered durably archived—see #rickrollear above and Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2012/March#More on the Wayback Machine for a longer discussion. As I understand it, the reason Usenet is accepted is more than just Google—see #parcelcopter above as well as the Beer parlour discussion. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 00:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2012/March#More_on_the_Wayback_Machine seems to suggest Wayback Machine is okay for the Citations page. -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done = I've added Usenet Google Group archived durably cited attestable entries. Three (3) Usenet cites in Polish language, and one in French language and one in Italian language. -- Cirt (talk) 00:36, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Update: We now have on the Citations:Polandball page = three (3) Usenet cites in Polish language, three (3) Usenet cites in French language, and three (3) Usenet cites in Italian language. Hopefully this is now sufficient to keep this page from being disappeared from this site? Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 00:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

They would be fine for French and Polish entries, but an English entry requires English cites. If the English cites were stories that had appeared in print, but were also on the internet news service, that would work. Unfortunately, the ones you've included so far seem to be strictly online- even the one that's produced by staff from a print newspaper. As for the "Polandball Book", I'm not sure what it is, exactly. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Krakow Post is in print and online. -- Cirt (talk) 02:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm the one who added the "Polandball Book", and I think it counts as a legitimate English-language usage - it is a book of Polandball comics, it is durably archived (even has an ISBN), I'm not sure about any of the other citations. Kiwima (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Kiwima (talk • contribs), your help is most appreciated. -- Cirt (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure: it seems to be some kind of internet-only print-on-demand kind of thing. I don't know enough about ISBN's to know if durable archiving is part of the process. At any rate, all of the ISBN sites I checked had no trace of the book. I was sincere when I said I don't know what it is, exactly- it may be durably archived or it may not be. Someone who knows more about such things will have to sort it out. As for the Krakow Post, it looks to me like the online content is independent of the print content, though I'm sure there's a great deal of overlap. If it had been in the print editions, I would have expected something like a byline with date of publication. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The Krakow Post article was written by journalist Steven Hoffman. -- Cirt (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

1. Update: Added languages French, Italian, and Polish.
2. With three (3) cites each entry, to posts on Usenet via Google News Groups archived links which satisfy WT:ATTEST.
3. Please see DIFF.
4. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

It's amusing that this is more attested in other languages than English, and that despite being coined in 2009, it hasn't caught on. Well: whether or not the book itself is durably archived, it's mentioned here: 2013 August 19, "m4rkiz", Re: "Polandball Can Into Games" :), in ttpl.rec.gry.komputerowe. The Business Post and Krakow Post both appear in print as well as online, although it's not clear that the articles we're citing appeared in the print version as opposed to only online. Also: strictly speaking, the Polish entry has two lowercase citations and one uppercase citation is available; ditto the Italian entry. The French entry also only has two citations, since two of the three are from the same author (RVG). By a strict interpretation of CFI, they'd all fail. - -sche (discuss) 06:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

This is why I keep saying we should get rid of the words durably archived. Because we don't allow all durably archived stuff. With The Wayback Machine you can durably archive anything you like but that doesn't mean we'll accept it. If we want to allow only published stuff and Usenet, let's stop lying to everyone and come out and say it. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

countryball

Synonym of Polandball. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 12:59, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

myrio-

I reverted the removal of this definition by User:Matthiaspaul because it left the entry in an unacceptable state, and because the edit summary invoked "reliable sources", which is irrelevant to Wiktionary.

They do have a point, though, in that the definition seems to be strictly an artifact of an old Wikipedia error. It's possible that it may qualify as an obsolete alternative spelling of myria-, but that's not in the entry as it currently stands. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

swag

This has no definition, and I can't find any citations that use swag as an interjection. Kiwima (talk) 18:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

• RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 13:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

antiracialization

I'm trying not to delete everything this problematic anon creates on sight, but it's hard. Here's another plausible one. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I can't find any citations for antiracialization, but anti-racialization (with the hyphen) is definitely attestable. Kiwima (talk) 22:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 01:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

anti-racialize

As above. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I added a few citations for this one. Kiwima (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

• RFV passed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 01:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

antiracialize

Verb. (The adjective antiracialized does seem to exist.) SemperBlotto (talk) 06:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Cited? -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks good to me. RFV passed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 01:46, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

desbotizar

Ido word with an unknown definition. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

deskelizar

Ido word with an unknown definition. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:24, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Cited? -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cloudcuckoolander: I see that deskelizar still has no cites. Did you mean to post that comment in #antiracialize? —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 21:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for catching that. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

deskronizar

Ido word with an unknown definition. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:25, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• • decrown - Nicole Sharp (talk) 05:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

aacc

Was in RFD. Is this attested, in lowercase? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:01, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

aace

Was in RFD. Is this attested, in lowercase? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

law school

Rfv-sense: A post-graduate academic program in which students are prepared for the practice of law. One doesn't say "They provide a law school", does one? ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:14, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure they do - try googling "has a law school" and you will find lots of hits with that meaning. I even find a few with "provides a law school". Kiwima (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

In "has a law school" the "institution" definition is a perfect fit. One would be hard pressed to find a law school that did not have its own institutional identity, which is why the four OneLook dictionaries that have possibly independent definitions only have the single "institution" definition. I am not sure what citations can be found with verbs that tend to collocate with program and not institution. Offer and provide are such verbs. There must be others. DCDuring TALK 23:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

While I see your point, if you look at the citations I added to the entry, they speak of a university having a law school. In these cases, I would think that the institution is the university and the law school is a program or division of said institution. Kiwima (talk) 00:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but by the second definition, that would make the university a law school. Harvard University has a law school: Harvard Law School. Harvard University itself isn't a law school. Now, one could say: "The high-paying job definitely was worth all those years of law school." That would seem to refer to something other than an institution, but I'm not sure. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Law schools have separate deans, faculties, courses, degrees, admissions, mailing addresses, etc. I don't know what else it would take for it to be an institution. Note that no other OneLook dictionary finds it necessary to have two definitions. I am still open to citations incompatible with an "institution" definition.

"All those years of law school" is a lot like "All those years of consulting". I don't think we would want to define "consulting" as "employment as a consultant." DCDuring TALK 01:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

• The reason I nominated this, I guess, is that the word "program" sounds off to me. A program is something that is written up and organised. Isn't a law school something much bigger than that? ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree with DCDuring. How about combining the senses like so? (Compare Talk:UCLA.) - -sche (discuss) 07:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

risorgimento as a common noun

Googling doesn't reveal any uses except as a proper noun. Also the user Aryamanarora who added the English section didn't answer my request to add citations. Yurivict (talk) 02:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

It is listed in the Unabridged Merriam Webster as a common noun, and I don't remember any requests for citation - perhaps I didn't get a notification? Aryamanarora (talk) 02:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe Meriam-Webster made a mistake. I don't think somebody can say "England went through the period of risorgimento", but they could use the word "renaissance" in the same context. I can't find such use in any book (when it is used for anything but Italy and not without the capital letter). Yurivict (talk) 03:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

It does have two quotations that mention risorgimento out of the context of Italy. Link Aryamanarora (talk) 03:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

> <

Italic type#Substitutes lists "They >completely< forgot me!", with the "> <" as a substitute for italics, like / /, * * and _ _.

Is it citable, so that > < can be created? I'm having problems searching that on Google Groups. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 07:28, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Never read something like that, but it might have been used for that purpose... --Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 04:49, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Closed: This entry was never created in the first place, so I'm not sure RFV was the right place for the discussion, but in any case, it's been more than 30 days with no citations. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

edaphus

Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I can find nothing to support either of the supplied definitions, but it is definitely a genus of insect:

and possibly also a type of elk:

I even found a mispelling of edifice (don't you love spell checkers)? Kiwima (talk) 06:10, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

A genus should be at Edaphus, not here, and would usually be under Translingual rather than English. SpinningSpark 11:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

There is apparently a specific epithet distinct from the genus name. That would not be capitalized. DCDuring TALK 11:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) Your first cite to lowercase edaphus is referring to Gallius edaphus. I have no idea what that is (other than it has spicules) but we do not usually give entries for species specific names. Compare Escherichia coli and coli. The cite to Cervus edaphus is pretty certainly a scanno for Cervus elaphus (the red deer). Elk used to be considered a subspecies of C. elaphus. See the search "Cervus elaphus" elk on scholar. SpinningSpark 11:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• I have added an entry for Edaphus, using three cites from above that seem unambiguously of the genus. DCDuring TALK 12:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Mooninite

• WT:FICTION —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The term "Mooninite" to describe Lunarians is well-used on the US television show Aqua Teen Hunger Force. wikipedia:Mooninite Nicole Sharp (talk) 03:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Please read WT:FICTION: by itself, that is completely irrelevant- you have to show usage independent of the show. This is a bit tricky, since there was an incident in Boston where some blinking Mooninite figures that were part of a publicity gimmick got mistaken for a bomb, and the authorities massively overreacted. It's hard to say whether "Mooninite" used in references to that incident are independent or not. Either way, though, the term as currently defined doesn't look like it will meet WT:FICTION. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
    • No, I can't find anything usage other than that publicity stunt. I would just delete it. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Delete per Semper. --Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Googling with -"Aqua Teen" -Boston produces some results. It will take some work to build a decent list of references though. I would say to keep it unless it is proven that the word is a fictional neologism from the show. The best way to check I think would be to search works of early-to-mid-twentieth-century science fiction (such terms were common then); my instinct is that Aqua Teen Hunger Force is not the first place the word has been used, since it is cognate with both of the more common terms of Moon and Selenite. Nicole Sharp (talk) 05:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

• Just -Boston -Aqua works as well. Here is a decent reference (review by AMC Networks on the classic film A Trip to the Moon), bold emphasis added:

  "In fact, despite the fact that it is so old, this film has it all: a gigantic cannon that fires a rocket ship in the spy [sic], a bevy of beautiful French girls, astronauts, alien flora and insectoid Mooninites. In a literal sense, science fiction does not get more classic than this." [13]

  Nicole Sharp (talk) 05:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

creatify

Anything before 2015? SemperBlotto (talk) 13:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I found this from 2013. Kiwima (talk) 01:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm - that link doesn't seem to work - here's a formatted cite:

Kiwima (talk) 01:26, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Also, this one from 2014:

Kiwima (talk) 01:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I think above-quoted cite, as well as the Silicon Republic one, are a different sense than the one currently defined in the entry. This sense may very well be attestable, but the sense currently featured in the entry seems to be an unattestable protologism. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

hamartian

Two definitions:

1. (deprecated template usage) (Greek tragedy, mythology) A hero or a heroine that has commited a fatal flaw which initiated the course to his/her downfall, regardlessly of his/her acknowledgment.
2. (deprecated template usage) (Christian theology) sinner

I can find lots of transliterated Greek, and one possible sense having to do with how one views the concept of hamartia in Greek tragedy, one or two references to sin as hamartian which might be transliterated Greek (it's hard to tell), but nothing even remotely like either of these definitions. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 04:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

quickscope

Just a particular video game? If OK it needs some work - the noun is defined as a verb, the verb is useless. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Mainly in Call of Duty games, but it can be done in most first-person shooters. (So, let's say it's related to a precise genre of video games.) I'll edit the definitions later - it can be used as a noun or a verb, so I thought it was relevant to mention both; what can I do to improve the definitions, though? Sik666 (talk) 11:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

  @Sik666 What they want you to do on this page is find quotations of usage of the word in "durably archived sources" (eg books and magazines). SpinningSpark 13:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

A related term is noscope, which (I believe) is to rapidly turn and fire on an opponent without taking time to aim. Equinox ◑ 15:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• @Equinox no-scope actually has its own page (although very brief and incomplete — I was thinking of completing it in the near future). @Spinningspark For quotations, I'll search for examples; seems like the definitions have been improved since the creation. Sik666 (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Edit: Added a quote. Also, I've added an alternate meaning to the noun. In my opinion, "quickscope" originally meant "a quick look through the scope" and became "a rapid kill (done by means of a quickscope)" over time, as a metonymy. I'm all ears if you find a way to regroup those two meanings or disagree. Sik666 (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Sik666 added a quotation using quick-scoping, I added two using quick-scoped and one using quickscoping, so at least the verb quick-scope is attested.

I also found [14] (uses quickscoping) and [15] (uses and quotes quick scoping, quick-scope, quickscoping and quick scope). I’m not sure they are durably archived. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 00:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

— Most of the sources are forums and boards which tend to be very unconsistent. Some websites specialized in video games used various spellings of quickscope, but I doubt we can find more reliable quotes as of now. The RFV can be closed (unless someone has something to add?). Sik666 (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

knowledgeable

Rfv-sense: intelligent and perceptive. This (distinctive) senses seems unlikely to me. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

• RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 01:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

comitology

Rfv-sense "The art or science of resolving matters by means of committees" (as opposed to the technical EU sense). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

that sense seems to use the alternate form ("commitology") -- see [this], [this], and [this]. Also, perhaps [this]. My impulse would be to move that definition to "commitology", so that it has two meanings, - the alt form of "comitology" and this one, and leave "comitology" as just the EU thing. Kiwima (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

besnowball

I know you can't see it, but I'm making a dubious face right now. WurdSnatcher (talk)

Apparent nonce word only used by George Chapman, so it comes down to whether he is "notable" enough. Equinox ◑ 18:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Remember, notability was struck down by vote, so that won't help here. Looks like Appendix:English nonces is its final home. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

pile-on

Rfv-sense: alternative spelling of the verb (not noun) pile on. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 03:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

 Done, I've added three (3) citations. Mr. Granger (talk • contribs), it would have been appreciated if we could have discussed, and researched this, together, at the entry's talk page, rather than you choosing to escalate. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the quotations, but none of them support the challenged spelling. All three are of the spelling "pile on", not "pile-on". —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 03:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to exclude spellings in search results. Searches even in quotes for "pile-on" reveal numerous results for "pile on", and I don't know how to exclude one or the other. Can you help me, Mr. Granger (talk • contribs), please? -- Cirt (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

While we're at it, how common is the hyphenless spelling compared to the hyphenated spelling for the noun? I'd expect the noun to be usually spelled with the hyphen and the verb to be usually spelled with a space. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

@Cirt It's true that Google Books search ignores punctuation. You might have some success searching for "pileon"—sometimes Google Books mistakenly joins the two parts of a hyphenated word. In some cases the hyphenated form of a word is used in different contexts from the form with a space (such as gamma ray vs. gamma-ray), in which case you can filter using those contexts, but I don't know if that will work in this case. Beyond that, you might be able to find some hyphenated results just by looking through a lot of results with spaces until you finally come across one with a hyphen. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 13:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

That is helpful, but not encouraging, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Try using COCA at BYU. AFAICR they make the distinction we need and either could be considered a durable archive or take their material from durably archived sources. DCDuring TALK 16:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Männlein

Supposedly English. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I did a quick Google Books search ("the Mannlein" | "a Mannlein" | "Mannlein are") with and without umlauts, and there appears to be very limited use in English. I'm not sure though how many are true uses, and not German words in English, or mentions... Leasnam (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Added some cites. Leasnam (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

without a hitch

The definition given was not was I was expecting: completely unplanned and unexpected. Can it really mean this? I thought it meant something like "smoothly". ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:46, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

BTW, the user who created this was banned indefinitely. Not sure why. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:47, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

The usual usage uses hitch (“(deprecated template usage) (informal) A problem, delay or source of difficulty”), for which the usage example is: The banquet went off without a hitch. ("the banquet went smoothly.")

IMO, the correct definition is SoP, though a good candidate for collocation space. DCDuring TALK 09:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

• I created the most commonly used definition. Purplebackpack89 13:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

They user who created this had a knack for finding idiomatic phrases that we were missing, but they made up their own definitions- this entry is typical of their body of work. They were warned about dubious content, they persisted, they got blocked. Sad, but unavoidable. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

"Completely unplanned and unexpected" is the challenged sense, remember. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. How is this sense used? I can't think of how. ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

My instinct is it's just a user error, created by a user who didn't know what it meant. But since I have no evidence of this, I say wait the full 30 days. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1993) doesn't list this, but it has 'without a hitch' in an example sentence under 'hitch'. RFD sounds not unreasonable, though I don't know if I'd support it or oppose it. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• RFV failed: no citations given. I have left the commonly used sense that Purplebackpack89 added; it can be taken to RFD if anyone believes it is not idiomatic. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 13:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

man child

Rfv-sense: “(colloquial) of a boy or young male teenager, particularly an athlete: being physically large or tall, having the physical appearance of an adult male.”

Tagged but not listed. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 14:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

• RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 18:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

number three

Urine and urination. Isn't that number one? That's what I've always heard. Never heard it called number three. 2602:306:3653:8920:A908:1E26:5117:867E 15:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

To rhyme with wee/pee? Anyway, can't find it (I tried various Books searches e.g. "need a number three"), and found at least one source suggesting there's no such thing: "Better they think she had to go number three than something so odd that it didn't even have a number." Equinox ◑ 16:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Number one means you need to pee. Number two means you have to poo. Number three is numbers one plus two. It’s more urgent than either one or two alone. —Stephen ^(Talk) 04:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Stephen, just, I don't have any evidence. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

This is in exactly that sense, but it's not a durable source. SpinningSpark 19:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

My mum used to have a little poster that said, ‘If you do number one, or number two, don’t forget to do number three: wash your hands with soap and water.’ (Paraphrased.) --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 11:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

According to What's Your Poo Telling You?, it means diarrhea. However, this says that the third reason one might go to the toilet is masturbation. SpinningSpark 19:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• I reckon that "number three" lacks a set cultural definition, but instead is applied to anything that seems logical in conjunction with the set definitions of numbers one and two; it might refer to urgency (Stephen), sequence of events (Romanophile), or intensity of activity (diarrhoea/masturbation). (FWIW, "diarrhoea" is the sense that I used as a child.) One or more of these may prove to be citable, but overall they are largely independent or semi-independent neologisms, hence the wide range in semantics. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

I know we can't use this, but this morning I asked an ex-paratrooper what he though going for a number three meant. Without any prompting he said it means "polishing your rocket" (he had to be semi-polite because his wife was within earshot). On that evidence, it would seem that the masturbation meaning is widely known in the military, although not something that will be written down too often. SpinningSpark 13:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I laughed so hard at "polishing your rocket" that I had to go for a number four! AliHautala (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Urban Dictionary has the following surprisingly believable explanation, but i wasn't able to find any reliable source for it on line. On the other hand, maybe not many books of nursery rhymes have been scanned. Maybe someone in an English-speaking country just needs to go to a big library. I must say i remember dimly hearing a long time ago something about a children's rhyme that causes confusion with numbers one and three in English:

"Comes from the childrens nursery rhyme:

Number one, tickle my bum

Number two, do a big poo

Number three, go for a wee"

--Espoo (talk) 16:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• RFV failed: No citations have been found for the challenged sense, and no more than one for any other bathroom-related sense. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 18:18, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

COTU

—Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

• [16] 2005, Globe and Mail, Catherine Seton
  • Obviously the Toronto slogan should be "COTU," which stands, of course, for "Centre of the universe." However, in all seriousness, I think a Canadian campaign, with the self-mocking aspect abundantly clear, based on "COTU" could be funny.
• [17] 2007, Pelican Parts, coldstart
  • Fall Fun Run!!! - Toronto area or aka 'COTU'
• [18] 2013, Bruno 54
  • Is Toronto the COTU?
• [19] 2008, Eh Mac, FeXL, New Toronto tax on cars, motorbikes rolls out
  • How do the denizens of COTU feel about this?
• [20] 2012, Urban Toronto, Lenser, Do we know what Toronto's slogan is?
  • In another forum I used to frequent, I frequently (and always in jest) called it the COTU. Seemed appropriate, given the derision Toronto often receives from many Canadians.
• [21] 2010, Hack the Bone,
  • And so begins my Toronto-centric relocation. To my Doha readers, I apologize for the shift Hack the Bone is about to take. It can’t be helped, I’m moving back to the CoTU (centre of the universe).

-- 70.51.44.60 09:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

At first glance, none of these count as 'durably archived'. If we allowed blogs and forums, you could simply post on a few and get any 'word' on to Wiktionary. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Is ashtray a poker term?

It isn't in wikipedia Glossary of poker terms. I also couldn't find any references by googling. I don't think wiktionary should have any poker terms that aren't in wikipedia. Yurivict (talk) 05:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It's in List of playing-card nicknames, and plenty of ghits here. In any case, Wiktionary isn't limited to terms appearing in Wikipedia; if we can cite it, we can include it. Keith the Koala (talk) 09:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Or if it's real, add it to Wikipedia; it's a wiki. Not a proper noun by the way (that doesn't really even need saying) but I say cite it first and fix it second. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• RFV failed: No citations provided. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 01:25, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

最映子

"A Japanese name". —suzukaze (t・c) 01:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it's a pun, in that case the first kanji would have to be wrong but consider: 晶映子, could be read "akira akira ko" and 晶 and 最 look at least a little similar. It wouldn't be just one name though, but a full name... I only found eight hits on google for "晶映子", all Chinese except one Japanese, but that is "山晶映子". — This comment was unsigned.

• RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:04, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

November 2015

wood ear

It is not clear, which species of mushroom is meant. It seems to me that the name can be applied to several species of fungi. If it is true, they should all be specified. The confusion is mirrored in the translation section, where e. g. Chinese translation refers to a different species than the Spanish translation. Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Even worse, at 木耳 the Chinese and Japanese entries contradict each other on the species on the same page. But this is why we have scientific names, because common names have different meanings in different regions. SpinningSpark 01:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Popular names are often based on gross features, so that many species having those features can share the name. Pictures are a big help in such cases. DCDuring TALK 04:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

If more species share the name than I think it needs to be specified which species they are. Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Or is it possible that the name refers to the whole genus? Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

We can check “wood ear”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. Merriam-Webster[22] has a broader definition that mentions the genus and then singles out A. auricula and A. polytricha. oxforddictionaries.com[23] only covers Auricularia auricula. AHD[24] only mentions the genus. W:Auricularia suggests there are 28 species. For translations that only match a particular species, a dedicated translation table can be created even if the definition remains on the genus level, IMHO. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

The reason our entry is confusing is because usage is confused. Theoretically, wood ear should be Auricularia auricula-judae and cloud ear should be Auricularia polytricha, but there are plenty of references that don't recognize the distinction, or get it backward, so I doubt most English speakers have a clue what species is referred to by the term.

Although there are lots of species of Auricularia, wood ear is only used in the context of Asian cooking and medicine, which narrows it down to A. a.-j. and A. p., except for some people in the US who gather a local species under the impression that it's A. a.-j. Another name I see a lot is black fungus.

A. a.-j. is known in Europe by the rather unpleasant name of Jew's-ear, which is associated with some pretty nasty Medieval folklore. I notice that a lot of references leave out the "-judae" in the specific epithet and refer to it as Auricularia auricula- probably to avoid those associations.

As for the original languages, I suspect that 木耳 can be used generically for both species, but 雲耳 refers specifically to A. p. I wouldn't be surprised if there were regional variation, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

牠们

AFAIK, 牠 is not used in simplified Chinese, which uses 它 instead. — Justinrleung ^(t...)⁄_c=› 03:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

• RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 01:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Islamicide

Definition:

1. The mass killing of Islamics, a slaugtering of Muslims

I was surprised at how little this is attested, and at how much of the usage refers to murder by Muslims rather than of Muslims. This is extremely rare, at best. If kept, it will require cleanup beyond the quick once-over I gave it (the formatting was all wrong, and there was a header for "Entomology"!).

Although the subject matter is reminiscent of Pass A Method, the level of competence is significantly lower than one would expect from PAM (I know, that's hard to imagine- but it's true). Chuck Entz (talk) 04:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Does it meaning kills of Islamists or of Muslims? Best to attest it first and then figure that out. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Also ought to be capitalised. Equinox ◑ 16:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

• Islamicide just didn't sound right to me. I wondered if the actual word was Islamocide. A Google search turned up a Twitter trend and little else. Purplebackpack89 21:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

If it's a valid word, then it'd be Islamicide, although usage would vary as to whether it should be capitalized or not (Webster's usually says "often capitalized" for words like this). It's based on a Latin root, like homicide, patricide, regicide, etc., all of which use the genitive form of the noun of the thing being killed, never the thing doing the killing. In this case, the assumption is "Islamus" = Islam or Muslim. Neither Cassell's nor Bantam gives Latin equivalents; Vicipædia gives "Islam" and "Religio Islamica" for "Islam" and "Musulmanus" for "Muslim". So technically "Islami" should be the genitive for the religion, but not for Muslims. Not sure what the reasoning is for "Islamophobia", but it could just be an arbitrary coinage. At any rate, as "Islamicide" it has to refer to the religion itself, rather than its practitioners. A Google search turns up blogs and t-shirts, rather than reputable news sources, which seems likely as it's the Muslim equivalent of someone shouting "kill the Jews!" Unless some examples of its use for its literal meaning occur in reputable sources, I would say we should delete it. But it clearly doesn't mean what the sense being RfV'd says; that'd be "Musulmanicide". And in either case, it'd be killing of Islam or Muslims, not killing by Islam or Muslims. If people invent a word that means something other than what they intend it to mean, and use it to say the opposite of what it would have meant had it been formed correctly in the first place, and nobody except some bloggers and their readers are using it, then we don't have a legitimate definition. P Aculeius (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

There's virtually nothing here relevant to descriptive linguistics. It means what it means. If we don't have sources acceptable to CFI, we have nothing to say about it, and if we do and they mean the opposite of what you think it should say, it might be worth a note that -cide in English usually means killing of the prefix, not killing by the prefix. The idea that one needs a degree in Latin to coin new English words should by now be considered risible.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't say you needed a degree in Latin. I don't have a degree in Latin. I wasn't even a particularly good Latin student. But I know a thing or two about how words are formed, and knowing even a little bit about Latin is important if you're going to figure out how to form words using Latin. It's not necessary to argue ad hominem or air trendy anti-linguistic prejudices in order to make a valid point here. If you're interested in working collaboratively to produce a dictionary for everyone, leave your ridicule at the door. P Aculeius (talk) 03:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't ridicule you; I criticized you. If I wanted to ridicule you, I would tell you your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries. Nor did I use ad hominem. You are labeling standard linguistics of the 20th and 21st centuries as "trendy anti-linguistic prejudices", and that is problematic in collaboratively producing a dictionary based on those principles.

These words were not formed using Latin. They were formed using English. That is how words are generally formed in the 21st century by the speakers of English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

You wrongly attributed something to me and called it "risible". So you are ridiculing what I said, and me for saying it, despite the fact that I didn't say it in the first place. The fact that you needed to do so, and dismiss what I said about the meaning as only "what I think it should say" is what makes it an ad hominem attack. And it's certainly not "formed using English". We don't have a word "Islami" in English, or "Islamo" for that matter. Nor do we have a word "cide" in English. You don't go out and caedas people in English. We don't commit mancide or womancide or fathercide or kingcide or racecide. These are Latin roots, formed using rules for Latin. You can't ignore those rules because you have a poor opinion of Latin, or ignore the meanings of those words just because some people use them ignorantly. No matter how many people say "dog" when they mean cat, cat does not become a definition of "dog". If you want to make a word without using Latin, then call it "Muslimslaughter", but even then it still means that Muslims are being killed, not doing the killing. P Aculeius (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• The etyma can be Latin, while the word formation process is purely English -- which would explain things like polyamory (rather than polyphilia or multiamory). For that matter, when it comes to new words in English that include Islam, I don't think Latin or Latin's word formation rules necessarily have anything to do with the actual derivations -- which would explain things like Islamophobia.

Also, remember that Wiktionary is descriptivist -- the project aim is to describe words as they are used (and formed, etc.), not as they should be used (and formed, etc.). This is why we have an entry for brung, among others, even though this is widely thought of as "bad English" or "not a word". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

And yet, words derived from Latin roots are normally formed using Latin rules, which is why it's "homicide" rather than "homocide" and "patricide" rather than "patercide". "Polyamory" doesn't even pretend to be a proper word; it was coined on the internet, and only constant repetition has resulted in its addition to the lexicon. I'm not arguing that Wiktionary shouldn't cover words that don't have a legitimate etymology, but rather that where a form that follows the rules exists (Islamicide), it shouldn't be rejected in favour of one that doesn't (Islamocide). But there's still the question of the word's meaning, and the meaning of a word is derived in large part from the elements that make it up. And the word "Islamicide" literally means "killing of Islam", not "killing of Muslims", and certainly not "killing by Muslims". If some people misuse a word because they don't understand what it means, that may be the basis for a usage note, but it shouldn't give rise to a definition that's the opposite of the word's actual meaning. inflammable isn't defined as "incapable of burning", no matter how many people think that's what it means. It has a usage note instead of an alternative definition because people get confused by it, but it never meant "incapable of burning", no matter how often it's misused. P Aculeius (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• Your examples of “words derived from Latin roots” actually derive as whole terms from Latin: homicide and patricide are not examples of English word formation using Latin roots, and are thus irrelevant analogies for the formation of modern English islamicide, etc. And re: polyamory, Merriam-Webster notes a first appearance of 1994, which is a bit early to be an internet coinage. More importantly, what is a “proper” word by your judgment? I really think you've mistaken the goal of the Wiktionary project as being prescriptive in saying how words should be spelled and used. The stated goal is instead to be descriptive in saying how words are spelled and used. I think a big part of your frustration here is caused by unmet expectations. You might benefit from reading WT:NPOV, particularly these two paragraphs:

Wiktionary’s editorial policy is to take a “neutral point of view”, often abbreviated “NPOV”. This policy means that we accept all significant viewpoints on an issue. Instead of simply stating one perspective, we try to present all relevant viewpoints without judging which is correct. Our aim is to be informative, not to convince readers of something. It’s OK to state opinions in entries, but they must be presented as opinions, not as fact. Also, it’s a good idea to attribute these opinions, for example “Supporters of (...) say that...” or “(Notable commentator ___) believes that...”

On Wiktionary, neutrality directly implies that a descriptive approach is taken towards the documentation of languages, and not a prescriptive approach. This is one of the primary tenets of how Wiktionary works. Entries should not impose any particular view on the correctness of a word or meaning, as this is subjective and does not represent all views fairly. Incorrectness is always a subjective matter when language is concerned, as different people speak differently and no speech variety is inherently less valid than any other, only perhaps more or less widely used.

It is clear that you are passionate and interested in Wiktionary, which is great. However, I'm concerned that your mistaken expectations and resulting unhappiness may lead to you leaving the project. I hope instead that you read WT:NPOV and revise your views on Wiktionary, and resume editing on a happier and more productive basis. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 06:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

"Polyamory doesn't even pretend to be a proper word; it was coined on the internet." There aren't proper and "improper" words; this is silly snobbery. "Only constant repetition has resulted in its addition to the lexicon." How else do you think words are added to the lexicon? OED secret police go out and enforce them? Equinox ◑ 02:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I can see that it's useless to try and discuss whether a word is correctly formed or means what people are using it to mean, if you don't want to be insulted by everyone who disagrees with what you say. So far I've been called totally irrelevant, ridiculous, and a silly snob. It's no wonder this community is so small and insular. The only thing that people can agree on is the desirability of shutting down meaningful debate. P Aculeius (talk) 05:36, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• After looking at your user page and noticing you self-describe as “a regular contributor on Wikipedia”, I would also like to strongly recommend that you read Wiktionary:Wiktionary for Wikipedians, and Wiktionary:What Wiktionary is not. I really think your upset is caused by an acute case of mismatched expectations: Wiktionary and Wikipedia have substantially different operating rules. Of note on the WT:WWIN page:

Wiktionary is not an arbiter of what is good English; correct English, acceptable English, suitable English, or even grammatical. Wiktionary describes usage, it does not prescribe nor proscribe it, and adheres only to its criteria for inclusion, which state that any term or meaning that can be shown to be in sufficiently widespread use may be included. By including or not including a certain term, it by no means accepts or attempts to promote a certain point of view, but is simply documenting, explaining what is in use in English or any other language.

Please read these two documents, at least. They go a long way towards explaining the hows and whys regarding this thread above and other users' responses to you. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 07:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

My points, which you conveniently ignored, were not that "only proper words should be included" or that "words that have some vague relation to Latin must always and forever adhere to all the rules and regulations of Latin grammar", neither did I complain that "you people don't adhere to the standards of Wikipedia!" What I've been trying to say repeatedly, and apparently without any effect, is that (1) you can't arbitrarily pick and choose the "right" form of words based on how you feel that they ought to be spelled, when there are perfectly clear examples to guide you and which support the spellings currently in use; (2) the rules of Latin are not irrelevant when discussing the formation of words using Latin roots, nor is it laughable to suggest that we look to Latin in order to figure out why the word and closely related words take one form and not another, and (3) you cannot have a collaborative discussion when people reply by ridiculing ideas and opinions with which they disagree, and instead resort to name-calling!

This is not a question of mismatched expectations. If you can find a Wiktionary policy that says "it's okay to ridicule opinions with which you disagree," or "personal attacks are encouraged on this project," please link to it here. Meanwhile, if your contention is that being "descriptivist" means that a word is defined as whatever mean when they say it, then inflammable and other words that are commonly misused should gain new senses as a result. Mrs. Malaprop would be delighted. P Aculeius (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Prosfilaes may not have been very diplomatic about it, and used an exaggeration when talking about "a degree in Latin", but, on substance, I have to agree with him. English is what English speakers speak, not what makes sense based on understanding the normal morphological rules- see irregardless, for instance, and terms such as pea and adder, which were mistakenly formed from pease and nadder.

As for inflammable, both the standard sense and the proscribed sense are derived from perfectly valid application of the rules: Latin has two prefixes with the spelling in-, one mean "into" and the other meaning "not". It's strictly a matter of historical accident as to which one ended up as the one we use today. In fact, the entry is an exception to our normal practice: we definitely should have a "not flammable" sense, with a "nonstandard" or "proscribed" label (if we can find usage of it, of course).

As for the question at hand: my impression of what little durably-archived usage I could find is that it seems to be a series of one-off coinages by people who needed a word to express what they meant, and who vaguely remembered the element -cide in words such as homicide, and patricide (which have "-i-") as meaning "killing", without remembering all the details of its proper usage in word-formation. What we have to determine here is whether there's enough usage to show that the nominated sense exists in the real world. It seemed close enough to be worth checking, given the other serious problems with the entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• “Meanwhile, if your contention is that being "descriptivist" means that a word is defined as whatever mean when they say it, then inflammable and other words that are commonly misused should gain new senses as a result.” → Precisely. You are correct on both counts: words mean what people use them to mean, and words gain new senses (and lose old ones) over time as a result. This is basic lexicography.

Re-reading this thread, I don't see anyone directly attacking you. I do see you directly attacking the Wiktionary community, and the underlying basis for your attacks, as best I can tell, has to do with your belief that some words are “proper” and other words aren't. For the sake of your own happiness, please either disabuse yourself of that misconception, at least with regard to Wiktionary, or please leave: attempting to contribute here without understanding or accepting the project's ideals of lexicographic description will only lead to disagreement and disappointment. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I think taking offense at "The idea that one needs a degree in Latin to coin new English words should by now be considered risible" is hostile to communication here; certainly Wiktionary plays a little rough socially. It's an attack on an idea, which you followed up with attacks on people!

The "correct" spelling of island is iland. Someone in the 16th century looked at isle and Latin insular and inserted a silent s into a word of Germanic descent, with origins in Old English igland, cognate to Dutch eiland. Should we "correct" it in Wiktionary?

The rules of Latin are useful when talking about words formed from Latin roots. Islamocide isn't; it's formed from Islam + o + cide, where cide is an English suffix, and o is tossed in there because -cide words usually have a vowel in there. To say that it must be killing of Islam is silly; compounds just aren't that regular. To say that it should mean the killing of Muslims is not unreasonable, and may be worthy of a usage note, as that is a violation of the most natural English meaning. But if people who use it consistently use it to mean killing by Muslims, that's its definition.

If words like awesome (which "really" means "awe-inspiring"), silly ("good, blessed") and tubular ("in the shape of a tube") can gain new definitions, so could inflammable. I doubt that people are reliably using inflammable in a way that they mean and are understood as meaning not flammable, but that's a matter for its own discussion if someone wants to argue it does.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

If you reread what I wrote, I said that I was accused of saying something that I didn't (that you need a degree in Latin to coin new English words), and calling what someone says "risible" is insulting (especially if they didn't even say it). So is describing a perfectly valid opinion "totally irrelevant" merely because you disagree with it. And when you accuse someone of "silly snobbery", that's pretty insulting too. I don't need to be called "ridiculous" or "totally irrelevant" or a "silly snob", and it's no use saying that it's only what I'm saying that's "ridiculous, irrelevant, silly snobbery". The implication is that I'm a ridiculous, irrelevant, silly snob for saying it. And that's what makes this so hard to discuss meaningfully.

You'll also note that my point about "polyamory" was that it's a completely arbitrary coinage, and far too new and irregular to be a model upon which to decide whether "Islamicide" or "Islamocide" is the right form. It's a strange back-formation form the adjective "polyamorous", a Greek-Latin hybrid. How did it acquire a 'y' at the end? Because the first person in the chain that led to it being treated as a word decided it ought to have one, presumably on the model of "polygamy". Yet no other words formed from 'amor' use such a form. 'Amory' doesn't exist anywhere but in this arbitrary word. It's not a good example to use when debating how other words should be formed.

Please consider that the entries in the category "English words suffixed with -cide" consists almost entirely of words of Greek and Latin derivation, and almost without exception use Greek and Latin rules to join the first and second element; nearly all of the words with Latin first elements use Latin genitives, ending in -i; nearly all the ones ending in -o are Greek; and the entry under discussion already uses -i, not -o, which makes sense if the underlying assumption is that whatever is intended (whether Muslims or Islam itself) would have a Latin form Islamus rather than a Greek Islamos. It's also noteworthy that, as far as I can tell, none of the terms listed mean "killing by the thing in the first part" (although I noticed a nonce usage of "autocide" to mean "suidide by means of crashing a car"). They pretty much always mean "killing of the thing in the first part." I think it's a valid opinion that a common misuse of a word should become a usage note rather than a new definition. I don't demand that you agree with me, and I won't call you silly for disagreeing. But I don't think I should be ridiculed for pointing any of this out, or thinking it worth considering. P Aculeius (talk) 01:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Again: "debating how other words should be formed" won't necessarily tell us how they have been in reality. Equinox ◑ 01:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not the one who raised the question of whether it should be "Islamocide". The entry is already at "Islamicide". My point was that there's no linguistic basis for changing it to "Islamocide", because it would normally be formed with an i-stem; and nobody seems to be suggesting that "Islamocide" is a regular or preferred form, so without clear evidence supporting "Islamocide", the entry should stay where it is. P Aculeius (talk) 05:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

The only basis on which to decide which form to prefer, "Islamicide" or "Islamocide", is based on evidence from quotations. Linguistic bases and personal opinions are irrelevant. So let's stop arguing about irrelevancies and start doing research on which forms actually exist in the real world. I am finding very few citations of either form. --WikiTiki89 15:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• I've added three quotations that appear to support this sense. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 01:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

blame Canada

Rfv-sense: "A catch phrase for shifting attention away from a serious social issue by laying responsibility with Canada."

Basically, can we find three citations that aren't literally blame + Canada. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think any of the quotes I inserted in 2007 are figurative. I'm not finding others. DCDuring TALK 21:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

XY

RFV sense (fandom slang) (deprecated use of |lang= parameter) Initialism of Pokémon X and Y.. Doesn't this need to meet WT:BRAND? SpinningSpark 10:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to try and find some citations for it. Just a note: I created the Pokémon sense of XY and other entries for abbreviations of Pokémon games today. Apart from XY, they are: RBY, RGBY, GS, GSC, RS, RSE, DP, DPP, HGSS, BW, BW2 and ORAS.

Other abbreviations for video games I found: LoL (League of Legends), FF (Final Fantasy) and MOO (Master of Orion). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Note: Probably some of those are attestable in the form "Pokémon GSC" (with the word "Pokémon") in a way that meets WT:BRAND. I'll try to confirm that later. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

WT:BRAND doesn't really apply here, since these aren't the actual titles of video games, but rather fan-created shorthand for the titles of video games. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Delete even though I was the creator of that entry. BRAND or not, I don't think I'll be able to attest that one, sorry. I added a bunch of Pokémon abbreviations in a single day like FRLG and GSC. I think some may be attestable, but XY does not seem to be. See Category:en:Pokémon for the other abbreviations. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• RFV failed: no citations provided. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 18:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

autophagomometer

Nonce term, needs two more cites. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:02, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 18:12, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

overnourished

"Overweight." Certainly a possible result of overnourishment, but a separate sense? Equinox ◑ 15:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me a euphemism, like overweight, for fat#Adjective. DCDuring TALK 18:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I guess the thing to do is find cites where it clearly is being used as a euphemism for fat and not in its basic medical meaning, which is "suffering from overnutrition" and is covered by sense 1. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

OED cites the Philippine Daily Inquirer (15 March 2000), page 9: "Policemen who've grown uhhh, overnourished, by helping themselves to free meals at the expense of hapless carinderia owners." Smuconlaw (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

That suggests that it's worth hunting for more. DCDuring TALK 12:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

This search found seven apparently applicable uses, from which I have selected and formatted two, below:

The following doesn't support the euphemism tag, but supports the definition:

DCDuring TALK 12:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

VSF

Rfv-sense: Acronym of viu, senhorita fofoqueira. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:00, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 18:14, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

lickeroushead

Can't find any citations. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

There's a hit using the spelling "lyberoushede" and one using "likeroushed", but nothing for this exact form. DTLHS (talk) 23:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

• RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 01:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

paternoster

@Algrif placed this comment next to the sense "(fishing, Australia) A tackle rig with a heavy sinker at the end of the line, and one or more hooks on traces at right angles spaced above the sinker": "Why Australia? AFAIK this meaning exists in UK and US and probably other English speaking countries, too". Smuconlaw (talk) 16:15, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the evidence available to the contributor was limited to the context given. We can't very well limit the contributions we accept to perfect ones! Why not make the change you know to be true and let someone else challenge the more inclusive context or definition. DCDuring TALK 13:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Erm, I'm not following ... I don't know whether Algrif's hidden comment is correct or not, which is why I'm posting the comment here. Should we just leave the comment on the page? Smuconlaw (talk) 13:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

BTW, the three subsenses subordinated to the "rosary" sense (including this challenged one) are etymologically/metaphorically connected to that sense, but are not subsenses IMO. DCDuring TALK 13:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

It is my custom to put a hidden note in chages of this nateure. English fishing enthusiasts use paternosters. Fact. So I just put a little hidden note, incase some earlier editor decides to reverse my edit. It leads directly to a quick discussion such as this. and an equally quick solution -- ALGRIF talk 15:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Why not just start a discussion directly? Saves a step! Smuconlaw (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

cax

Abbreviation of "central axis". Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 11:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Google scholar yielded 700 results, however some of them are capitalized. --Jarash (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm feeling extremely dubious for a few reasons. First, "central axis" seems to be sum-of-parts. But if it's not, aren't all axes central by definition? If it's an abbreviation, is it a regular abbreviation, or simply one made up by whoever needs to abbreviate "central" and "axis" for some reason? A nonce abbreviation, as it were. If it's a general scientific term or common abbreviation, then it ought to be found in a glossary of scientific terms, or at least one dealing with some branch of science concerned with items that have multiple axes (minerology, perhaps). P Aculeius (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The scholar hits seem to be for "cation exchange", "calcium halide" but not for "central axis" as far as I can tell. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

There are 954 mentions of "cation exchange" in scholar. --Jarash (talk) 12:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

needlefright

Has two cites in the entry, but one of them isn't durable. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:41, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of cites on Google Scholar for "needle fright" (with a space), but that is SOP, so I am not sure that they count. Other than that, the hyphenated form seems more common:

Kiwima (talk) 20:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

• Just checking, @Kiwima: you couldn't find any more for this unhyphenated spelling? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

That's right, @Metaknowledge, - we have the requisite three citations for the hyphenated form, but only the one for the unhyphenated form. Kiwima (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Netflix and chill

I've heard this phrase, but I can't find any CFI-compliant cites. The definition also doesn't seem quite right (shouldn't it involve Netflix?), but cites should help clarify that, if they can be found. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:05, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

This is a neologism. I found one citation from 2015. We should be able to find more in a few weeks when it's 2016. Purplebackpack89 14:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• (Edit conflict) This certainly won't pass CFI in the regular way, since it was only coined this year, so it should be at the very least a {{hot word}} Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

  I have tagged it as such. Purplebackpack89 14:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

• Know Your Meme has a tweet from October 2014, so it may be there are older citations out there. Keith the Koala (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately not in BYU's GloWBE corpus of texts, which may be deemed durably archived. DCDuring TALK 00:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• I will just note that the current citation "If you invite me to 'Netflix and chill,' that’s exactly what I’m going to do." uses it in the literal sense. Maybe we should focus on improving our entry for Netflix and save the subtext for when/if it becomes an established idiom rather than just a fad. --WikiTiki89 15:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • To the best of my knowledge, the current definition is correct without mentioning Netflix; it supposedly originated as a euphemism intended to disguise the true purpose of the visit from the ears of people who weren't supposed to know what was actually going to happen. But I'm in no position to provide CFI-compliant sources to verify that. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I always thought it originated from someone inviting someone literally to watch Netflix and chill, with the hope or expectation that one thing would lead to another. --WikiTiki89 15:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
      • A euphemism could be used either way, I'd think. DCDuring TALK 16:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
        • I saw something like 'at my age, Netflix and chill actually means we're going to watch Netflix and chill'. It does seem real in the Facebook/Twitter domain but I don't know if it's really justifiable as a hot word. In this case 'don't know' kinda means 'let's keep it just in case'. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
• What makes the expression, either as verb or noun, Internet slang? DCDuring TALK 16:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Nothing. If anything, it's more text messaging slang, i.e. somebody would send a text saying something along the lines of "Hey, wanna come over for Netflix and chill?" FWIW, this Halloween, a couple I knew dressed as...Netflix and chill (she as Netflix and he as chill). Purplebackpack89 16:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

This article may be of interest in resolving this discussion. Contrary to what is either stated or believed above, it apparently dates (on Twitter) to at least 2009, at least in its literal sense; the connotations seem to have emerged in 2014. Daniel Case (talk) 22:50, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

timescape

I agree this is an actual word, but I'm not convinced that either of the two current senses are attested. In terms of its science fiction meaning, there is a 1980 novel by that name, and a Star Trek TNG episode, and also a 1992 film. However, its not clear to me (not being acquainted with any of them) that they actually revolve around "A multi-dimensional treatment of time", as opposed to just a more generic story of time travel ("timescape" being possibly chosen as simply a cool sounding word related to time); and, these works might be seen as attesting Timescape (with a capital T) as opposed to timescape. So it would be good if someone acquainted with these (or other science fiction) works could attest this particular sense.

Likewise, for the physics sense, a search of arXiv reveals the existence of a "timescape model" or "timescape cosmology" (see e.g. this paper), but it is not clear to me that "A function of time that is dependent on the position of the observer" is actually what "timescape" means here. So once again, it would be good if someone with a background in physics/cosmology could confirm if this definition actually matches how physicists use the word, since I have some doubts about that as well. SJK (talk) 10:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Would the sci-fi sense be a timeline, or set of timelines? A skim of Google Books suggests that a timescape might be any given way of looking at time, or measuring events in time. It's even sometimes used in the context of scheduling business activities. Equinox ◑ 16:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

In the Benford novel, the word is used in Chapter 46, and in the 1992 Bantam Spectra paperback there is an afterword by Susan Stone Blackburn that discusses the word briefly. I would suggest a definition like "the geometry of time". This applies to the linked-to arXiv preprint above., which is introducing the name to emphasize that cosmological features of the model are derived from temporal structure. Choor monster (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I found Klaus H. Goetz, Jan-Hinrik Meyer-Sahling, The EU Timescape, Journal of European Public Policy Special Issues as Books, Routledge 2013, p. 147, which says:

We have borrowed the notion of a timescape from the sociologist Barbara Adam (1998, 2004, 2008), who define a timescape as 'a cluster of temporal features, each implicated in all the others, but not necessarily of equal importance in each instance' (Adam 2004: 143). Its key elements include time-frames, temporality, timing, tempo, duration, sequence and temporal modalities (past, present, future) (Adam 2008).

This doesn't appear to match either the science fiction or physics sense. As best as I can work out, it is a study of the temporal structure of some phenomena (in this case a political entity, the EU), emphasising the way its temporal structure is determined by non-temporal considerations, especially spatial considerations. SJK (talk) 05:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

man down

while it makes sense as the opposite of man up, I've never heard it with that meaning, and it doesn't look common (if it exists at all). It does appear that there's an idiomatic meaning here, but this isn't it, AFAICT. Maybe "to reduce in manpower" and/or "to weaken or diminish", but I don't see three clear cites for either of those either. WurdSnatcher (talk)

I find enough cites for "to reduce in manpower":

There is also some evidence for to intimidate:

And I found one quote to support the supplied meaning:

There also seems to be a meaning having to do with falconry - from context it looks like a process of reducing food intake to cause weight loss:

Kiwima (talk) 04:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• • I've made a citations page, found one more for the falconry thing and taken a stab at writing a def for that one, also added the manpower one. I found a second use for "to intimidate", but that's still only two. I've switched this rfv to be for the "lose courage" sense, which still only has that one cite you found. WurdSnatcher (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I suppose we could combine the two courage ones into a single definition - something like "To lose courage or cause to lose courage", and then use the three cites for that. Kiwima (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the 1973 Canadian Labour manpower cite is good. It is at least ambiguous. I find the more natural reading to be "the employer is usually attempting to (cut out) (manning) (down on) a particular piece of equipment."

Another reading would be that it was a blend of "cut out" and "cut down" resulting from a mid-sentence edit of speech.

They all look like nonce creative exploitations of "man"'s normal meaning by verbing it. The heterogeneous nature of the uses suggests that there are probably other meanings also. DCDuring TALK 20:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

junior

The first adjective sense and the example for the first noun sense are identical. Is "junior" actually a noun or an adjective when one says "She was three years my junior"? Under the entry for "senior", this sense appears only as a noun. Dylanvt (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The definition is clearly an adjective, although the example is not. As an adjective, the word can apply to anyone or anything. A junior brother, a junior daughter, a junior computer, a junior partner, a junior competition, etc. Anyone or anything younger than its companions can be described as junior, with "junior" as an adjective, irrespective of whether the people or things could also be described as "juniors" in the noun sense (and in most cases, they probably could be). It might be a clumsy way to look at it, but if the word stands on its own, it's probably a noun, but if it modifies a noun or pronoun, it must be an adjective. In the example given, "junior" is probably a subject complement, rather than an adjective modifying "she". But even if I'm right, it still doesn't mean that "junior" isn't an adjective when applied to a noun or pronoun. P Aculeius (talk) 01:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

In that particular sentence it's a noun: "she was my junior (by three years)". Equinox ◑ 01:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The example has been moved to a different part of the entry. Could you clarify whether you're not sure that "junior" can be an adjective meaning "younger", or has moving the example rendered this RfV moot? P Aculeius (talk) 01:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I added three quotes, although a better definition might be "young" or "child". Kiwima (talk) 03:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

It's a comparative adjective, meaning "younger" or "newer". I don't see "child" as an equivalent, except as a noun sense. P Aculeius (talk) 05:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

en passants

Are there three attesting quotations for this meeting WT:ATTEST, including in permanently recorded media? --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I added 2 more. Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

They're identical copies... Equinox ◑ 23:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Whoops. Sorry, that was just a mistake. Fixed now. Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

chicken

To develop characteristics of a chicken. I am doubtful that that sense exists. I would probably say chickenize if I needed to -- which oddly enough does seem to be a valid word, though not with that meaning. WurdSnatcher (talk) 22:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that would be gallicize, although that also has a different implication. *Imagines chicken in striped shirt and beret* Delete as nonsense, and per similar discussion over "house" at RfD. P Aculeius (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I've added the other sense to this RfV under the L3 heading below to take advantage of any searching for the above sense. DCDuring TALK 14:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

avoid as a result of fear

"(intransitive) To avoid something as a result of fear."

Does this sense of chicken#Verb shown exist other than in chicken out? If not, we need at least to modify the entry to show the required complement, though I think it doesn't belong in this entry. DCDuring TALK 14:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Searched "he chickened" -out. Got a few hits, all of which seem to be shortened versions of "chickened out", with the same meaning. P Aculeius (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I was originally going to rfv that sense, but saw it has some use. I was curious if there are any phrasal verbs whose first component can't be a standalone verb. I guess this sorta counts since I'm sure chicken out came first, so there must have been some time before chicken was used on its own (at least 1946). WurdSnatcher (talk)

I searched for "he chickened the" on Google Books, hoping for something like "he chickened the dare". All I found was "he chickened the rest of the way out", which I think is some kind of resultative construction (cf. "died a death", "the dog barked me awake"). Eirikr is right about! Equinox ◑ 01:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• I parse that more as an alternative construction to "he chickened out the rest of the way". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

What I was getting was "he chickened before he could do blah" and similar hits. Should be chickened out, but with the out omitted. P Aculeius (talk) 23:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, it's actually marked intransitive. Sorry, I wasn't paying enough attention. Equinox ◑ 02:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

There's a few that look questionable to me: [25] [26] [27] WurdSnatcher (talk)

Those look like good cites. I think that the sense of chicken in question is a backformation from chicken out, ie, a different etymology. DCDuring TALK 02:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Cited and moved to a different etymology. WurdSnatcher (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Not a backformation, just elision of the word 'out'. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Omission rather. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

slide off

To leave a place, or a meeting, early without being noticed slid off from work gets zero hits, so I'm dubious that this exists, at least in this form. slid off work, slid off at work and slid off the meeting don't get any hits either. Could maybe be SOP even if it does exist (slide can be mean to "pass unobtrusively", so it's not clearly idiomatic IMO -- slide out is probably how I'd say it though, but that seems even more SOP). WurdSnatcher (talk)

• Sounds OK to me, keep. Donnanz (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
• Sounds like a mistake for slip away. P Aculeius (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
• It doesn't ring a bell with me...I have to admit, it sounds like a mistake for slip off (from work, etc.), which gets at least a few hits here: slip off from work Leasnam (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
• To keep the challenged sense we need citations, not votes. Opinions are of value principally for their contribution to encouraging or discouraging people from getting citations. DCDuring TALK 18:47, 19 November 2015
• How about these:

Kiwima (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Well those don't support the given def. Something like "to sneak" might be valid, but I'm not sure. slide can mean "To pass or put imperceptibly; to slip" and those uses sound like that def + out. You can also slide away, slide by, slide past, etc. WurdSnatcher (talk)

Perhaps the definition needs refinement, but I think they are the meaning that the author of the definition was intending. If you consider it just SOP, that falls under requests for deletion, not requests for verification. Kiwima (talk) 11:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Those just look like slide + off for me. The part that makes it idiomatic is "early", but those cites don't suggest anyone is leaving early. WurdSnatcher (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

In what way do those not support the given def? To "leave without being noticed" is pretty much synonymous with "sneak off". Just for the record, I remember this a very common phrase from my youth when avoiding school/work/chores was done at every available opportunity. SpinningSpark 12:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

None of those give us any reason to think they are leaving something early. I agree that it's common, it's just not idiomatic. You can slip off, but you can also slip over, slip in, slip away, slip down, etc. WurdSnatcher (talk)

I am not arguing this point, but if that is your objection, move this to requests for deletion. It is not a question of verification. Kiwima (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

The definition that I'm challenging is idiomatic. If it is real, it should be kept. The definition that you cited and that SpinningSpark is talking about is SOP. WurdSnatcher (talk)

No more so than slip off, which is not challenged. Kiwima (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

MWOnline has, for intransitive, the following:

4 a : to move or pass smoothly or easily <slid into the prepared speech>

[4]b : to pass unnoticed or unremarked <let the criticism slide>

Why do our definitions for basic verbs suck? DCDuring TALK 22:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Because not a single one of our editors is a professional lexicographer. --WikiTiki89 22:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

qué será, será

Is this really Spanish, or is it, as Wikipedia claims, pseudo-Romance language gibberish invented for a song? Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:54, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

According to the quote at che sera sera, at least one spelling of it is considerably older than the song. I don't know whether the phrase is ever used in this form in Spanish. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

"que sera, sera" are actual FRENCH words, FWIW. Purplebackpack89 15:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Not with the acute accent though. Equinox ◑ 15:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

And it isn't a grammatical sentence of French or Spanish (or Portuguese or Italian) with or without diacritics. The closest thing in real Spanish is sea lo que sea. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Is qué será será Asturian? Or Galician; googling "qué Galician" comes up with results that has acute accent, and so does "será". AliHautala (talk) 10:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

No clue about the entire phrase, but será is Spanish. Also FWIW, the spelling sera would stress the wrong syllable. DAVilla 07:00, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

beltloop

(to place or conceal an erection behind a belt or waistband.) I can't find any uses of it, and it sounds rather dubious to me. WurdSnatcher (talk)

Only Urban Dictionary and multiple example sentences all over Wiktionary, brought on by the same blocked user. DAVilla 06:53, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

• RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 15:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

cack up

A synonym of crack up, I would assume this is just a rare typo, we probably don't need a page for it (though I wouldn't be upset if someone really wanted to make it a misspelling). The example refers to an Australian TV show, so is it Aussie slang?

With some casual googling, it looks like there may be a different idiomatic use. If someone can figure it out, go ahead (WW2 slang related to flying, possibly). cacked-up also appears to be a valid adjective, not sure if it's just a variant/typo of cracked-up or something else. WurdSnatcher (talk)

Maybe it has something to do with cackle? --WikiTiki89 21:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

• Huh, I assumed it meant throw up, vomit, influenced by cack#Etymology_2 and by sound similarities to hack as in cough. In fact, I'm pretty sure I've heard this somewhere with this vomit sense... yep, google:"cacked up a hairball" shows some use. The hits at google:"cacked up a" suggest an additional transitive sense of to foul something up, to screw something up. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 23:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Hm, yes, you're right, I found plenty of cites in google groups for a couple of defs, which I've added. There's a paucity of misspellings of crack up and even catch up. WurdSnatcher (talk) 01:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

holla back

Two senses as a verb, I don't see any clear uses of either one on Google Books or Groups (some uses are describing a reply, but they are also literal holla + back, there's no use I see where it just means "reply"). There is a popular song called "Holla Back Girl" (which implies "holla back" should mean "to respond to a man's sexual overtures") but I don't see any citable use of that as a verb either (that one's not given in the entry, I just wanted to throw it out there before anyone asks about the slang def). I'm not sure about the noun defs 1 and 2 either, but not nomming them right now. WurdSnatcher (talk)

It's really common American slang, especially for hip hop culture. I'd be surprised if there are no cites because it's what one in ten American boys born in the 80's or later says if they want you to contact them later for any reason. "Holla back at me!" will be heard every ten seconds if you go to any big city, often with an affectionate nigga at the end especially if the speaker is a black man or a white teenager. AliHautala (talk) 11:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

southpaw

Rfv-sense: left-handed person who writes upside-down (?). Difficult to figure out if this sense really exists. It was added by User:Cork-host more than 11 years ago as one of that user's last edits. This, that and the other (talk) 10:03, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Oh right, yeah, there are two schools of thought for writing left-handed, either a mirror image of a right-hander or with the wrist curled towards back towards the arm. This is quite a good image (it says photo credit Wikimedia Commons but I don't have the file name). As far as I know it's not a meaning of the word southpaw though. Given that southpaw means left-handed. I wonder if it's just an error. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

I've added a link to the image on Commons. SpinningSpark 21:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• I'm left-handed, and when doing "joined-up writing" I tend to write from over the top instead of from underneath the writing. It's a bit of a problem with a fountain pen when you smudge what you've written. Is that what is meant? Donnanz (talk) 11:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I assume that's what the person who cooked up this definition meant, but the question is: do people really use the word "southpaw" that to mean that, or is it a case of e-thumb-twiddling? I've never heard it used that way, and I don't see any citations for it. I suspect it may have arisen as the author's guess as to the original meaning of the word, which has now been debunked if that's the case (see current discussion at RfD). P Aculeius (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

dialarhoea

Couple of mentions in GBooks. Nothing in GGroups. This, that and the other (talk) 10:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

• RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 00:32, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

cliff notes

"CliffsNotes" seems to be a trade name for a provider of study notes. Can it be cited as a genericised term? This, that and the other (talk) 10:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

More common as "Cliff notes" or "Cliff Notes", but citeable.

• 2014, CP Moore, Legacy of the Gods, CP Moore (ISBN 9781506191577)

  Well, of course there's more, a lot more. But that's the cliff notes of what faces us once we find Sanderson.

• 2012, Gary Wayne Clark, The Devolution Chronicles: Rise of the Chimera, Lulu.com (ISBN 9780985343828), page 105

  Ryker stepped forward and blurted out the cliff notes of the current crisis.

• 2015, Jack Fisher, The Escort and the Gigolo, Lulu Press, Inc (ISBN 9781483429977)

  “If this is you being serious, I'll just give you the cliff notes of the plan for tonight,” said Ray.

Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

That's very good, and I've put that in the entry. But the sense in these cites is different from what is in the entry now: "A summary of a much longer work designed to allow a student to quickly learn the key points of the longer work". Can that sense be cited? This, that and the other (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I'd just stick with the broader "summary of anything"-type sense. Purplebackpack89 23:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Given the citations, it seems to have entered the lexicon. I would prefer us to have Cliff capitalised (Cliff notes) like the first name it derives from; is that not more common than the lower-case form? Equinox ◑ 01:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Preslyterianism

All I could find were references to the proper name "First Preslyterian Church". I couldn't even find "Preslyterian" as an independent common noun, let alone "Preslyterianism". This, that and the other (talk) 10:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Try Presleytarian, though from a cursory look all I see are personal blogs rather than reliable published sources. Smuconlaw (talk) 12:00, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

End of Cycle

RFV of all senses, per Dan Polansky's suggestion at RFD, where it is currently going nowhere. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

teanel

The English Dialect Dictionary has only one citation, of teanale (which it says is, along with teanal, a "Cum., Wm., Lan." form): 1790, Wheeler, Dial, 16, edition of 1821: Last nect he lickd me wie steal, threw a teanale wi cockis at me. It lists taenel as a "Cum., ne. Lan." form, and tennil as a "Lan." form, and gives the pronunciation as [tiənl]. I can't find any more citations of any of those spellings. The Middle English Dictionary says (without citations) that the ME form is tēnel, so I guess it could be moved there. - -sche (discuss) 22:36, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Did your search results include this as well ? [[28]] Leasnam (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

The OED has half a dozen cites ranging from 700 AD to 1882, each with a different spelling, but only the 1869 one (quoting Peacock's Glossary) has this spelling. A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary has this spelling (Page 337), as has Innovation and continuity in English studies by Herbert Grabes, but these are all just mentions. Dbfirs 19:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

qued

I don't think any of these senses make it as English, but before converting the entry to Middle English (probably with a different lemma form), I thought I'd bring it here. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It's just an alternative spelling of quede. Dbfirs 22:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

quede and qued should be merged. Since there is more at qued, I suppose it can go there (?) Leasnam (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

pack in

One of the oldest requests for definition (open since 2009) is the use of "pack in" in American football. I can find no citations that are specific to American football - mostly I find things like "pack in the crowds", which is covered by another definition. Kiwima (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I can't think of a non-SoP US football sense, but I also can't think of any other non-SoP senses - and evidently others think they can. I guess I should just pack it in as an amateur lexicographer. DCDuring TALK 20:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it's generally ok to remove {{rfdef}} when there are other definitions and no citations. How are we supposed to guess what the other meanings are without even evidence to look at? Renard Migrant (talk) 12:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

@Renard Migrant: Without the RfV we could be seen as asserting that there definitely is a US football definition, though we can't word it properly. Conversely, the RfV is a challenge to any US football definition. The citation search work for any US football sense is generally not too much more than for one.

An alternative is to have a comment (displayed or not?) in the {{rfdef}}. I lean toward allowing the RfV of a def line with only a label and {{rfdef}}. DCDuring TALK 13:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I've got a couple of cites from rugby (that's the same as American football isn't it? just not so much girlie protection) but I'm not sure that the vrbb is not pack plus the preposition in.

• "In such cases it is better to pack in two rows — which is the easiest formation for an unskilled pack. Before deciding how to pack, the Captain or Leader of the Forwards should ask himself : What game are we to play ?"
• "By this we do not mean that a backrow forward should not know how to pack in the front row in emergency, for at school every player should be made to pack in every position so that when he advances to a higher class of football he is grounded with a general knowledge which will enable him to specialize." SpinningSpark

The first one is clearly just "pack" plus the preposition "in": The next sentance begins "Before deciding how to pack, ". The second one looks similar, but is not as clear Kiwima (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

pursy

RFV-sense "fat". The one citation currently under that sense actually looks like it's using the other sense, "out of breath (especially due to being fat)". - -sche (discuss) 03:11, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

It's tricky to say whether "fat" is exactly a distinct sense from "short of breath due to being fat", but these quotes seem to be referring purely to stockiness:

• 1886, Samuel Laing, A Sporting Quixote: Or the Life and Adventures of the Honble. Augustus Fitzmuddle, Afterwards Earl of Muddleton

  But at length the right man came in the shape, not of a fairy prince, but of a pursy little stockbroker, Muggins by name, whom she met one winter when she went with old Lady Muddleton to Brighton.

• 1900, H. A. Kemble, William E. S. Fales, Blue Pencil Magazine

  There stood in front of the Hotel Metropole a big, pursy fellow, picking his teeth.

• 1980, Clancy Carlile, Honkytonk Man

  The diner's big bay windows and interior lights allowed us to see everyone in the dining room, including the lone waitress, presumably Myrtle herself, a big pursy-gut woman who looked as if she was more used to giving orders than taking them.

There are lots of quotes like this, where pursy seems to refer to appearance, but I wouldn't object to it being made a subsense or a part of sense 1. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. RFV-passed. - -sche (discuss) 20:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

麼

Rfv-sense: exclamatory final particle

It's in MDBG, but I can't find this definition in other dictionaries. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 16:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

жабар

žabar

Rfv-sense for Frenchman. — This unsigned comment was added by 77.105.60.36 (talk).

Just google for "žabar" "francuz" (with quote marks) and you'll find results that corroborate such usage. Fojr (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence? I tried it and it gets tonnes of hits, but in Polish. Also Google on its own not an acceptable source. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Examples of usage with the sense "Frenchman", from the first couple of pages of Google's results : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Fojr (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Any CFI-meeting ones? Renard Migrant (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The number of occurences of that sense suggests a "clearly widespread usage". Fojr (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

I'll take that as a no, then. Bare in mind it's not up to me. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Mollywood

Rfv-sense "Mormon film industry"; @Keith the Koala, I know it's real but I see a lot of mentions and few (if any) unambiguous uses. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree that they are mostly mentions, but some move more into the use territory, and the 2012 cite is definitely a use:

Kiwima (talk) 04:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure mention is strictly forbidden. CFI requires citations "conveying meaning" which could conceivably include mentions, provided they aren't "made-up examples of how a word might be used". Although all but the first citation might fall under that, the strongest cases are the 2013 and the two 2007 quotes, with the term nearly appearing as an appositive. I mean, how would we feel about the example given in CFI if it were slightly modified?

• They raised a small sail forward of the mainsail (the jib) in order to get the most out of the light wind.

Is this substantially different from the one explicitly allowed? DAVilla 06:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

passive voice

"(deprecated template usage) (proscribed) Any construction that obscures the agent of an action, or the agency of said agent."

Definitely needs citing. As a good first step, has anyone heard of this? I haven't. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

I get what it's poking at. Language Log has several posts ranting about this; [29] and [30] discuss it. [31] has a clear CFI-citable quote: "In an initial press release, the department said Winkler "aggressed the deputies and a deputy-involved shooting occurred." Note that Winkler's actions were put in the active voice, while the officers' actions were put in the passive." where Language Log notes that "a deputy-involved shooting occurred" is weird and responsibility-avoiding, but not actually passive voice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

[32] summarizes the issue and provides a link to some of the Language Log pages.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

teratology

From Bailey's An Universal Etymological English Dictionary (1721), via Webster 1913. Bailey does give this definition (though it's a bit longer and stylistically different) but no examples. Any usage? Equinox ◑ 14:23, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

What I get from this [33] is that Bailey's original definition was of writing that was unnecessarily great or prodigious. This would fit with the "monstrous" etymology of the word. Johnson's contraction of Bailey's wordy definition has somehow lost the original meaning and our entry has followed Johnson. It seems to me that there is a valid third meaning but it needs rewriting. Richard Kearney seems to think that this is a medieval term (study of monsters - all too credible for that era) and he is re-coining it with a new purpose;

• This third approach I term—borrowing from medieval parlance—a teratology of the sublime in that it focuses on the "monstrous" character of God.[34]
• ...I would identify a more recent and widespread tendency to remove evil from the realm of a properly human interpretation: what I call a postmodern teratology of the sublime.[35]

With "study, or writing, of monsters" as a definition, or even Bailey's "monstrous writing", there are more cites available;

• Mieville's fictions as sublime backwash, inclusive of teratological angels and teratological shit, inclusive of the language of flowers and of the solar anus...[36]
• In this way, this analysis has aimed at expanding gaga feminism by undertaking a critical teratology, that is, of course, the study of monsters.[37] (they're talking about Ladu Gaga!)
• In Jack London's urban gothic, the city's teratological economy comes to light in grotesque animal allegories.[38]
• A Final Teratology [39] (section heading)
• Miranda Francus notes that in the West, the image of the fecund female has often been associated with monstrosity: 'misogyny and teratology have always met in the image of the maternal monster'.[40]
• Despite being productive in embodying and critiquing human problems, however, teh incorporation of the cyborg into teratology overlooks one important aspect that distinguishes this cybernetic creature from the rest of the monster phylum: we are able to choose how to fabricate and use the cyborg.[41]

SpinningSpark 20:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

πρωκτόσοφος

Aside from the formatting and POS problems, this doesn't seem to be attested in Ancient Greek. The only reference I can find to it in Google Books is a line in a 1901 Greek play (in 4 different books, but apparently the same play) that looks to me (based on my rudimentary Greek skills and on running the text through Google Translate) like only a mention. The etymology is very transparent, so it could be a serial re-coining. Someone who speaks Greek may have better luck than I did, since I don't know what inflected forms might exist. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

• @Xoristzatziki, Saltmarsh — any insights, or are we to delete it? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The term is used in slang (meaning either male homosexual or someone whose wisdom is buttock related) but it is not referenced in any of my dictionaries. (maybe are not new enough?) --Xoristzatziki (talk) 04:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 04:22, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

culturoscientific

I could only find one use, in the title of an article that was listed in a couple of places (the article itself is probably behind some paywall). Chuck Entz (talk) 04:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I have added two entries to the citations page, but can't find a third. Kiwima (talk) 07:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

There are more citations available for the hyphenated form, so I think we should have an entry at one or the other. SpinningSpark 18:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I am not so sure about that...hyphenated forms that are simply SOP don't seem worth entering, and the unhyphenated form does not have enough cites. Kiwima (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

SOP of what? There is no English word culturo nor prefix culturo-. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

"culture" + "o" (for combining form) + "scientific". Kiwima (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

We've never evaluated SOPpiness at the level of the bound morpheme, otherwise birds would be SOP as bird + -s. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this discussion is going, but I've added more cites of the hyphenated form. Note that the last one I put in (Libraries of the British Council) appears to be hyphenated only because the word is breaking across lines. SpinningSpark 22:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

bosom friend

Rfv-sense - sense "body louse". SemperBlotto (talk) 17:03, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I've added some citations to the citations page, but they're not particulalrly strong ones. SpinningSpark 23:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Pommiebasher

This spelling without a space between the words does not seem normal. Equinox ◑ 11:52, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, all of CTDJL's few entries were on the same theme. Delete or not to delete? Donnanz (talk) 20:53, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• Pommie Basher is another questionable one. Donnanz (talk) 21:35, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

• RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 04:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Pommie Basher

Is this attested per WT:ATTEST, so capitalized, with space and without a hyphen? I looked at google books:"Pommie Basher", google groups:"Pommie Basher", “Pommie Basher”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:22, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

• I was more concerned about the use of a capital letter in basher. Pommie (or Pommy) is correctly spelt with a capital [42]. I think the use of a hyphen is optional. Donnanz (talk) 10:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Sanchana

A problematic entry per WT:Requests for cleanup#Sanchana that may not be attestable anyway. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 04:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

assoline

The entry comes with lots of citations, but they are all mentions rather than uses. Can we find actual uses of the term? I have only come up with one:

Kiwima (talk) 19:43, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I thought I remembered this one, it's been here before Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/2012/even more#assoline. I remembered finding that quote above. SpinningSpark 18:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Looking at that entry, it is marked as failed, so why is it still there? Kiwima (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

It was deleted, but User:Cirt added the citations and recreated the entry. I'm sure they thought at the time the citations were adequate. From what I remember of their participation here in the past, I'm not sure how well they really understand CFI. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• RFV failed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 04:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

spade

Rfv-sense: (videogaming) To collect and statistically analyze data, for the purpose of determining the underlying random number generator structure or numeric formula.

I am not familiar with this term, and my (admittedly cursory) searches came up empty when looking for it. Hopefully someone is familiar, because the suit of cards muddies the results terribly when searching for game or randomness related topics. edit: - This is also an upcoming WOTD so if it seems dubious perhaps we should remove the sense before it makes it to the front page. - TheDaveRoss 13:07, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Can't find any citable quotes, but the word does seem to be common on videogaming wikis;

• Is there any way to spade the time helmet adventure bonus...[43]
• Could one try to spade the formula as is now [44]
• Post results here to spade the formula for the pogo stick [45]
• Back before NS13, there was the framework for a system whereby people could place bounties on certain things they wanted spaded. [46]

It's only a matter of time before something gets in print. SpinningSpark 17:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I think most of the usage will be from Kingdom of Loathing players. I don't know if they invented the term. DTLHS (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Isn't this just an overspecialization of the following MWOnline definition: "to dig up or out or shape with or as if with a spade", much as our first definition, "To turn over soil with a spade to loosen the ground for planting", is also an overspecialization?

This looks like yet another instance of spurious specificity in a loosely used term. DCDuring TALK 19:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I would not be surprised if the meaning was very specific within the very narrow context that Spinningspark referenced, but that context seems too narrow for our purposes. - TheDaveRoss 00:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

estalquear

Both Spanish and Portuguese. DTLHS (talk) 17:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The spelling stalkear is attested for both languages. We could just move the page there but the definitions need amending since it refers specifically to Internet stalking. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, it turns out this was created by the same idiot who has been promoting lesser-used adapted spellings in Portuguese for several months. Chuck Entz knows who I’m talking about. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 02:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

gardening

Rfv-sense: adjective.

I’m requesting evidence that this is a true adjective and not attributive use of the noun. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 18:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

What is the test for a true adjective? SpinningSpark 22:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

See Wiktionary:English adjectives. One test that might be useful in this case is predicative use: Is it possible to say, for example, "This book is gardening" to mean "This book is a gardening book"? —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 22:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Ungoliant; see [47]. Donnanz (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The above link is to oxforddictionaries.com. I do not see why this particular dictionary should matter all that much. It is not OED. Multiple good dictionaries can be consulted at “gardening”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. Of them, Collins[48] has a dedicated line (b) "(as modifier)" in its noun entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

So does Oxford, if you don't mind me saying so, but with the orange colour they use it doesn't show up very well. Donnanz (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you're right. So for some reason, Collins and oxforddictionaries.com see it worthwhile to single out the modifier use. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

The OED itself does indeed have an adjective sense for the word (definition:- that gardens). SemperBlotto (talk) 11:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

That's different: a participial adjective. ("Living creatures" vs. "living conditions".) Equinox ◑ 15:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

anthropism

"The belief that human beings have a spiritual nature beyond the physical body characterized by in-dwelling Divinity." I can see the word in Google Books but it seems to mean something like a human-centred view (anthropocentrism). Equinox ◑ 10:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I found a few quotes:

Although I have some doubts about the 2014 quote. Kiwima (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I found another one:

Kiwima (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

through the wire

"Through a tedious ordeal". Never heard of it and the creator made a lot of very wrong entries, so can someone help please? Equinox ◑ 16:27, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I can find no quotes to support this sense. The closest I can find is a number that use the phrase to refer to passing though barbed wire, but the figurative sense is about escaping from a prisoner of war camp, not about a tedious ordeal in general. Kiwima (talk) 18:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

slippery slope

Rfv-sense. I have two problems with this definition: "An argument that follows a chain of events or causes and effects to some conclusion."

1. I don't find it in other dictionaries.
2. I don't understand what it possibly means. Which sense of "argument" applies? --Hekaheka (talk) 11:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

It sounds like a confusing way of getting to the same point as the original definition. P Aculeius (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I had to read it about four times before I understood it. If you bracket it like this "An argument that [follows a chain of events or causes and] effects to some conclusion." hopefully it's easier to understand by skipping over the bit in the brackets. Note that this definition has no negative connotations. A slippery slope that's an argument where the outcome isn't negative. But I'm also pretty sure it's just an error. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Aculeius that the second definition appears to be a restatement of the first sense. Also, I don't think slippery slope is ever used in a positive or neutral sense, so if that is the intent of the second definition I think it is wrong. Smuconlaw (talk) 13:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I think I figured it out. The Wikipedia article on Slippery slope states that it is a "logical device in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability of the event in question. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom." It seems to me that the disputed definition is actually an attempt for a definition of "slippery slope argument" and should thus be deleted. --Hekaheka (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

No, @Renard Migrant, it's "An argument (=series of propositions, or process of reasoning) {that {follows {a chain of {events or {causes and effects}}} to {some conclusion}}}". It's an argument like "Well, if we allow Joe to do it, then Jim will want to, so we'll need to allow him, and pretty soon everyone will do it". In other words, it's an argument that says "there is a slippery slope (sense 1) at risk here". As Hekaheka says, this is, in my experience, called a "slippery-slope argument": I've never AFAIR heard a slippery-slope argument called a "slippery slope" alone, but cites will tell.​—msh210℠ (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I have heard it by itself, "that's a slippery slope!" But I still believe that the second definition doesn't add anything to the first. And it's garbled. A slippery slope argument doesn't follow a chain of events or causes and effects. It asserts that one act will necessarily or eventually result in other, undesirable actions. It doesn't follow anything, because you don't have to describe each step, identify the mechanism, or even the result. Usually the person describing something as a slippery slope is understood without a full explanation. It can give the end result, with the rest of the assertion inferred; or it might give examples of the kinds of things that might happen, but the direction of the argument may be reasonably obvious without any specifics. And, although the Wikipedia article defines it as a fallacy, I believe that's a mistake. It's a rhetorical figure that might or might not be proved correct. It doesn't stop being a slippery slope if the predicted result comes to pass, nor is it disproved if the course of action warned against is rejected. It's a slippery slope because of what it predicts, without respect to the actual outcome. Since the slippery slope is always used to caution someone against a particular decision, it could be argued that it's negative, but since positive and negative depend on one's point of view with respect to the desirable result, I wouldn't specify whether it's positive or negative. P Aculeius (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I've always considered "slippery slope" essentially a synonym of the thin edge of the wedge: the beginning of a course of action that may escalate beyond the point of desirability. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 00:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's basically my understanding. They're not identical, but very similar expressions. Usually person A and person B disagree about action 1, and person B attempts to persuade person A that actions 2, 3, 4, which neither person desires, would almost inevitably follow from action 1. P Aculeius (talk) 04:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• I created slippery slope fallacy. It has many mentions, and I hope it also finds some uses given how many hits it has. google books:"slippery slope fallacy". --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:14, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

That really looks like a sum-of-parts entry. One can also refer to "slippery slope arguments", but there's no reason to have a separate entry for each permutation of "slippery slope X". Besides, a slippery slope isn't necessarily a fallacy; if it were, you could automatically disregard it whenever it's made. P Aculeius (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Are we ready to conclude by:

1. deleting the disputed sense
2. adding a link to "slippery slope fallacy"?

--Hekaheka (talk) 16:08, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Why not wait for a month since nomination date to see whether someone provides attesting quotations? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Why keep a confusing and unhelpful restatement of a good definition as a separate sense? P Aculeius (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

It's a question of procedure rather than 'keeping' the entry. I think it's just plain nonsense but less not start skipping the 30 day rule willy-nilly. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Egg

A male given name. I seem to recall there was a guy called Egg in This Life (1990s sitcom thing) but I assumed it was a nickname. (Update: it was short for Edgar.) Equinox ◑ 09:10, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Short for Egbert ? Leasnam (talk) 05:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

@Equinox, Leasnam: I see sufficient citations at google books:"Egg said" to demonstrate that males goes by this name. One of the cites makes it clear that it's short for Edward, but the others seem to be ambiguous. What do you think we should do to the entry? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I think we should mention that it is also a surname (Thomas Egg, Joanne Egg, Rudolph Egg, et al.); and just mention that Egg as a forename (given) name can be a shortened version of Edward, and Egbert if that be the case Leasnam (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

𡚦

I highly doubt that #Japanese exists. —suzukaze (t・c) 06:05, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Delete Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese sections. This vulgar character is only used in vernacular Cantonese. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 02:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, the Japanese doesn't exist. There is no Korean entry on the page. However, the Vietnamese character appears to be documented. Unihan database gives a value of "V2-736D" for kIRG_VSource, and furthermore, zdic says that this character means "prostitute" in 字喃/chữ Nôm. I've added the info from zdic to the entry with a references section ^^ Nibiko (talk) 02:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Unihan data is problematic. It provides readings for CJKV languages for characters, such as Japanese specific shinjitai or Chinese simplified characters, which were never used by other languages. I have added RFV for Vietnamese as well. An actual usage should be provided, otherwise the sections will be deleted.--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 04:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

zdic is reliable. It's hard to provide a usage for chữ Nôm. Nibiko (talk) 05:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, a quick Google search for "𡚦 喃" seems to produce at least two results that back up "prostitute", one in a Chu Nom wiki (possibly) and another at "hannom.vass.gov.vn" (certainly, if Google Translate is to be trusted). —suzukaze (t・c) 05:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

@suzukaze-c, Atitarev, Nibiko: This and this (with "đĩ" in the search) should confirm the usage of this character in Vietnamese. The first gives "đánh đĩ, đĩ điếm; mẹ đĩ" as context for this character. Other variants include 𡛜, 𡜤, 𡞖 and 妓. — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 18:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Since dictionary entries are confirmed, I am withdrawing my vote for Vietnamese. I've made an entry đĩ. It's strange that "mẹ đĩ" means "the mother of our little girl; my wife". --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

קאפ

Some doubt was expressed a while back at talk:קאפ; Stephen is, of course, wrong about the spelling being problematic, but I am having trouble ascertaining if the sense we have here ("bra cup") is in fact attestable. I think that at least a couple more senses should be added (the senses "menstrual cup" and "cup (sports)" seem likely to be attested), but I'm not sure if this one should stay. @Enoshd, Ruakh, msh210 —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, this and גביע (gavía) appear to be roughly tied as the usual Hebrew words for "cup" in the bra sense. Both are obviously based on English cup: one as a regular loanword, one as a calque.

As for attestation — I haven't looked, but I'm betting it's citable (though Modern-only words are, in general, much harder to cite than ancient ones, so maybe not).

—Ruakh_TALK 14:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

I've added three cites now, from the online editions of three major Hebrew daily newspapers. Dunno. If this were an English word I wouldn't be very satisfied with these cites, from a "durably archived" standpoint — I have no idea whether these articles appeared in the print editions — but for Hebrew I don't know if we can really do better.

(Though maybe we can just call this "clearly widespread use", since phrases like חצי־קאפ, קאפ B / קאפ C, and מידת הקאפ all get lots of Google hits? Opinions welcome.)

I've also added the "cup (sports)" sense (though not worded as such). I haven't investigated the "menstrual cup" sense.

—Ruakh_TALK 03:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thank you. I think that that should do, so I will consider this cited. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 03:06, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

鬼犬

Not in any Japanese dictionary. Nibiko (talk) 02:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

妖犬

Not in any Japanese dictionary. Nibiko (talk) 02:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

魔犬

Not in any Japanese dictionary. Nibiko (talk) 02:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

別克

"Buick". Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Company_names. —suzukaze (t・c) 10:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

cunt/whore

Alt form of cuntwhore. I'm not sure that this kind of slashed construct is even a single "term" but I thought I'd go for RFV. Equinox ◑ 21:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Ugh, delete. This one is speediable IMO. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Not just offensive, it is also quite rare. I added two to the citations page, but that is all I could find. Kiwima (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

The cunt/whores one is quite nice (if you see what I mean) because it's the plural of a singular. The second one could be interpreted either as one word or the words cunt and whore linked by a slash. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. I'd have thought this was SOP but for that.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

hexadecile

One obscure quote from 1683 was included in the entry, but that's all there is in Google Books and Google Groups. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I found these two:

Kiwima (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a new sense is required. The 1683 quote and the 1997 one above appear to be using the term in a sense or senses different from those already stated. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 06:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I agree about the 1997 quote (and I found one other with the same meaning - but two cites is still not enough to add a definition. I included this one because it is ambiguous), but the 1974 looks to me like the same sense as the current definition. Kiwima (talk) 06:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the 1974 quote supports the first sense. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 03:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The 1997 cite (chemistry) appears to be being used as a synonym for hexadecyl. I note that this would be the correct form of the chemistry meaning in Italian going by some of our other entries, such as pentile. It may therefore be a mistake by a non-native speaker. The 1683 cite is an astrological meaning different from both the other two meanings. SpinningSpark 15:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I have found two more quotations supporting noun sense 1, and have taken a stab at writing the astrological definition (noun sense 2, and a new adjective sense). Please feel free to improve the latter, as I have no particular expertise of astrology. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 22:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

tidely

Sense 1 was given as "seasonably; opportunely; suitably; fitly" but this makes no sense with the given citation (about the location of an oasis). I thought it might be a misspelling of "tidally" but that also might not make sense geographically. Anyone? Equinox ◑ 08:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The only sense in the OED (at each tide) is marked obsolete, and the only cite is from 1482. I have a vague inkle (less than an inkling) that it might be used by some as a synonym for timely, but Google Books shows no support for this, having only the obsolete sense and scannos (mainly for tidily). I also thought the deleted cite was a scanno for tidally -- I wish we could ask Stefan Siebert what he meant -- perhaps seasonally rather than "seasonably"? Sense 1 could be combined with sense 2, and all senses could be marked as rare. Dbfirs 09:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

We can: s.siebertuni-bonn.de. Keep in mind he's not a native English speaker. Having read the whole sentence in context, I'm thinking he meant "tightly" (German doesn't contrast /d/ and /t/ at the ends of syllables, and German speakers have difficulty distinguishing them in English). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

IFYPFY.​—msh210℠ (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, the sense I took from Century. Seems that is better suited as Middle English (or as a by-form of English tidily, which appears to have some support). I placed the cite there as a "best fit" (?), but apparently not Leasnam (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I have found a modern use in the sense of "fitly", from which perhaps we get "tightly" (I find a lot of uses in Books with this sense, even from native speakers)

1792, James A.M. WALCOT, The History of the Indian convert:

[...] so I went to work, prepared splints, rollers, and a plaister made of some linament and whites of eggs, and, by the assistance of the men, reduced it to its form, and, put on my bandage, etc. pretty tidely ... Leasnam (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Here is another that is ambiguous: 1861, William B. Turnbull, Calendar of State Papers...: Has received the Council's letter as to the promised aid; fears this may be his last letter, as the enemy will stop his passage, but will do what he can tidely to signify their state. (tidely = "timely"?...)Leasnam (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

I have made it a misspelling. SemperBlotto (talk) 12:55, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

dunsail

I always thought this term was made up for the Star Trek episode it appeared in. Judging by Google Books, this seems to be the case: there are only three hits, with the only relevant one a mention of the Star Trek episode in an essay. In Google groups, there are lots of hits- but all except for one quote the same line by the same person, which is a direct quote from the episode.

Note that CFI requires that it not only must be in use, but that it must be used outside of the fictional universe. It's possible that there might be a real term behind this- but not with this spelling. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Apparently the spelling should be "dunsel", not "dunsail". According to Memory Alpha, this is the spelling used in the script for "The Ultimate Computer". I can't say whether this is where the term originated, but it is the earliest occurrence I've found, and I don't find it in OED or Webster's Third. It does seem to have received sufficient independent use to qualify as a word in the sense of "a part which serves no useful purpose, especially a part of a ship, or applied to a captain with little or no authority." There are also multiple references to "dunsel caps", but I have not determined what kind of caps these are, or whether the meaning is related to the sense of "useless". Only two of these come from books, although the phrase "dunsel cap" does occur in a number of blogs as well. Many hits for the term (in English) seem to be misreadings of "counsel" or "damsel".

useless

• 1982, Marteen Dee Graham, Silver Sundown (Dell Publishing), p. 42: "If I'm not part of the crew and earn my keep, then I'm a dunsel. And you'll not have a dunsel aboard long..."

• 2003 T.F. Campbell, The Light in the Stones: ...from the tales of Fibinacci... (iUniverse), page 248: "The President 'Dunsel' has engaged so-called exterior terrorism, by committing two-hundred thousand son 'n' daughters trying to checkmate the settlers who sit on the ancient oil fields."

• 2007, Mark Kadrich, Endpoint Security (Addison Wesley), p. 234: "...so one thing we need to do is to remove all the dunsel default user accounts."

• 2011, Kevin J. Anderson, Scattered Suns (Simon and Schuster), glossary: "DUNSEL – slang term for token human commanders aboard EDF rammer ships." Also used by the same author in Of Fire and Night (also 2011).

• 2015, Chris Mentch, As I See It: Reasons, Rhymes, and Reflections; the Spirit of a "Well-Versed" Philosophy (WestBow Press), "In the Face of Her Storm": "I struggled down through the galley. And again up to the mast. I even checked on the dunsel, Wrapped my girl's sails down, I wrapped 'em low and I wrapped 'em fast."

• 2015, Solitaire Parke, Flight of the Aguiva (Lulu Press), page not numbered: "For the first time in years I felt dunsel or un-needed. Ordinarily I don't do dunsel, I mean who I am says I have a purpose..." Used again by the same author in Egg of the Amphitere (also 2015).

caps

• 2011, Joani Lacy, Hollister House: The Banyan Tree Awakens, page 83: "Her long white hair was stuffed haphazardly into a dunsel cap..."

• 2013, Thomas Berger, Reinhart in Love: A Novel (Open Road Media), pages not numbered: "In the school yard he saw his grammar-school self in dunsel cap and leather boots..." P Aculeius (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

According to this it is "like a ski cap with a tassel", and according to this it is a navy term for a w:Watch cap (wich redirects to w:Knit cap) so evidently a knitted cap. SpinningSpark 03:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Created entries for dunsel (apparently created before, but deleted for lack of attestation other than in Star Trek) and dunsel cap. Suggest "dunsail" be indicated as a misspelling for "dunsel", or converted into a redirect there. P Aculeius (talk) 13:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

podoxenoclavosis

I can't find anything on this word at all. Although I can find stuff on street nail. Nibiko (talk) 09:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

sabaori

I can't find usage in English. But I've added the Japanese entry. Nibiko (talk) 11:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

souôt'nîn

Norman, by Embryomystic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

It's used by some Norman blogs and the Norman Wikipedia, but not by anything durable, as far as I can see. - -sche (discuss) 07:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

bécachinne

Norman, by Embryomystic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

gâche-à-panne

Norman, by Embryomystic, from 2012. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

chotchant

Norman, by Embryomystic, from 2012. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

à la perchôine

Norman, by Embryomystic, from 2012. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

• Cited on a stamp, which I think we can agree is durably archived, though the websites displaying it are not. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

affaithêment

Norman, by Embryomystic, from 2013. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

affanmêment

Norman, by Embryomystic, from 2013. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

hangle

Rfv-sense - angle of a hammock's suspension. Looks iffy to me. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

January 2016

Abalone

The sense of this term as a translingual proper name for a specific product - a board game - needs to meet WT:BRAND as a translingual term. In other words, it needs to be used to identify the product without further context, in multiple citations, in multiple languages. bd2412 T 18:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

smegging

A form of jamming in telecommunications. I can only see this in Urban Dictionary (same definition). Equinox ◑ 10:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I suspect it is related to SMEG channels, but finding good cites is a challenge. Kiwima (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be a neoligism suggested on Reddit "If you write a white paper on this, you should call this method "Smegging" since I brought it to your attention. ;-)"—AnotherSmegHead [49]. SpinningSpark 01:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

While we are here, are the other senses British English? I am not familiar with them, and the (deprecated template usage) sodding in the definition made me curious. - TheDaveRoss 18:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

It was coined in the comedy Red Dwarf. I don't think it has ever had an explicit meaning, but it is usually understood as a replacement word for fucking (as an obscenity, not the literla meaning). SpinningSpark 00:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

hypertexture

Sense - "an avenue for describing the fluid morphic nature of texture in the realm of cyber graphics and the tranversally responsive works created in the field of visual arts therein". I am not too sure what this is trying to say, but it really sounds like a protologism. Equinox ◑ 19:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

• Looks like tosh. The first definition is reasonable though. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

It's hard to say because that definition is not exactly clear, but here are some cites that don't seem to match the computer graphics definition:

Kiwima (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

știință socială

I moved this page because the most common form is in the plural, just like in other Romance languages. A Google search and the Romanian Wikipedia article on this subject support this renaming. However, the creator of the article, keeps reverting my edits and since I want to avoid a prolonged edit war, I want to raise the question here. --Robbie SWE (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

It does seem to be a matter of procedure rather than attestation. Just because something is usually in the plural doesn't mean we can't have the main entry at the singular. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I've added social#Romanian by the way. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

пушо

@Mrvonungan, @Neitrāls vārds: on a quick check, Erzya пушо (pušo, “reindeer”) does not seem to appear either in the main etymological references on this Uralic word-group, or in Paasonen's Mordvinic dialect dictionary. Is this by any chance actually an entry for the Mari term that got mistakenly created for Erzya? Or perhaps just a loan from another Uralic language? I don't currently have access to any recent Erzya dictionaries. (And in any case, we'd rather expect **пужо if this were inherited.) --Tropylium (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

conservative

Rfv-sense "(US, politics) Relating to the Republican Party, regardless of its conservatism." --WikiTiki89 00:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Isn't this just use as synonym for Republican Party? - Amgine/ ^t·e 17:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I doubt that it is a good use of time to look for unambiguous cites of this. DCDuring TALK 18:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

And I doubt that such unambiguous cites exist, which is why I nominated it here. --WikiTiki89 18:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

What about this one from "Strictly Right: William F. Buckley Jr. and the American Conservative Movement":

• Then in December, Ohio congressman John Ashbrook decided to mount a primary challenge to Nixon. Ashbrook was a card-carrying conservative: an old YR buddy of Bill Rusher's, ...

Typically "card-carrying" refers to political parties, but there is no "Conservative" party in the US. Also YR probably stands for Young Republican, and Nixon was obviously in a Republican primary. I think Amgine is right that (deprecated template usage) conservative is sometimes used as a synonym for (deprecated template usage) Republican. - TheDaveRoss 16:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

"Card-carrying" means that he's an official member of some organization(s). You cut off the sentence too early, since further on it mentions more organizations, one of which even has "conservative" in its name: Then in December, Ohio congressman John Ashbrook decided to mount a primary challenge to Nixon. Ashbrook was a card-carrying conservative: an old YR buddy of Bill Rusher’s, a member of the Draft Goldwater Committee, a former chairman of the American Conservative Union.. But even then, a "card-carrying conservative" only means that the organizations that he is a member of are evidence of his conservativism, and not that his conservativism is defined by his membership in the organizations. --WikiTiki89 17:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the groups are evidence of conservatism; the evidence I was seeing was that conservatism is not an organization, so the organization which was being referenced was possibly the Republican Party. Other instances compare conservatives and Democrats such as this: Such Democrats rule out "class warfare" and emphasize their friendliness to business interest. Like the conservatives, they take economic issues off the table. link. - TheDaveRoss 18:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I wasn't saying that the groups are evidence of conservatism (not that I disagree), I was saying that the quote is saying that (with the words "card-holding conservative"). As to the next quote, contrasting the views of "Democrats" with those of "conservatives" does not necessarily imply that the latter is also a specific political party. --WikiTiki89 19:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

To be sure, neither of these is clear in their meaning, which circles all the way back to DCDuring's sentiment. While clear citations are going to be hard to find, there are many which can be interpreted as evidence, many in which (deprecated template usage) conservative seems to be a hypernym for Republican, many in which it is a hyponym (sometimes for Republican, sometimes for the Democratic party of the 19th century). Ambiguity is the one common theme in everything I have looked at. - TheDaveRoss 19:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

This is because "conservative" does not have this meaning, and that is exactly my point. Maybe sometimes it serves as a hypernym for it and sometimes as a hyponym, but never as a synonym. --WikiTiki89 19:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, I am just saying that it is hard to demonstrate. Since Republicans so often have the feature of being conservative it is hard to suss out when someone is using it synonymously and when they are using it in another way. For instance in the 5th paragraph of this news story there is a remark about Democrats in Congress "openly inviting conservatives across the aisle." Since the article is about Republicans cooperating with Democrats I would read that usage of (deprecated template usage) conservative as synonymous with Republican. I totally understand that, if you don't think that they are synonyms, you could interpret it to merely mean "inviting people of a conservative bent." I think it will be nearly impossible to find a usage which is not subject to the same argument, but that doesn't mean that the usages don't exist. Sometimes it is just very hard to tease out something this nuanced. - TheDaveRoss 19:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of RFV is to verify this specific meaning. If we cannot do that, then we delete the sense. That's the way it works, and for good reason. --WikiTiki89 19:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I was confused about the purpose of the page, thanks for the clarification. - TheDaveRoss 20:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Well then if you don't have any unambiguous quotations, then please stop disrupting the discussion. (And I apologize if you weren't being sarcastic.) --WikiTiki89 20:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I think this fails the blueberry test. All (or nearly all) Republicans may be conservative, but not all conservatives are Republicans. So yes, people might use the word "conservative" instead of "Republican" for sheer variety, but I don't think that the word can be fairly said to carry the meaning of "Republican". The words apply to many of the same people and positions, but they don't have the same meaning. P Aculeius (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

There are moderate Republicans now, and there have been Liberal Republicans in the past. Purplebackpack89 02:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It may literally refer to membership in an organization, but "card-carrying" is used figuratively as an intensifier for all kinds of nouns referring to types of people: "card-carrying optimist, card-carrying psycho, card-carrying idiot, card-carrying capitalist, card-carrying teenager, etc. Also, never underestimate the irresistible pull of alliteration on writers seeking the elusive snappy turn of phrase. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, there are people called Republicans who are also called libertarians. Though some may call such folks conservative, I don't think it is a helpful definition. DCDuring TALK 04:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

• Nuke in favor of a different definition: Until about 50 years ago, "conservative Democrat" was a thing. In the past fifty years, most conservatives have coalesced in the Republican party, and most liberals (including fmr. liberal Republicans) have coalesced in the Democratic party. Being "conservative" in the United States means you want a smaller, more restrained form of government. It often also indicates a more regressive view on issues of racial/social justice, and adherence to more traditional views of society, particularly religiously. Purplebackpack89 21:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, I have created Conservative Democrat and Liberal Republican. Purplebackpack89 21:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Digression over acceptability of word "regressive"

I really don't think that Wiktionary should delve into the historical relationship between conservative and liberal political ideas and U.S. Political parties. Also, and very importantly, your description would explicitly politicize Wiktionary by suggesting that one party is "regressive" in a number of social issues. You're certainly entitled to an opinion on this issue, but if Wiktionary adopts it, or even looks like it endorses such a description, then the impartiality required by a general audience dictionary will be put at grave risk. I'm sure you don't want that. P Aculeius (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

@P Aculeius I have reworded the definition, but please bear in mind that "liberal" and "progressive" are often used interchangeably in American political parlance. Conservative and regressive are the antonyms of those two words, and both adjectives connote throwing things back to an earlier point in time. As for the claim that we should ignore historical distinctions, there's nothing in CFI to back up that point of view. If a word meant one thing in 1832 and another thing now, it's acceptable to have both definitions, with the 1832 definition marked as "dated". And one way to illustrate those changes is with the entries for Liberal Republican and Conservative Democrat Purplebackpack89 02:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't say we should ignore historical distinctions. I said that Wiktionary isn't the proper place to discuss the historical relationships between liberal or conservative philosophies and various political parties. The question was whether "Republican" should be a definition of "conservative", simply because both terms can refer to the same people. I also dispute the assertion that "regressive" is the antonym of "progressive" in the political sense. In politics, "progressive" has a very specific meaning that does not have a corresponding antonym; there has been a "progressive" movement and a "Progressive Party", but there is no "regressive movement" or "Regressive Party", and never has been. You cannot reason them into existence merely because the word "regressive" is the opposite of "progressive", any more than I can define "congress" as the opposite of "progress". That's fine if you're Ambrose Bierce, but we're not. This is supposed to be a real dictionary, not a political discussion forum. When you define the Republican Party as "regressive", you're hurling political invective at it; you're using a supposedly neutral source (a dictionary) to make a political argument. And that can't be allowed. This project doesn't exist in order to inform people of one political opinion while ignoring others; doing so undercuts the credibility of the entire project. You or I may have opinions, but Wiktionary cannot take sides. P Aculeius (talk) 22:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't use "regressive" to define Republicans, I used it to define conservative democrats. Maybe get your facts straight? Also, I changed it, so why are you still talking? Purplebackpack89 23:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

You are far too hung up on word charge...you claim "regressive" has a negative word charge. Guess what? In many circles, "progressive", "liberal" and "conservative" have negative charges as well! I made the change, but I will ABSOLUTELY NOT concede your point that it is unacceptable to use regressive in that manner. Whether or not there was an actual movement or not is irrelevant, as I am using the word as a descriptor, not creating an actual definition of a movement or a party. And I'm not even sure you really know what the word "regressive" means. Someone who is regressive wants to either keep things the way they are or regress to the way things were at an earlier point in time. This definition of "regressive" can easily also be applied to "conservative". And it certainly can be applied to Conservative Democrats, who wanted to preserve the old Southern racial heirarchy, and opposed progressive Civil Rights legislation to do so. But as I said, I made the change. And remember, this isn't Wikipedia. If there are enough sources backing up a definition, even if that definition is "non-neutral", we can still have it! Purplebackpack89 23:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but you still don't understand. I'm not saying that Wiktionary has to have a neutral point of view. I'm saying that it isn't supposed to have any point of view. It's a dictionary, not a commentary. You can't simply heap together descriptive words that you associate with a particular group of people and call them a definition. It's not our place to call anybody names or decide which characterizations fit what groups of people. If you insist on doing so, you're going to have a major edit war on your hands. Please don't tell me that I don't understand what words mean, simply because you don't care for what I'm saying. I'm through explaining now, so I won't be replying to any further arguments about this issue. Oh, and if you use edit summaries like this again, "I don't know why P Aculeius is making so much fuss over this. Frankly, his comments belie how little he knows about the project", I'll refer this matter for third-party arbitration. P Aculeius (talk) 04:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

"You can't simply heap together descriptive words that you associate with a particular group of people and call them a definition." Well, if we're not allowed to use any descriptive words, we can't have any definitions. If I'm defining "conservative Democrat", I need to use descriptive words, preferably words that are not "conservative" or "Democrat". Also, very difficult to have an edit war here, as you have yet to actually edit Conservative Democrat, you've merely griped about it in this RfV. Purplebackpack89 05:59, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't believe you're still trying to bait me with personal attacks after using an edit summary to make one. I didn't say that I was going to edit war with you. I said you would be inviting an edit war if you persisted in inserting your personal opinions into definitions of political parties, which is why it shouldn't be done in the first place. I didn't claim to have edited your creation, although you must know by now that editors are not required to have edited entries in order to comment on them; objecting to someone doing so would be "ownership behaviour", which is expressly prohibited by this project. Nor is this discussion specifically about newly created entries. It is about your comment: "Nuke in favor of a different definition: Until about 50 years ago, "conservative Democrat" was a thing. In the past fifty years, most conservatives have coalesced in the Republican party, and most liberals (including fmr. liberal Republicans) have coalesced in the Democratic party. Being "conservative" in the United States means you want a smaller, more restrained form of government. It often also indicates a more regressive view on issues of racial/social justice, and adherence to more traditional views of society, particularly religiously." Let me respond point by point, since I can't seem to get the points across any other way.

• Until about 50 years ago, "conservative Democrat" was a thing. Wiktionary cannot be used as a database of historical knowledge or opinion. You may think that conservative Democrats all converted or died in 1964, but they didn't. There are still conservative Democrats. But that's not the point. You can't include this in a dictionary definition because it's not a definition, it's an assertion of a political viewpoint about the history of the thing being defined. This is not an encyclopedia, nor is it an opinion forum. If you insert a definition like this, you will be reverted by editors who disagree with your analysis or conclusions, and the definition will never be settled as long as people disagree on whether "conservative Democrat" is still a thing or ceased to be a thing in 1964, which is not provable, but a matter of opinion.
• In the past fifty years, most conservatives have coalesced in the Republican party, and most liberals (including fmr. liberal Republicans) have coalesced in the Democratic party. Being "conservative" in the United States means you want a smaller, more restrained form of government. Again, this is not an encyclopedia. Definitions of words should not include detailed discussions of the history of different parties or their members in endorsing liberal or conservative political positions. You can describe what "conservative" means, but the definition of "conservative" should not include a political history of the Republican Party or the basis of its opposition to the Democratic Party in terms of the two parties' relative conservatism. That is not how a dictionary works.
• It often also indicates a more regressive view on issues of racial/social justice, and adherence to more traditional views of society, particularly religiously. You have just indicated that most conservatives have joined the Republican Party; and linked to that you are calling the views of conservatives "regressive" with respect to racial and social justice, and traditional social "views" from a religious standpoint. Because of how you've linked the terms, this is insulting and generalizing about both conservatives and Republicans. Despite the modern use of "liberal" and "progressive" as buzzwords for "socialist" and "communist", neither conservatives nor Republicans consider themselves "regressive" in the areas of racial or social justice, or really anything else. Nobody on the entire political spectrum considers themselves "regressive." You may have your opinions on whether someone's views or positions are regressive; other people may have their views; but these are opinions and not definitions of "conservative" or "Republican". You cannot substitute personal opinion for definition. This is not about whether I or any other editor shares your opinions. Opinion is completely irrelevant to the definition of the words in question. You can no more define "conservative" or "Republican" as "regressive" because that's how you perceive it than you can define a race of people as "lazy", "greedy", or "overachieving", or a religion as "good", "misguided", or "violent". If you do so, you invite a war with editors whose opinions differ from your own, and place Wiktionary in the position of endorsing your viewpoints, thereby becoming unwelcoming to those who hold contrary opinions. This is what Wiktionary cannot do, or it fails in its core mission of providing reliable, unbiased definitions.

I really have had enough of trying to explain the same thing to you over and over. This is the last I intend to say on the subject. P Aculeius (talk) 13:32, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

TLDR, except, regrettably, I actually read it. You're too dang focused on what I said in this thread, instead of what currently appears at the definitions of conservative and Conservative Democrat. I'm not even sure you've actually read them. It should have been blatantly obvious to you that I had no intention of putting Until about 50 years ago, "conservative Democrat" was a thing into an actual dictionary definition. If I would, I would have already. I'm also not sure you've actually read everything I said above, where I clearly lay out a groundwork for the acceptability of "regressive" in this definition; you're still far too hung up on a gut reaction to the word "regressive"...like that time you were hung up on a gut reaction to disableds...or to house...or to fabulous. And don't try to lecture me about when events happened in American history, young man...I have a bachelor's degree in American history with a minor in politics. Purplebackpack89 14:52, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

If you don't stop this, I'm going to call for for third-party arbitration. Please stop lecturing me on how much you know and how much I don't. Don't call me "young man", implying that you're an adult and I'm a child. Don't flaunt your bachelor's degree at me without having any idea what my background or education include. Don't use edit summaries to say that I don't understand the nature of the project, in blatant violation of Wiktionary policy. Don't tell me that I must not have read your arguments, or that I've clearly missed the "blatantly obvious." Don't bring up other discussions that occurred at other times and assert that they're proof that you're right and I'm wrong. I commented on what YOU said under the heading of "Nuke in favor of a different definition:", which can hardly be understood as anything but a suggestion of what that definition should be or include. I didn't comment on any other words or phrases you may subsequently have created. So please don't keep trying to steer me onto discussions of other things. You've been carrying on a ridiculous ad hominem war against me for days now, and it needs to stop right now. P Aculeius (talk) 15:49, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

{{look}} The month is up tomorrow. This has clearly had enough eyeballs on it, but hasn't been cited. You have three days or I'm closing this as uncited. Purplebackpack89 15:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Closed as not cited/failed Purplebackpack89 15:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

mu

"Neither yes nor no" in Zen Buddhism. I've heard of this (because of the Jargon File) but it's rather hard to imagine people using it in conversation... Equinox ◑ 21:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not a good definition of the term as it is used in Zen Buddhism. A better definition would be nothingness or non-existence, and it refers to the notion that what we perceive as reality is an illusion. Kiwima (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've added three quotations that I believe support this sense, though one of them uses it in italics. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 22:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

multisolving

Protologism from a single Web site, I think. Equinox ◑ 18:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like it to me as well; although there is a solvent/cleaner called MultiSolve, and a textbook of some kind on Indian Amazon which describes "multi-solve" problems as problems which have multiple solutions. - TheDaveRoss 18:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, I heard the word multisolve or multi-solve (verb) used on a conference call a few weeks back, so if it's not attestable yet, it might be very soon Leasnam (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The definition is overly specific, but it does seem to be citable under a broader definition

• the construction of the harmonious society and multi-solving mechanism about sports dispute
• Characteristics,Causes and Train of Thought of Constructing in Multi-Solving Mechanism about Village Dissension in the New Period
• Analysis on Multi-solving Mechanism of Present Social Contradictions in China
• The state law and the traditional dispute-solving patterns together construct multi-solving mechanisms for the disputes in the rural China [50]

There also seems to be a specific mathematical meaning, it's connected with optimal choice problems but I can't quite divine the meaning.

• Namely, let $\varphi$ be the scaling function of the multisolving analysis ...[51]
• (This snippet is very garbled but seems relevant and I can get a copy of the paper if we really want the cite) By running a set of such methods, every object o(i) has an r; 4. OCP MULTISOLVING associated evaluation ve,ctor U(i) = (~(i,m))=,~ ... m=l 4 6 +iround(iC(-1)qg3(i,q)) . st term denote the general score given by OCP multisolving and the last terms bring a bonus I th [52] SpinningSpark 01:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

butterfly door

The Lamborghini Murciélago with butterfly doors.

The definition given looks to me like the definition of a revolving door. "Butterfly door" a.k.a. "scissor door" is used of a certain type of car doors, see Butterfly door or this result of Google image search [53]. --Hekaheka (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. This is an example of why some entries really need a picture and a WP link. If the contributor had tried to provide them and failed, he might not have added he entry. If he had succeeded, there might not have been a need for an RfV. DCDuring TALK 00:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

There seem to be numerous kinds of "butterfly doors" united mostly be some fancied resemblance to a butterfly's wings.

1. The sportscar doors
2. boiler firebox doors. See this image. (stationary and locomotive; coal- or other solid-fuel-fired only?)
3. an architectural door pivoting on a vertical center pivot. See here.
4. a center-pivoting valve "door". See this image for an automotive application, but there are many kinds of applications.

Only for the last of these is the pressure-differential explanation relevant. Also there are butterfly doors that have offset pivots, which weakens the association with the image of bilaterally symmetrical butterfly wings. DCDuring TALK 01:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Of those the sportscar doors seem to have a well-defined meaning, at least among the sportscar enthusiasts. Almost every picture found in the Google pic search for "butterfly doors" is of the automotive type. I added a definition for them. Here's another example of a door that may be called "butterfly door" [54]. I'm not proposing that we add a definition for it. --Hekaheka (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

We have an entry for butterfly valve that covers the last. The "boiler firebox door" sense is attestable. The center-pivoting architectural door sense is hard to find in use. DCDuring TALK 02:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

The "door" component of a butterfly valve is usually called a disk/disc, so the challenged definition seems unlikely to be attestable. DCDuring TALK 03:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Cited on citations page. SpinningSpark 16:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The cites look good. I didn't think to look at patents. Now all we have to do is improve the wording and/or get a good image for that type of butterfly door. DCDuring TALK 23:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

File:Henry Pratt Butterfly Valves.jpg -SpinningSpark 01:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

These pictures are all of butterfly valves. Each one seems to me to have too many extraneous features to clearly illustrate the "door" element. I have selected a silly gif schematic to illustrate butterfly door because I thought butterfly valve is a better home for the images such as those above. A gallery of such images might lead a user by induction to the common element of the images, but that seems like a modest benefit for the visual complexity involved.

• Another kind of butterfly door is one with two center-hinged leaves that open to the same side of the opening. An example is a top-opening freezer cabinet, but there is similar geometry in many architectural and mechanical applications.

It is interesting that the butterfly metaphor is exploited in two? distinct ways (hinge geometry, physical appearance) and that these prototypical instances of butterfly door are the metaphorical source for the challenged sense in which there is no center hinge of two independent leaves but rather a center pivot of a rigid disk. DCDuring TALK 13:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I think virtually every application of this kind of butterfly door is going to be in some kind of valve or other. An image of the door by itself would be useless for understanding how it operates. SpinningSpark 18:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The patent etc citations you provided did not seem to me to refer to typical valves. None of the illustrations seem to show such uses of butterfly doors. I didn't find anything in the patent drawings either. No presentation using available images seems very good, IMO. But perhaps we could improve the wording, add usage contexts etc. DCDuring TALK 19:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@DCDuring I really have no idea how you came to that conclusion. If you look at figure 9 of the first patent, for instance, ("Door for changing over air passage") it shows precisely that kind of door viewed from above. SpinningSpark 18:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I looked at the patents and tried to find a usage image that made it clear what component was called a butterfly door and how it was hinged or pivoted. I still would like to see an image of a door that has labeled a butterfly door of the type that corresponds to the challenged definition.

To clarify the images below: Are those doors ever configured as revolving doors? Do the closed doors swing open when pushed? If they do, do the doors swing both ways? DCDuring TALK 19:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• 
  one open and two closed butterfly doors
• 
  one open and one closed butterfly door with a standard door that is open
• 
  two closed butterfly doors
• 
  a single butterfly door, closed
• 
  a butterfly door next to a standard door, both closed
• 
  an open butterfly door next to a closed butterfly door

The central pivot type of butterfly door, is a door, not valve. Though it's action is the same as a butterfly valve. See

• https://www.flickr.com/photos/steve-brandon/239867248
• http://www.montrealgazette.com/squeaky+wheels+expensive+butterfly+m%C3%A9tro+doors+hard+open+reader+says/7462725/story.html
• http://blog.fagstein.com/2009/09/18/el-e-va-tion/
• http://www.cbc.ca/archives/entry/montreal-metro-the-heavy-door-phenomenon
• https://www.reddit.com/r/montreal/comments/2h4txe/deepest_metro_station_least_used_metro_station/

-- 70.51.44.60 15:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The National Fire Protection Association uses this butterfly door (see this 1995 report [55]) [double-panel center pivot door] -- 70.51.200.135 04:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

This reminds me of words like blackbird, which can refer to birds from any of a large number of species of only distantly related dogs. "Butterfly doors" seem to differ greatly in use and configuration. DCDuring TALK 13:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

ПОС

--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

A few cites?

http://pln-pskov.ru/health/subject/1015.html

http://www.psksu.ru/project/index/3462

http://kprf.pskov.ru/index.php/201601213225/poslednie_novosti/_otchyot_o_rabote_fraktsii_kprf_v_pskovskom_oblastnom_sobranii_deputatov.html

Pretty sure these are the same POS. I did also find other POS'es, probably not the same one. AliHautala (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Liberal Republican

Rfv-sense: Does this term exist with this definition except as an alternative form of SoP liberal + Republican? DCDuring TALK 15:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Conservative Democrat

Analogous to above. DCDuring TALK 15:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• DCDuring, these two terms have a set meaning, which encompasses parts (but not all) of the two words they are composed of. Liberal Republicans tend to be liberal on certain issues; conservative Democrats tend to be conservative on the same issues. I can produce stacks of Google Books citations that use the term (for example, search for "Liberal Republican" and civil rights); and I believe the terms should be kept, SoP or no. Purplebackpack89 15:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  I doubt it. Facts before arguments. Let's see the citations. DCDuring TALK 16:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  This isn't even an RfV, @DCDuring. This is just and RfD pretending to be an RfV. I will cite the definitions as written. SOP is not a question for RfV and I will not bother trying to meet your off-topic SOP threshold. Purplebackpack89 17:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  @DCDuring I have added citations for LR. Those citations bear out the definition as written. If they pass muster, I'll add citations for CD later. Purplebackpack89 18:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  Not one of the three citations offered at Liberal Republican is for the headword. Try again. DCDuring TALK 19:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  If you're complaining that they are for "liberal Republican" instead of "Liberal Republican", by god, I can just flip which is the primary and which is the alternative. Otherwise, the citations are valid. Purplebackpack89 20:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  Virtually no-one, bar a handful of ideologues, is liberal or conservative on every single issue. There are at least two groups of "conservative Democrats" in the US - social-conservative Blue Dogs and fiscal-conservative New Democrats (I can find cites calling both conservative Democrats). Not all conservative Democrats fit the definition given, it seems, and I'd be surprised if all "liberal Republicans" do either. Smurrayinchester (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  Well, I doubt they use LR and CD to refer to people who are 90-10. But you do concede that this definition is a valid description of some people, Murray? Purplebackpack89 20:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Do I think that there are Republicans who are (relatively) liberal and Democrats who are (relatively) conservative? Sure (as you can see from the citations I linked). Do I think that liberal Republican means anything more than a Republican who is liberal? No. Smurrayinchester (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

But, Murray, isn't your second question an RfD one instead of an RfV one? Purplebackpack89 23:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Following @DCDuring's concerns about headwords, I have moved the primary definitions to liberal Republican and conservative Democrat. I have left the RfV templates on. Purplebackpack89 20:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

• SOP. These "terms" exist, but as no more than collocations of “liberal | conservative” + “Republican | Democrat”. The definitions as given in the current terms at liberal Republican and conservative Democrat are unsupportably narrow, as noted by Smurrayinchester above.

Delete, or move to RFD, then delete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 01:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

• I think the only way to find out if this is SOP is to read every use of LibRep and ConsDem on Google Books and find out if, in practice, the terms are always used the way Purplebackpack89 has defined them. Let's do some researching! Khemehekis (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Appendix:Proto-Dravidian/nīru

It is given as ńīr- in George Starostin's Proto-Dravidian database, without the final vocal, but apparently with a palatalised (?) n. — Ivadon (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Starostin is definitely not reliable for something like this. @AxaiosRex might be able to help reference this reconstruction. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you know “A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary” by T. Burrow and M. B. Emeneau whence he derived his work? — Ivadon (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Given as “3690 Ta. nīr” in T. Burrow (1984). I see no difference in quality to G. Starostin's version, but at least there were no bad Nostraticists at work at that time! --— Ivadon (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

My memory is that Burrow & Emeneau put them under Tamil rather than actually reconstructing the PDrav roots (hence the Ta. above), weirdly enough. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it seems to have been a common practice to put Tamil on the same level as Proto-Dravidian, probably because of its long written tradition. — Ivadon (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

goloso

rfv-sense: Can't find anything to back up the horny sense, probably regional / colloquial? Jberkel (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Posh and Becks

Rfv-sense "sex". I can easily find references for it, but cites are a different story. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

gainbirth

Some kind of Anglo-Saxonism; a Google Books search finds it mentioned as a word used by one specific writer somewhere (where?). Nonce word I suspect. Equinox ◑ 23:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Sir John Cheke ! Leasnam (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I can find lots of references to Sir John Cheke's translation of the bible. The only other use I can find is this [patent], but that looks like a different meaning. Kiwima (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

夏果実

"Given name". Google results are meager. The relevant results are two websites about names, one LINE Q (whatever it is) post, and a Twitter profile. —suzukaze (t・c) 01:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• I see some evidence that this spelling and reading are instead in reference to パイン (pain) as in pineapple. But I see nothing convincing that this is a name. Possibly a username, but not a given name. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

果実結

Even more dodgy than the above entry. I see only one relevant Google search listing, a website about names. —suzukaze (t・c) 01:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

• I can't find anything either, except for what appear to be echo chambers. If no one can cite this, delete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 19:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

ファイナルファンタジー

Wiktionary:CFI#Brand_names —suzukaze (t・c) 11:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

If this entry is insufficient, please removed it. (You said it is like Pokemon case.) I just got it from Wiktionary:Frequency lists/Japanese10001-20000. --Octahedron80 (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

網処

Rfv-sense "website"; there are only two pages of Google results for google:"網処の" -"辞典", google:"の網処" -"辞典", and google:"網処を" -"辞典", a decent percentage of which seem to have been written by non-natives. (yes I am implying that jisho.org is responsible for half of the results)

Should I also rfv the other sense too? Exactly zero Google results on those pages seem to relate to fishing.—suzukaze (t・c) 12:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

EDICT has the meaning. And also means "URL" too. (Look at WWWJDIC; I rely on this site) --Octahedron80 (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Its appearance in EDICT means nothing. Wiktionary includes words that people actually use. —suzukaze (t・c) 12:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

You ought to know that not every words in (any) dictionaries are actually used; they are published and referable. Wiktionary is a dictionary too. --Octahedron80 (talk) 12:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Edict is not considered a reliable source. We're following WT:CFI here.This is not an RFD page here. You don't have to vote but provide evidence for the entry to be kept. Otherwise, it'll be deleted in due course. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад)

I found one on this page: http://ishigaki-island-nagura-amparu.jimdo.com/ --Octahedron80 (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Also this at the bottom: http://www.shi-yaku-jin-no-hokora.org/ --Octahedron80 (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

• Octahedron80, those are websites, which do not meet WT:CFI requirements for term citations.

The first is, oddly, on http://www.jimdo.com/, what appears to be a US-based "create-your-own-website" service, suggesting that the original page creator / maintainer might have been from the US. The linked page itself mostly consists of the line "新しい網処へ * To the new website" at http://www.ishigaki-island-nagura-amparu.org/. This latter site contains zero instances of the term 網処: google:site:ishigaki-island-nagura-amparu.org "網処"

The second site clearly states that "shi-yaku-jin no hokora is both this virtual online shrine and an actual, small, family-owned, • minzoku NEO-shintô shrine located in the Twin Cities, Minnesota." This suggests that the Japanese on the site might not be reflective of native-speaker usage.

The only reputable native-Japanese reference work I could find that includes this term at all is the 世界大百科事典 (Sekai Dai-Hyakka Jiten, “Big World Encyclopedia”), in the entry here on the Kotobank reference aggregator site. In this case, the term literally means “net place”, as the 処 “place” where a stationary 網 “net” would be set up to catch fish. The reading would presumably be amido or the contracted form ando, or possibly amidokoro. This entry on the less-reputable Glosbe site lists this older meaning as well as the purported new meaning of website, but again, Glosbe is not known for the quality of its entries.

google:"網処" "は" (adding the "は" to explicitly capture just Japanese texts) generates 1,210 apparent hits as shown at the top of the page, collapsing to just 108 when paging through (though apparently listing 113 actual hit links). Some of these are scannos, and some more are just dictionary listings. I cannot find many instances of this term used to mean website, and those few that I *can* find are 1) often in contexts suggesting non-native users of Japanese, and 2) not sufficient for WT:CFI.

I suspect that this is a rare protologism. Searching Google Books for this term in works since 1990 doesn't find any apparent uses with the website sense.

It appears that this term does not yet meet WT:CFI. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

vidunderleg (Nynorsk)

I believe it should be spelt vedunderleg. I have just sent a message to User:Njardarlogar about this and am awaiting a reply. Donnanz (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

That's the only correct spelling according to the dictionary, but it appears to have less Google hits than vidunderleg (1, 2), so it's probably worth a {{misspelling of}} entry. --Njardarlogar (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Re Google hits, I was beginning to suspect that. Anyway, treating it as a misspelling is probably the best solution. Donnanz (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• I have included it as usage notes, added a couple of references, and removed the RFV. Job done, I hope. Donnanz (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

• Don't be deceived by the inaccurate Google hit counts. If you actually click through the result pages, you will notice that "vidunderleg" has 30 pages of results (299 total results), while "vedunderleg" has 34 pages of results (331 total results). --WikiTiki89 19:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

futabilitate

Romanian for fuckability. Redboywild (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Unattested in dictionaries, with only a few hits on Google ([56]). However, it could belong to modern slang and that might be the reason why it hasn't been used in daily speech. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

poponaritate

Romanian for faggotry. Redboywild (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Same situation as the previous word futabilitate ([57]). --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

god forfend

God forfend is clearly attested, but I don't think that this form is. @Purplebackpack89, could you please cite your creation? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I wonder about god forbid as well. Equinox ◑ 06:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

god forbid

Neither god forfend (which I created) nor god forbid (which I didn't) can be cited from the first three pages of Google Books. Purplebackpack89 07:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

NGrams suggests that (deprecated template usage) god forbid is used, but not (deprecated template usage) god forfend. Unfortunately the links for usage by time period at the bottom are not case-sensitive, despite NGrams being case-sensitive, so they link to the regular BGC results. This may be NGrams making assumptions about using (deprecated template usage) God forbid at the start of a sentence etc. - TheDaveRoss 13:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Is the only dispute over capitalization? Bear in mind if deleted typing in god forbid will lead you straight to God forbid. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Renard Migrant yeah, pretty much. When I found out that most of the citations were for God forfend instead of god forfend, I went out and created God forfend. Somebody can probably just delete little g forfend; I guess it isn't citeable Purplebackpack89 19:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

کومت

Allegedly a Pashto word for "Egypt" borrowed straight from Ancient Egyptian. The nature of the reference provided makes me suspect a protologism motivated by linguistic purism. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

While Pashto lacks even basic words here and the standard word for Egypt - مصر, some users just have the wrong agenda. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 06:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

I've made a Pashto and Urdu entries in مصر, replaced the unverifiable کومت with مصر as a Pashto translation at Egypt. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 01:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The reference added to the entry links to "Pashto Purification"'s Facebook page. Make of it what you will. —suzukaze (t・c) 01:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Nope, nothing wrong here /s —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 16:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Aryamanarora What do you mean "nothing wrong here"? The link won't qualify for CFI at all. --Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 23:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Atitarev Normally, "/s" is internet slang for sarcasm. (It failed an RFV on Wiktionary; see Talk:/s). —Aryamanarora ^{(मुझसे बात करो)} 00:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

monoides

RFV of the Latin adjective's declension. Tagged but not listed. The reason given was "Please verify the declension. E.g. it should be more likely that the nominative neuter form is 'monoīdes' like it also is 'neuroīdes' (neuter noun) and not 'neuroīdēs'." — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I made an exhaustive check, and can confirm that neuroīdes is a hapax legomenon and is only attested in the nominative singular. AFAICT, the only evidence that suggests that the e in the ult is short is that it represents, etymologically, an epsilon rather than an eta. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Dictionaries mention words ending in -oides in different ways. Sometimes it's like "āeroīdēs, is (ἀεροειδής)" and sometimes like "nētoīdēs, es (νητοειδής, ές)". So in case of netoides it's said that the neuter form is short. In case of aeroides it might look like the neuter form is long (i.e. all nominative singular forms being the same), but it might also be short as it is in case of netoides and Greek νητοειδής. Furthermore:

• In case of some words ending in -oides dictionaries state that the accusative (also) ends in -ēn (instead of -em).
• Why should the neuter nominative plural end in -ia and not in -a and the genitive in -ium and not just in -um? In case of Latin adjectives it might be -ia, but Latin words derived from Greek aren't always declined like normal Latin words, thus normal Latin declension doesn't proof anything.
• As for rhomboides:
  1. Googling for "rhomboidium" didn't seem to bring up any good results. In biological/medical terms that is a form of an adjective as in "Veryhachium rhomboidium". But I couldn't find any Latin usage of "rhomboidium". "rhomboidum" instead lead to an Latin sentence where it is used next to "rhomboidibus" and to a German example ("Theilung der Rhomboidum"; Germans once declined Latin words like Romans do, which includes the usage of vocative and ablative).
  2. Some dictionaries state that it is feminine, while others state that it is neuter. Maybe it's both depending on the author? Or maybe there are (older) text where the gender isn't obvious. In case of neuter gender, the plural should rather be "rhomboidia" or "rhomboida". Googling didn't seem to bring up a result for that. That is, the plural might be different (maybe "rhomboide" like it is pelage for pelagus), or maybe the plural for the neuter was never used, or maybe it never was neuter and some dictionaries are incorrect.

-80.133.101.186 13:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

An interesting find:

• “diopetēs” on page 546/3 of the Oxford Latin Dictionary (1st ed., 1968–82):

  diopetēs ⁓ēs ⁓es, a. [Gk. διοπετής] Fallen from the sky.

So the OLD does explicitly make the length distinction in the neuter for that adjective. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

disembody

Rfv-sense "To detach any part of the human body painlessly, but have it still fully functional as if it were still attached." Recently added by an anon, and I wasn't sure, but didn't want to revert on sight. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

If I search for "disembodied <bodypart>", I get quite a few hits, such as the following:

Of course, I think the "painlessly" bit would be hard to verify, and I am dubious about it. Is that what you are looking for? Kiwima (talk) 04:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

This is what "disembodied" most often means, I think. It's really sense #2, probably ("separate from an object"), but that seems poorly worded for when the object is a (human) body. Equinox ◑ 04:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

For me, this is an adjective disembodied. I'd like to see real verbal usage before having it as a verb. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 04:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Fair point. "disembody * arm" and "disembody * leg" disappointingly turn up nothing at all in G.Books! Equinox ◑ 05:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, this sense is probably only used as the adjective "disembodied". Otherwise we'd have disembodying for decapitation (I suppose it all depends on your point of view, eh?). P Aculeius (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

"disembodies his" turns up disembody his spirit, troops, intellect, power, corps [of troops], treacherous enemy, essence, victims, argument, narrative, body, living music, peasants, conquests, heroine, militia. theory, "capital" and "labor", mistress, wife, daughter, parents, analysis, view, and political will, some of which suggest we're missing a sense. Also: Aaron Smith's 2005 Blue on Blue Ground "Products that require pouring and/or stirring: Fabric softeners, especially in deep blue containers, diet sodas (he loves to disembody his perfect hand and let it belong, if only for a little while, to a perfect body that's not his body, that's somebody else's), coffee creamers, and lotion." That doesn't seem to be quite this sense. These seem to be the right sense, though:

• 1982, William Buchan, John Buchan: a memoir, page 109:

  "[he] wore the high, stiff collars which were the fashion of the day: in pictures these tend to disembody his head, making him look constrained, uncomfortable, yet they remained his choice."

• 2015, Marlys Millhiser, Nightmare Country (ISBN 1504010205):

  Jerusha turned, a flush on her cheeks that wasn't makeup, a swath of steam from the vaporizer swirling around her chest, disembodying her head.

Seems rare, probably a back-formation (also: does it only apply to heads?). - -sche (discuss) 04:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I'm convinced. Definition still needs some revision, though. Something like, "to remove, separate, or give the impression of separating part of the body (especially the head)." P Aculeius (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

English disease

Rfv-senses

This is a tricky one. I can find quite a lot of citations along the lines of "The French used to call sweating sickness "the English disease"", but these aren't much good for our purposes. Not only is it a mention rather than a use, it's just a translation of a foreign language term rather than an English one (it would be like if we had an entry for "bottom of the bag" meaning cul-de-sac). I've collected a lot of citations at Citations:English disease, but quite a few still need bulking up. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

(There are also some senses - syphilis especially - which can be cited, but only from historical fiction that uses the term anachronistically. An Englishman wouldn't call syphilis the English disease, they'd call it the French disease, but quite a few 21st century authors seem to have made that mistake. I suppose that still counts for RFV purposes, but it's strange) Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

werdup

This was passed before when the rules for RFV were not very clear. The only durably archived citation I see is in this book and even that's spaced. DAVilla 08:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

嗗

Rfv-sense for "(Cantonese) quarter of an hour" sense. I was unable to find an independent source for this outside of the Unihan Database. Bumm13 (talk) 10:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Bumm13 I don't know if this is how it's written (since it's a loan from English quarter), but it is used in Cantonese (pronounced as gwat1). — This unsigned comment was added by Justinrleung (talk • contribs) at 18:03, 23 January 2016‎ (UTC).

FWIW Cantonese Wikipedia has the relevant page named "骨". —suzukaze (t・c) 05:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

thug life

Isn't this just a hip-hop anthem or something? SemperBlotto (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It features in Tupac Shakur's song "Runnin' (Dying to Live)" (2003), but I don't know if he was the originator of the term. According to this source, it "became (and still remains) for many disenfranchised youths a celebrated banner of the 'ghetto soldier's' conviction to live without fear of death as well as a defiant mark of their disregard for all authority". See also [58] and [59]. I have the impression that it is often used in the sense of "a bold and ostentatious lifestyle" rather than merely "a gangster's lifestyle". Smuconlaw (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

These days it's mostly known for being a meme. Check out some funny "thug life" videos. I'd define this as a phrase, involving rebellion. People use the phrase "thug life" to mean "I'm a real rebel", albeit heavily ironic. --Ce mot-ci (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Cited and definition fixed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 04:54, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

bianzhou

What is this? I can't find the original Chinese term, let alone the English. ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@WurdSnatcher hasn't been active for about 5 months, hopefully he might see this ping. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Bianzhong Nibiko (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia says Bianzhou is a place, so it appears to be a mixup with the above. Equinox ◑ 03:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

(If bianzhou is wrong bianzhous should be deleted) —suzukaze (t・c) 03:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:40, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Tergenenes

There were two references in the entry, but they were both links to different versions of an index to the same work, which is the same work that accounts for all of the English-language Google Books hits (two different volumes), except one mention in a fringe-y essay making unsupported and extremely dubious claims about this name being related to names in other languages. Everything basically just says this is the name of the charioteer to a king of the Hittites. Nothing in Google Groups. If this were a Hittite entry, that might be enough- but this is (apparently) an English entry.

Once you remove the bogus etymological connections, there is absolutely no reason anyone would want to look this up- all of the occurrences of the name come with the same information that's in the entry, and the person himself is a very minor footnote in the history of the ancient Near East. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

• RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

fò

@IvanScrooge98, SemperBlotto: Per recommendation at RFD, this entry has been brought to RFV with the purpose of finding out not whether it is considered correct, but whether it is in fact used. Any insight? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 06:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: first of all, that form is currently only used in certain areas of central Italy, otherwise faccio is used: being so rare nowadays, Italians might be uncertain about whether to use the grave or not, so that in those extremely unusual cases in which they have to write it, fò may appear, but in even rarer instances, then I wouldn't define it as in fact used. In older texts, where that form is more common, you'll never find the accent. IvanScroogeNovantotto _{(parla con me)} 13:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@IvanScrooge98: The way RFV works (as detailed at the top of this page) is that if a word has been used, it gets to stay. In this case, even if you don't like it, if there are at least three times that different people have put fò in a published work, and those works span more than a year, then it gets to stay (and you can label it with {{lb|it|proscribed}} or whatever, if there's reason to do so). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

This is incredibly difficult to search for as Google ignores the grave accent. But Google Ngram viewer shows plenty of hits -but then you can't link from the graph to the citation. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

telefonlamak

Tagged but not listed. Part of the long-running "is it or isn't it Turkish" debate (series). The lemma gets a page of Google Books htis, including one dictionary and what looks like a couple of uses. - -sche (discuss) 04:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

123snake45 does not know Turkish very well. His Turkish is really poor. --88.251.55.24 15:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Defined as verb "to telephone, to phone". google books:"telefonlamak"; google:"telefonlamak". If attested, the form should be ranked as rare.

Some quotations found:

• 1953, Türk dili, passage: "Baltalamak diyebildiğimiz halde kalemi emek ve telefonlamak niçin diyemiyelim ?"
  • DP note: Is in quotation marks; does it make it a mention? Given the title seems to say "Turkish language", is this a linguistic work?
• 1946, Türkçeʾde kelime yapma yolları, passage: [...] (Telefon etmek, telefonlamak) gibi ulusal bir söyleyiş tarzı dururken tutup da Fıransızca mastar şeklini alarak (telephonner) demek, dili bozmak ve onun varlığına karşı saygısızlık etmek değil midir?
  • DP note: mention only? The book title suggests it could be a linguistic treatise.
• 1964, Türk Dil Kurumu yayınları, passage: telefone etmek = telefonlamak (Fransızca masquer karşılığı maskelemek gibi)
  • DP note: Again seems to be a linguistic work, and it could be a mention.
• 1930, Yeni Türk lûgati, passage: Telefonlamak [f] Telefon etmek, telefona çağırıp görüşmek.
  • DP note: Definitely a mention: a dictionary entry.

Does anyone know how to search for inflected forms? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems to conjugate like bağlamak, so the first person singular present simple is telefonlarım, etc. And judging from the hits that gets (google books:"telefonlarım"), it's attested: the question, raised in similar previous discussions, is whether it's Turkish or another Turkic language like Azeri. Plugging some of the results into Google Translate and asking it to translate from Azeri produces results only slightly less intelligible than asking it to translate from Turkish. Have any of our Turkish-speaking editors been active recently? @Bibliophile, Johanna-Hypatia, can you shed any light on whether this is Turkish or Azeri?

• 1992, Fatih Çekirge, İktidar oyunu, page 29:

  Biliyorsunuz benim telefonlarım dinlendi. Kiminle konuş- sam teşhis ediliyordu. Siz bütün bunlara rağmen benimle birlikte oldunuz. Güzel'in bu sözleri, iktidar oyunundaki çirkin dekorları gösteriyordu. Ne yazık ki, o oyunda Özal'ın yanında ...

  -sche's note: Fatih Çekirge seems to be a Turkish author, suggesting that this word is Turkish

- -sche (discuss) 18:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Seems to be amply attested, both in books (google books:"telefonlarım") and on the web (telefonlarız, telefonlarlar, etc). - -sche (discuss) 06:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• RFV passed per the above evidence of use. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Telefonlarım above means my phones, telefonlarız is telefonlarımız (mistyped) but you may find some citations by searching telefonladı, telefonladım, telefonladık etc. on Google Books. --2001:A98:C060:80:7D13:DC5E:20F6:73DF 14:28, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

pericombobulation

English. Entered to mean (humorous) Expression of disturbance and confusion because someone has been running circles around them (see Etymology). --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Google Books has 0 hits. All uses in a regular Google search seemed to be either quotations from Blackadder (the program in which the word was introduced), or non-quoted borrowings from its lexicon by the show's fans for message board postings, blogs, or user names. I couldn't find any evidence of independent usage, and certainly nothing to suggest that the word is ever used for its literal meaning, which is hardly surprising, considering that 1) there would be few occasions in one's lifetime where such a term would come in handy, children on a playground notwithstanding (they're unlikely to know such a word); 2) only fans of Blackadder would have the slightest idea what the user was talking about; and 3) since combobulation means "arranging, composing, or organizing", pericombobulation actually means the opposite of what it's supposed to, thereby making the term even less useful and more confusing (although not quite arising to the level of being discombobulating). P Aculeius (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

google books:"pericombobulation", google groups:"pericombobulation", “pericombobulation”, in OneLook Dictionary Search.. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

All of which translates to zero usability. Just because Google Books turns up a book doesn't mean the word is in it. If you search the text of the listed books, you won't find "pericombobulation" in them. Even without looking I can state without fear of contradiction that it does not occur in The Cat in the Hat. If the word were used in any of the books, there would likely be a quoted passage for each one showing the usage. The only hit is "Urban Dictionary", which as we all know is a perfectly useless web site for establishing that a word has an established, independent usage. All of the message board hits appear to be direct quotations of the dialogue in "Blackadder". The online dictionary search turned up zero hits in real dictionaries; the only hit was for "Urban Dictionary". So we're exactly where we were before. P Aculeius (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The searches I posted are for convenience of whoever tries to attest the term, including a search that includes Usenet. Of course, not every hit found in these searches meets WT:ATTEST. A similar helper template generates pericombobulation - OneLook - Google (Books • Groups • Scholar) - WP Library. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I believe it is attestable from Usenet, and have just added 3 cites (one for the plural). It always appears to be used self-consciously with the knowledge of its Blackadder origins, though not always as a direct quotation. Our definition might be too specific. Equinox ◑ 18:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

According to WT:ATTEST, "Attested means verified through: 1) clearly widespread use, or 2) use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year...." We're definitely not talking about a word in widespread use, so it must meet all of the criteria in the second clause. Does the word "convey meaning" in the example sentences?

• Example 1: "We have identified an anuspeptic [sic], some would say phrasmotic [sic], phased paradigm shift in the market of interphrastic proportions. It's causing much contrafribbilarities [sic] and indeed much pericombobulation in the ABC1 sector. Frankly, we're Donald Ducked." The preceding sentence makes clear that this example was deliberate nonsense intended to confuse an audience. The word was not used to convey meaning.
• Example 2: You'll have to excuse Justin's hypersyllabic pericombobulations. Someone dropped a thesaurus on his head and he's still a bit dizzy. Here the writer apparently meant peregrinations, but used the wrong word. He was describing someone using very long words (hence "hypersyllabic" and the reference to a thesaurus), not a state of disarray induced by being run circles around. Probably the writer did not have a clear idea of what the word meant and did not care, as long as it sounded very complicated and would not be recognized by his audience, consisting of fans of the Toronto Blue Jays.
• Example 3: Oh come now, I for one am quite phrasmotic for the pericombobulation Paul has suffered, and can only wish that in future he will have the sense to complete his assignments more interphrastically. The sentence makes no sense, as its meaning depends not just on the term in question, but upon two other nonsense words from the same source, neither of which has any known definition. It is possible for the word to have its alleged meaning in this sentence, but out of context we have no idea what it means, or whether the unfortunate Paul has been run circles around at all, and since the rest of the sentence is nonsense, it seems highly improbable that the word was used for its ostensible meaning.
• Example 4: I hope this is not causing the poster any pericombobulations. It is not apparent from the context whether the word is being used for its alleged meaning here, or if the user simply meant "discomfort" or "difficulty" and chose the second cousin once removed of the word intended. Searched all of the posts on the message board with the title cited, and found none by the alleged author. Searched all of the author's posts in that forum for the whole year, and could not find the word. Given the average length of his posts, it seems unlikely that he meant anything other than "distress"; he was not using the term for its specific meaning.

Lastly, the uses are supposed to be independent. Example sentences 1, 3, and 4 are all patterned directly on the original Blackadder dialogue; the first sentence combines five nonsense words from the program; the third uses three of them, and both the third and fourth parallel the original's statement of remorse for having "caused you such pericombobulations." They're not direct quotations, but somewhat of a paraphrase, but they're certainly not independent. So what we really have here is a word that's seldom if ever used independently of references to Blackadder, and so far there are no other instances in which it's used for its purported meaning; generally it seems to be used solely to confuse or befuddle the audience, or imply general discomfort, without any sense of discomposing people by running in circles around them. P Aculeius (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

potecă

An editing war broke out earlier at walk, because of this word. The primary sense of the word is "mountain path", "narrow pathway" and "track" (N.B. only by extension can it mean a natural "path" and "trail") – not walk as a "maintained place on which to walk", as another user insists. I don't want to get into a prolonged editing war or get into an unnecessary discussion about semantics, but it just isn't the correct translation (see the discussion page for walk). PS: if this is an inappropriate forum to post this request, I apologise beforehand and would appreciate advice as to where I can have this discussion. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You're correct that this isn't the right forum as nobody's disputing the existence of potecă. I think this sort of thing usually goes at WT:TR because it's about discussing meanings of words without disputing their existence. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The Google Image hits confirm that "mountain path" is a main meaning of the term. Perhaps it's sufficient to add a gloss-like qualifier to the term in the translation table at walk. - -sche (discuss) 18:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

wannabe

"Someone who pretends unity with an oppressor or the oppressed. A scab who crosses the picket line is a wannabe hoping for crumbs in exchange for treachery." Really? What do they "want to be"? Chambers has no such sense. Can we also confirm/deny the newly added synonyms bootlicker and suckup? Equinox ◑ 19:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Those synonyms seems more like hyponyms coordinate terms (perhaps not all wannabe's go to such an extreme...). Prob better to list them under that heading or 'See also' (?) Leasnam (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I would say that second sense (if verified) is dated...it reminds me of the mindset of some from the 1940's and 1950's in segregated America Leasnam (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

We could probably find missing definitions for large numbers of words if we could find a corpus of leftist English-language newspapers. But the oppressors have made that impossible. 21:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. I'd say the usage example is just sense 1, but nevertheless, there are some promising hits (although the sense would be better as "Someone who aspires to join or assimilate with an oppressor or the oppressed")

• 1991, Nancie Caraway, Segregated Sisterhood: Racism and the Politics of American Feminism, Univ. of Tennessee Press (ISBN 9780870497209), page 95

  Contemporary Black women remain victimized by — and often perpetrators of — the "wannabe" (as in the "I wannabe white" phenomenon dramatized in Spike Lee's film School Daze) ideology that contributes to their own and their Black sisters' oppression

• 1994, Carol Camper, Miscegenation Blues: Voices of Mixed Race Women, Sister Vision Press (ISBN 9780920813959)

  What I never want to hear again: "Mutt" "Half-breed" "Heinz 57" "Wannabe" I never want to face another door opened by a mother who calls the child of her own body racist names.

• 2014, Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, Outlaw Woman: A Memoir of the War Years, 1960–1975, Revised Edition, University of Oklahoma Press (ISBN 9780806145372), page 261

  I'm part Indian but don't know anything about being Indian. I've tried to talk with the Indians here but they called me a wannabe when I told them about my background.

Arguably, there are two separate senses here, with one being a derogatory term for someone of mixed race. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I feel like those citations definitely cite something, but I can't figure out what. Renard Migrant (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

neamestecabil

Failed WT:ATTEST - it has few hits on Google (mostly referencing this entry), no hits in dictionaries and only one citation in Google Books. --Robbie SWE (talk) 09:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• I searched for inflected forms, and none turned up. RFV failed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

橔

Rfv-sense for "a wooden chopping block" sense. This sense is used in the Unihan database but isn't showing up in any other online dictionary source that I've looked at. Could be in the Kangxi dictionary as I haven't checked there yet (not in English). Bumm13 (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Looks like it's in the Kangxi (http://ctext.org/dictionary.pl?if=en&char=橔) but not in the modern MDBG dictionary (http://www.mdbg.net/chindict/chindict.php?page=worddict&wdrst=1&wdqb=橔). Obsolete, perhaps? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 21:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Although the ctext page mentions that in the Unihan definition field, the Kangxi simply says that pronunciation 頹/堆 is "coffin cover" and pronunciation 敦 is "withered" (reflecting the current content at 橔#Chinese). It's tricky - even zdic says it in the English, but the English is generally less reliable since it's Unihan-sourced. Nibiko (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

lense

Alt spelling of lens. (I am not challenging the separate "misspelling of lens" sense!) Not in Chambers. Equinox ◑ 01:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how citations satisfying CFI (i.e., uses rather than mentions) could allow us to distinguish between a misspelling and an alternative spelling. Are you looking for mentions from dictionaries/usage guides? Or what kind of citations do you have in mind that would attest this sense? —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 01:10, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, tricky. However, for my part I'd trust more "reputable" publications over, say, vanity-published books that contain other dubious spellings (or contain lens spelled both ways, suggesting a typo). Equinox ◑ 01:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The person who first added it did include a link to a dictionary: [60]. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 01:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Also given as an alternate spelling in Webster's Third New International Dictionary. One Google hit turned up a diagram from the 1801 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica with the title "Lense Grinding". Used several times in this article about amateur photography, from 1893. P Aculeius (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

In the first nine pages of google books:intitle:dictionary "lense", the only two dictionaries which use the spelling are the 1816 Encyclopaedia Perthensis; or, Universal Dictionary (which uses lense once and lens once) and Ferdinand Kittel's 1894 Kannada-English Dictionary (which uses only lense as the singular of lenses; its only use of lens is in the taxonomic name Cicer lens).
The Oxford Dictionary of American Usage and Style says lense is found "fairly often" as a misspelling in American English, and Talk:lense suggests it is also found among Brits, so it doesn't appear to be limited to any particular side of the pond.
Robert Hartwell Fiske's Dictionary of Unendurable English calls it a misspelling. At a minimum, the "alternative form of" sense needs a "proscribed" tag. I think it might be easier to combine the two senses into one saying "(now proscribed or a misspelling) (deprecated use of |lang= parameter) Alternative form of lens", similar to rediculous (see its talk page). - -sche (discuss) 04:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I quite like having separate obsolete spelling and misspelling definitions in cases like this. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:42, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It's listed as an alternative spelling in modern dictionaries, and clearly still in widespread use, even if it's not the favoured use. So it would be inappropriate to describe it as a misspelling, obsolete, or proscribed; while in many cases it may be a simple misspelling, it is impossible to establish definitively whether many particular uses are accidental or deliberate. So "alternate spelling of" seems like the best description. P Aculeius (talk) 13:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

A usage note also would not hurt, warning that it may be taken nowadays as a misspelling Leasnam (talk) 21:26, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

gadgie

Rfv-sense: watchman.

Can't find any citations. A few dictionaries suggest a similar definition of "official" (from gauger), but I can only find one ambiguous cite for that:

• 2012, Roy Chubby Brown, Common As Muck!: The Autobiography of Roy 'Chubby' Brown, Hachette UK (ISBN 9781405520478)

  The gadgie called me into his office. 'There's your cards and there's your P45,' he said. 'You're finished.' I was fired.

Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• It looks like pejorative for an (deprecated template usage) overseer or possibly a (deprecated template usage) foreman. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

souq

Rfv-sense mess Jberkel (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

forget, when up to one's neck in alligators, that the mission is to drain the swamp

Claims to have passed RFV, but (i) that discussion was about a different form, before the page was moved, and (ii) searching for "alligators, that the mission is to drain the swamp" (i.e. avoiding the variable "one" pronoun part) seems to yield absolutely nothing except copies of our entry. Equinox ◑ 16:49, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

What a bizarre entry. I wouldn't call it a "proverb", as I see some have labeled it; it seems like just a pithy metaphor for distraction. This blog says that it emerged by 1970, but doesn't identify the source, and then goes on to quote an earlier version of the Wiktionary entry. It sounds like something that would have been written for television, or said by a politician. It doesn't seem to have very widespread use, probably because it's quite wordy for such a specific metaphor (hence the numerous variations). I can't imagine anybody looking it up under "forget", which is where it is now. It would make more sense under "up to one's neck in alligators" or perhaps "it's easy to forget". I note that we don't have "up to one's neck"; that redirects to "up to here". I think it might merit its own entry, where variations and elaborations could be sensibly mentioned or cross-referenced. I think it's probably widespread enough to keep, but under a different heading and perhaps with another wording; replace "the mission is" with "one's mission was", "one's intention was", or something similar. I don't know why every word in the phrase is linked. That makes no sense. As far as attestation goes, there's this speech by Ronald Reagan (who described it as an informal American expression) in 1986; this unattributed version published in 1998; this version in 2007; this one from 2009 uses "pool" in place of "swamp", describing the same thing; and there are plenty of other examples with slight variations on Google Books, including one variation that replaces the second clause with "you'd better make friends with the alligators". P Aculeius (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Thanks for the nom. Using google books:"when you're up to your neck in alligators", can anyone find a page title to which this could be moved, one that gives us 3 attesting quotations? Or google books:"is to drain the swamp"? The title under which this was originally created in Wiktionary was google books:"When you're up to your neck in alligators, it's easy to forget that the initial objective was to drain the swamp"; see the page history. Given what I see so far, this is not only unattested but also not really a proverb. If measly 3 attesting quotations are found for at least one of the variations, I would be inclined to send this to RFD and delete it there. See also my post "#Citations" on the talk page of the entry, from 2008. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

It's a metaphorical situation from which various proverbs (Why else would it appear in The Dictionary of Modern Proverbs?) are drawn. That Dictionary has two 1971 cites for two forms of the proverb. The expression up to your ass in alligators/up to your neck in alligators ("beset by threats that must be addressed" or "extremely busy") is the core expression of the metaphor. Swamp is an obvious extension of the core metaphor. With such a long proverb it is easy to see how there would be many alternative forms. I'd just cite the two variants of the core of the metaphor for now. DCDuring TALK 14:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's a proverb, and yes, it's highly variable in many of its parts. Searching on "ass in alligators" and "neck in alligators" shows not only a plethora of variations, it also shows things like "I was up to my neck in alligators", which suggest that this has passed into a collective repertoire of sayings in the US. I've seen this on walls of workplaces, and heard it in folksy speeches and sermons. This is a tough one, because it seems like no two uses are exactly alike, but it's real. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I've cited up to one's neck in alligators on Citations:up to one's neck in alligators with approximately the meaning DCDuring describes. Here are some citations of versions of the longer phrase:

• 1981, INPO Review, volumes 1-5, page 18:

  When you're up to your neck in alligators, it's hard to remember that your initial objective was to drain the swamp. If you're in the business of operating nuclear power plants, could be this old aphorism is stuck up on your office wall somewhere.

• 1988, Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: Ronald Reagan, page 1166:

  "If you'll permit an informal American expression on such a formal occasion, 1 usually put it this way: When you're up to your neck in alligators, it's hard to remember your original purpose was to drain the swamp." [Laughter]

• 2009, John R. Walker, ‎Jack E. Miller, Supervision in the Hospitality Industry (ISBN 0470077832), page 68:

  It is sometimes difficult to maintain this sharp focus. When you are up to your neck in alligators, it is easy to forget that your objective is to drain the swamp.

• 2009, John A. Yankey et al, The Nonprofit Board's Role in Mission, Planning, and Evaluation (ISBN 1586861107), page 30:

  A popular cartoon several decades ago showed a man, with only his head visible, being sucked into quicksand and surrounded by alligators. The caption read, "When you are up to your neck in alligators, it's hard to remember that the original mission was to drain the swamp."

• 2013, Rita Collett, The Upper Room Disciplines 2014, Enlarged-Print Edition (ISBN 0835811840):

  When you're up to your neck in alligators, it's hard to remember that draining the swamp was your initial purpose. When immediate circumstances become overwhelming, retaining focused perspective and commitment to God's intentions can be nearly impossible.

- -sche (discuss) 20:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Incidentally, there's a record in The Parliamentary Debates of the British House of Lords where a lord says he heard this phrase from an American; compare the Reagan citation; should be tagged {{label|en|US}}? - -sche (discuss) 20:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The version When you're up to your neck in alligators, it's hard to remember that your initial objective was to drain the swamp. seems to be attested in at least three books. (In one, it is broken up as "When you're up to your neck in alligators," the saying goes, "it's hard to remember that your initial objective was to drain the swamp.")

Other versions:

• When you're up to your neck in alligators, it's difficult to remember that your intent was to drain the pool.
  
• When you're up to your neck in alligators, it's hard to remember that draining the swamp was your initial purpose.
• When you're up to your neck in alligators, it's hard to remember your original purpose was to drain the swamp.
• When you are up to your neck in alligators, it is hard to remember that your purpose was to drain the swamp.
  
• (2x) When you are up to your neck in alligators, it's hard to remember that the original mission was to drain the swamp.
  
• When you are up to your neck in alligators, it is easy to forget that your objective is to drain the swamp.
• (3x; see above) When you're up to your neck in alligators, it's hard to remember that your initial objective was to drain the swamp.
• When you're up to your neck in alligators, it's difficult to remember that the original objective was to drain the swamp.
• When you're up to your neck in alligators, it's hard to remember your original objective was to clear the swamp.
• It is difficult to remember that the objective is to drain the swamp when you are up to your neck in alligators.
• It is hard to remember your original objective was to drain the swamp when you are up to your neck in alligators.
• "When you are up to your neck in alligators it is difficult to remind yourself that your initial objective was to drain the swamp!"
  
• When you are up to your neck in alligators, it can be quite hard to remember that the original plan was to drain the swamp.
  
• 'when you are up to your neck in alligators it's difficult to remember that your goal is to drain the swamp'
  
• When you're up to your neck in alligators," it said, it's hard to remember that your primary job is to drain the swamp.
  
• 'When you're up to your neck in alligators, it is difficult to remember that you went in to drain the swamp.'
• When you are up to your neck in alligators, it's difficult to remember that you went there to drain the swamp.
• When a person is up to his neck in alligators, it is difficult to remember he came to drain the swamp.
  
• It is hard to keep one's mind on draining the swamp when you are up to your neck in alligators.
  
• It's hard to remember your task remember of draining the swamp when you're up to your neck in alligators.
  
• When you're up to your neck in alligators, it's difficult to think of how to drain the swamp.
  
• When you are up to your neck in alligators, it is too late to think about draining the swamp.
  
• When you're up to your neck in alligators, find out who forgot to drain the swamp.
  
• When you are up to your neck in alligators, it is kind of hard to remember who forgot to drain the swamp.
  

- -sche (discuss) 20:47, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Not every saying is a proverb. I think most people associate that word with Biblical proverbs, or ancient sayings that sound like them, rather than things that sound like Uncle Zeke made them up on the spot. While the word can be defined in different ways, descriptions of proverbs often suggest that they're profound metaphors that express deep truths couched in obscure terms. This is more "folksy" (or even "hokey") than profound, and much less deep than a swamp full of alligators. Anyway, that's just my opinion, so it's fine to disagree with it. However, the Ronald Reagan speech was from 1986. The book it was published in may have been printed in 1988 (not sure), but it clearly identifies the speech as being from 1986, and I think that the use of the word is what sets the date, not when it was published. P Aculeius (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Wiktionary formerly made a point of being descriptive and not evaluative in its inclusions and definitions. Though this may be eroding a bit, I don't see why we should make inclusion decisions based on our assessment of the profundity or even truth value of something that some normal humans consider a proverb, nor its age. DCDuring TALK 00:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't addressing whether it be included, merely the characterization of it as a proverb. Whatever you call it, it's clearly attested. P Aculeius (talk) 03:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I've added four citations to Citations:when you're up to your neck in alligators, it's hard to remember that your initial objective was to drain the swamp of that exact form. - -sche (discuss) 02:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Chaydon

Male given name. Would appear to fit the trendy Aiden, Jayden, Hayden set, but not apparent from a quick search. Equinox ◑ 18:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

dave

"A dagger of a certain type." Not seeing this in any dictionaries I've tried yet, and google books:"un dave" seems to find hits for the name 'Dave' and indeed there seems to be a noun Dave which is the name of an Ancient people, but not a dagger. Not that we should be judging entries on who created them, but it's by Verbo one of the worst editors in our history. Renard Migrant (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't find it either. Maybe Dave is Dirk's friend? Equinox ◑ 19:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

google books:"poignard" "un dave" and google books:"poignard" "daves" turn up nothing. - -sche (discuss) 19:33, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I can only assume he/she meant dague and it's an eyesight thing. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:53, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

stomp

Singaporean senses. The existing citations are to Facebook and Youtube, which are non-durable and red flags as noted above in the (otherwise unrelated) section on کومت. - -sche (discuss) 07:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

'n meaning "own"

'n#Etymology_3 asserts that 'n is an "Eye dialect spelling of own." All of the citations are of his'n, our'n, etc, where the 'n is the result of folk reinterpretation of ourn (where the -n goes back to an Old English genitive) and hisn (where the n was added in the Middle English era by analogy with mine and thine) as "his own" or "his one". Is the fact that people mistakenly interpret the 'n in our'n as "own" sufficient to justify this entry? Do citations exist where 'n (actually / outside those pronouns) means own? - -sche (discuss) 05:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

goddessling

No viable results on Google, however, apparently sporadic use according to Google books. Can't find it in a dictionary either though. Does it pass WT:ATTEST? --Robbie SWE (talk) 12:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Yep—I've added three quotations. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 15:28, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Ok, my bad. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:59, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The only 'bad' nominations are ones that are citable easily within a few minutes. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

moscovium

I know there was talk of naming it this, but I'm not sure there are any uses at all. Certainly in the scientific world, before the IUPAC announced the name, we always referred to it solely as ununhexium. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Interestingly, I thought the Russians would've jumped on it, but what few citations of московием (moskovijem) I could find were actually referring to ununoctium. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:21, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

deityforsaken

One of a bunch of ineptly-constructed made-up (and mostly-speedied) terms by the same contributor, but this one has a couple of Usenet hits, so I felt it deserved consideration here. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Added three citations, which were all I could find (ignoring the form $DEITYforsaken). Tagged as rare and humorous. Equinox ◑ 20:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• RFV passed. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:32, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Alpen

Supposedly an English adjective. Really, with this capitalization? The (uncapitalized) derived term looks like it was borrowed from German as one word, not derived from a (capitalized) English adjective. If this doesn't exist as Alpen, does it exist as alpen? Alpen-stock and alpen-stock get some hits, but alpenstock gets far more, and again seems to be a borrowing, not a formation from some English word *alpen. "More alpen than" and "as alpen as" get no hits. The hits for "was alpen" are using it as someone's name, or part of the placename Alpen-Adria, or part of "alpen-glow" (a partial borrowing, partial calque). - -sche (discuss) 05:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I would describe its English usage as a prefix for nouns describing someone or something related to the Alps. I can't remember seeing it used as an independent word, but most English speakers are familiar with its use in words such as alpenhorn or alpenstock. As for capitalization, I think that may be variable, as some people who write English prefer to capitalize nouns or adjectives derived from proper nouns, whether or not the derived words are considered common. There's no entry for Alpen-, alpen-, or alpen. Perhaps this should simply be moved to alpen- with a usage note, (sometimes capitalized). P Aculeius (talk) 12:47, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

sheer

Definiton 3: "Being only what it seems to be; mere."

Is this an actual definition, or is it an attempt at defining the same sense that definition 5, "Used to emphasize the amount or degree of something", does? The usage examples don't seem to fit the definition at any rate, and I think neither definitions 3 nor 5 are very good. I think something like "Pure, downright," etc. better capture the actual meaning. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I"ll go ahead and make the changes I see fit if no one objects. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You do need to make sure that the wording of your proposed definition does not overlap with that of definition 2, the obsolete one. DCDuring TALK 02:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I will do so. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Senses 3 and 5 appear to be elaborations of sense 2. Of the two, sense 5 is worded better, but it's still basically the same as sense 2 IMO, and all three should probably be combined. P Aculeius (talk) 04:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I would say that senses 3 and 5 are more accurately extensions of sense 2, not the same as it. The usage examples given for the latter don't seem to fit under the modern senses of the word, and someone describing ale or a fountain as "sheer" would probably not be readily understood. I'll probably rearrange the order of the definitions. I'll hold off on doing so until this discussion seems to be over, however. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's not be too dismissive of the definitions, despite what seems like awkward wording. The definitions are 100+ years old, from Webster 1913, perhaps earlier. The words used in the definitions are probably less used or have shifted meanings a bit. DCDuring TALK 10:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not dismissing them, just saying that they all seem to be getting at the same thing, and it's not clear that the examples have truly separable meanings. For example, in perhaps the most familiar phrase, "sheer genius," does the speaker mean "pure genius" (sense 2), "mere genius" (as in nothing but, sense 3), or "extensive genius" (sense 5)? All seem equally applicable, and it's very doubtful that most speakers intend only one of them, excluding the others. The phrase (and many similar constructions) are generally used without putting that degree of thought into the meaning of "sheer". I also don't think that sense 2 is obsolete, to the extent that "pure" is taken in its metaphorical sense, since that seems to be fairly close to the meaning of phrases like "sheer genius," "sheer madness," "sheer brilliance," "sheer inspiration," "sheer majesty," and soforth. P Aculeius (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I have rewritten the RFV'd definition. I did use the word pure, which overlaps a bit with the obsolete sense, but I added further clarification in that one ("pure" just seemed like the best word to use for both senses.) Feel free to make improvements. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It looks much better to me, but I no longer have fresh eyes with which to evaluate the entry. DCDuring TALK 16:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

consultabilitate

No Google Books hits, only a few Google hits. Redboywild (talk) 13:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this! It's most likely a protologism added by BAICAN XXX (see here) as his alter ego WernescU. --Robbie SWE (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

dodgebow

An IP tried to change this into an entry about a trademarked brand name here- which I reverted.

This raises two questions:

1. Is this attested at all in CFI-compliant sources? I can't find any.
2. If it is, does it meet the requirements of CFI for brand names, WT:BRAND?

Chuck Entz (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I can find one CFI-compliant source:

*

Kiwima (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

aunt

RFV of two senses: "(informal) A great-aunt / grandaunt." and "A grandmother. (More often "auntie".)" Not to be confused with the more general sense 4, "An affectionate term for a woman of an older generation than oneself, especially a friend of one's parents, by means of fictive kin." - -sche (discuss) 22:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Could be worded better, but there's no doubt that "aunt" is used of grandaunts (with any number of "greats"), as for that matter is "uncle" of granduncles; and that friends (often cousins) of one's parents are also called "aunt" and "uncle". Documenting it may take some work, but I think this is pretty well-established. Not sure about use of "aunt" for "grandmother", although I know that "grandmother" and "grandfather" are sometimes applied to elderly persons without any actual relationship.P Aculeius (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Friends of one's parents are sense 4. - -sche (discuss) 22:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, misread that part as an RFV of sense 4 as well as sense 2. However, the words aunt and uncle are regularly applied to all aunts and uncles, not merely the siblings of one's parents, but also their aunts and uncles, one's grandparents' aunts and uncles, etc. Terms such as "great aunt" and "grandaunt" or "great-grandaunt" are typically trotted out only when there's some ambiguity. You address your grandmother's aunt Mabel as "Aunt Mabel," not "Great-Grandaunt Mabel." P Aculeius (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

after Saturday comes Sunday

A rare political phrase attributed to, but apparently not used by, Muslims. See Talk:after Saturday comes Sunday. - -sche (discuss) 22:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Does a phrase need to be used by a specific group to merit an entry? bd2412 T 04:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • A phrase needs to be used with the definition it is claimed to have. I trimmed the expansive, literally encyclopedic (transwikied from an encyclopedia) definition somewhat a while ago, but is this phrase used idiomatically at all? It was tagged in diff but not listed here. - -sche (discuss) 05:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
    • I can certainly find lots of cites that mention this slogan. For example:
    • There are many more as well. Kiwima (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

𐤋𐤏𐤁

RFV-sense "citizen", tagged (and just now detagged by someone else without cites) but not listed. Also, @Wikitiki89, per your comments on Talk:𐌍𐌄𐌓𐌉, are the letters of this pagetitle in the right order? See comment at Talk:𐤋𐤏𐤁. - -sche (discuss) 22:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

查

Rfv-sense "hawthorn". Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 22:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• The Japanese variant form 査 appears in the term 山査子 (sanzashi, “hawthorn”). The Chinese equivalent appears to be 山楂 (shānzhā, “hawthorn; rose hip”), as given at online Chinese dictionary MDBG, with that entry clearly listing 山查 (shānzhā) as a variant spelling, using this same 查 character. As such, I'm inclined to think the hawthorn sense is valid, but that might just be me.

@Wyang, @Kc_kennylau, @Anatoli, other ZH editors: can any of you shed more light on this? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │^{Tala við mig} 16:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Eirikr: [61] says 查 zhā 2. 同“楂”, which means that 查 and 楂 are equivalent. --kc_kennylau (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

In case you need another confirmation - in Pleco: 查 or 査 with the Mandarin reading zhā, Cantonese caa4 is same as 楂 as in 山楂.--Anatoli T. ^{(обсудить}/^вклад) 20:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Not caa4, but zaa1. --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

השתגע

RFV-sense "to be crazy about (construed with על ‎(al))", tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 23:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

February 2016

kapriolar

Ido. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 14:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Remove, as attestations are hard to come by. It's included in quite a few dictionaries (as early as Dyer), but it's either very rare now or was always a dictionary word. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

clarinet-player

I don't regard this as a workaround for clarinet player, and I'm remembering the sad fate of accordion player. Donnanz (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

If you are challenging this as a sum of parts (in which case I agree, per Talk:accordion player) then I think it should be an RFD, not an RFV. Equinox ◑ 23:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Forget about RFD for a moment, I'm challenging the use of hyphens in an effort to avoid deletion on SoP grounds. I'm sure the contributor thinks we're all thick. Donnanz (talk) 00:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Is clarinetplayer attestable? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

It's much more common without the hyphen, but about 3 of the first Google Book hits are for "clarinet-player". Renard Migrant (talk) 14:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Bugle-player, cello-player, flute-player, guitar-player, harp-player, oboe-player, trombone-player, trumpet-player, and last but not least, accordion-player were all entered by the same contributor. What makes these allowable instead of unhyphenated entries, and why was accordion player deleted and replaced by accordion-player? The mind boggles. Donnanz (talk) 11:11, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

woodwind (adjective)

Not really an adjective, I think, more like a noun modifier. Donnanz (talk) 11:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree. --Hekaheka (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Suecophile

Lover of Sweden. One possible hit in G.Books; two on Groups, but both by one author. Should apparently be capitalised despite Blotto's move. Equinox ◑ 15:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

What's to discuss? The word exists, it's on Wikipedia with references. Lilac pig (talk) 16:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why CodeCat's reverted the 'move to Suecophile' template, except perhaps we may as well verify it before we move it. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suecophile Lilac pig (talk) 17:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Being on Wikipedia isn't enough. Read WT:CFI please. Equinox ◑ 17:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

You mean you cannot see on Wikipedia that the word is sourced there? Lilac pig (talk) 17:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Should references be added to the Wiktionary as on Wikipedia? Lilac pig (talk) 17:18, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Suecophile— This unsigned comment was added by Lilac pig (talk • contribs).

• Here are three quotations using the capitalization Suecophile. Two of them are using it as a noun; the other one might be an adjective. "An enthusiastic Suecophile ever since he had served as United States consul in Gothenburg", "Fennophiles and Suecophiles quarreled whether education in the University in Helsinki should be in Finnish or Swedish", "Needless to say, there was a similar Suecophile movement before the WWII in the Swedish-speaking layers of people." —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 20:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Two of these are e-mail threads. If they are acceptable as permanently archived quotes, there's no limit to what can be entered into Wiktionary. In BGC there's only one hit, and that's the first of your quotes. --Hekaheka (talk) 21:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Debatably, if the adjective 'Suecophile' is unattestable as it seems to be, "Suecophile movement" has to be the noun used attributively doesn't it? I think it's a good workaround for a term that has three citations for in effect the same meaning, but one of the citations is adjectival. Renard Migrant (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

PS Usenet right? Renard Migrant (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• OK, my move to uncapitalised may have been wrong. But I'm not actually seeing it anywhere. Zero hits for either version on Google Ngram viewer. Zero terms such as this on Swedish Wiktionary. SemperBlotto (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

So you are unable to see the sources provided above? :-/ Anyway, it is not a Swedish word, it is an English word with Latin/Greek roots. So why look at the Swedish Wiktionary? Look at the Latin Wiktionary instead, if there is one. Dammråtta (talk) 23:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The Swedish spelling of the Latin prefix Sueco- is sveko-.Svenska Akademiens Ordbok: Sveko- If you "translate" Suecophile to Swedish, it would be spelled svekofil. Dammråtta (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

We rely on quotations not sources. The reason is you can source words that don't exist (Appendix:English dictionary-only terms for example). And we need three citations per definition (not three overall) as otherwise you could add three citations and add a thousand made-up definitions. Renard Migrant (talk) 00:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've cited it. It was hard, and I've glossed it "rare". Equinox ◑ 01:26, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Have you really? The debaters in the discussion groups are Finns (like myself btw), who for some reason prefer to write in English. In Finnish there's a word "svekofiili" (probably derived from the Swedish "svekofil") which is currently chiefly used derogatively. I think the debaters have simply anglicized this term, which would make it a protologism. They cannot have checked it in a dictionary, because none of them seems to have an entry for it. --Hekaheka (talk) 06:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Please explain why the Swedish-English dictionary from 1964 linked above is not a valid source in your mind. Lilac pig (talk) 07:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Renard Migrant said it already: We rely on quotations not sources. Also, in order for a word to be counted as English, it should preferably appear in an English dictionary rather than a Swedish one. Otherwise, it is Swenglish instead of English. --Hekaheka (talk) 08:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

You said it didn't seem to exist in dictionaries. This dictionary is not a Swedish dictionary, it is a Swedish-English dictionary showing the English word suecophile. It has nothing to do with so called Swenglish. Lilac pig (talk) 09:50, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I meant that the referenced dictionary is published in Sweden and edited by Swedes. I was not able to find an English dictionary, published in an English-speaking country, that would have "Suecophile". Thus it appears to be a term that looks like English and would be a perfect English word if the English-speakers just bothered to use it. Judging by the Google hits, Swedophile is a way more common concoction and it seems to be actually used. --Hekaheka (talk) 15:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Hekaheka: I don't understand your objection to the citations. Is the problem that the writers are non-native English speakers? Or is it something else? —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 13:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I said it already: "I think the debaters have simply anglicized this term, which would make it a protologism." If you ask me, it's perfectly allright to be a Finn. If we end up keeping this term, we should add a comment: "Used chiefly in Sweden and Finland by non-native English speakers". --Hekaheka (talk) 15:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

For those new to the English Wiktionary: as per WT:ATTEST (part of WT:CFI) and a long-standing practice, we are interested in quotations in actual use and not in dictionaries. We don't trust dictionaries since they sometimes define words that no one uses. As a result, English Wiktionary includes great many words that are not in dictionaries and excludes multiple words that are in dictionaries. We dare to be actual lexicographers. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I try to solve this round:

Etymology

, modeled after (deprecated template usage) [etyl] Swedish svekofil and/or (deprecated template usage) [etyl] Finnish svekofiili

Noun

Suecophile

1. (rare) A Swedophile (one who loves Sweden or its people and culture)
   • 1992, "Tuomas Ilmari Viljanen", Swedes in Finland (on newsgroup soc.culture.nordic)

     During the 19th century there were some, and during the 30's, when Fennophiles and Suecophiles quarreled whether education in the University in Helsinki should be in Finnish or Swedish, which ended in a winning draw for both.

   • 1994, Hildor Arnold Barton, A Folk Divided

     An enthusiastic Suecophile ever since he had served as United States consul in Gothenburg during the Civil War, he had in 1870 founded a Swedish settlement in his native Maine, had a Swedish wife, and was fluent in Swedish.

   • 1996, "fleur-de-lis", Sources for Finnish Names.... (on newsgroup sfnet.keskustelu.kieli)

     One half of my family is more or less Finnish and the other half is more or less Swedish. I know damn well the both sides of the coin, and I know both the Fennophile and the Suecophile truth. The objective truth - as usually - lies somewhere in-between.

Usage notes

• This term is chiefly used by Nordic users of English.

--Hekaheka (talk) 08:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

"Swedophile" is not a word to be used to describe a Suecophile, since the first is at best a slang term for the latter. Lilac pig (talk) 12:48, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd say both are slang in the sense "language that is unique to a particular profession or subject". It remains a fact that Swedophile gets 50+ hits in BGC whereas Suecophile only gets one. --Hekaheka (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

kapriolo

Ido, as #kapriolar. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 16:49, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The only attestation I could find by search engine was this, from 2007. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

chocolate

"African-American, black". As an adjective, fine (I added a citation), but how can it be a noun? "He's a chocolate, not a white person"? I thought it might be uncountable (perhaps e.g. sex slang: "he wanted some chocolate", i.e. sex with a black person) but can't seem to find citations for that either. Equinox ◑ 03:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's a challenge to search for. Your sex slang idea is how I finally found some - by searching for "sexy chocolate":

Kiwima (talk) 04:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Also this (12). —JohnC5 16:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, watch the movie The Birdcage. Khemehekis (talk) 08:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Parallel to honey, sugar, etc. DCDuring TALK 11:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Equinox I've oft found that use of the indefinite article isn't always the best test of something being a noun or not...while "a chocolate" might not be in common parlance, I think you'd have more luck looking for "some chocolate", "a lot of chocolate", "that chocolate", "the chocolate", etc. Purplebackpack89 14:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep, but your addition didn't show whether it was countable or uncountable. Equinox ◑ 15:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• I know that television shows aren't the citations we're looking for, but at one point in this Colbert Late Show bit, Stephen Colbert (the guy who invented the word truthiness), says at 1:25, "That top 1%, generally doesn't have a lot of chocolate in it", then it cuts to his black bandleader, with the implication of Colbert's quote being "There aren't a lot of really, really wealthy African-Americans," and with chocolate being used in a partitive noun sense rather than an adjective one. It was that clip from the Colbert Show, along with Ray Nagin's Chocolate City speech, that inspired me to create the definition. Sorry for the slow response, I went to bed early and this is what I found when I got up. Purplebackpack89 14:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

How about: Mrs. Feinstein, ...she do like her some chocolate ;) Leasnam (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

"some of your sweet chocolates" is great for demonstrating this as a countable noun ("a black person"). "generally doesn't have a lot of chocolate in it" sounds like it might be a mass noun(?), perhaps to be defined as "blackness"(?). (Btw, we've tended to consider TV shows durably archived — at least in America and Britain, where they are archived; whereas, Somali shows wouldn't be — so Colbert is a fine citation as far as durability.) So perhaps we're dealing with two senses? That's not too surprising, since "chocolate" in reference to the food also has both an uncountable sense ("chocolate is popular") and countable sense ("ate some chocolates"). Incidentally, the definition seems overly America-centric; I would imagine that Idris Elba and other black people who are not African Americans are also considered "chocolate". - -sche (discuss) 19:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

The mass noun sense looks cited. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the "sexy chocolate" (not "chocolates") citations seem like they're the mass (uncountable) sense; compare how in reference to the food chocolate, "that was some good chocolate" and "dark chocolate is what that [on the table] is" are using the mass noun sense. I'm not sure which sense "my sexy chocolate" is using. I've trying to find more plural citations that would clearly attest the countable "a black person" sense. - -sche (discuss) 20:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

stável

Scanno of estável. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 19:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

лево

Rfv-sense "political left". --WikiTiki89 15:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

knive

Supposedly a misspelling(!) of connive. Seems to actually be a variant (misspelling? alternative spelling?) of knife#Verb. - -sche (discuss) 21:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Most of what I find is, as you say, a variant of knife#Verb, and I have added that to the entry with a handfull of the (very) many citations. There are, however, a few I come up with that look more like connive. Mostly as the adjective kniving (conniving), but with one that uses it as a verb:

Kiwima (talk) 00:47, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Many of those are a little iffy. The backstabbing context goes equally well with both knifing and conniving. --WikiTiki89 01:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Impressive! Yeah, the "backstabbing and kniving games" is arguably using a knife-related sense, but "charged with kniving" is clearly the RFVed sense, and "kniving, decietful[sic?]" seems like it, too. (Well, as you note, it seems like the adjective kniving, not the verb knive. But the basic sense is there.) - -sche (discuss) 01:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I looked for "kniv/e/ed/ing/ with" and "kniv/e/ed/ing/ together" on Google Books and found nothing, so I would agree that the verb looks unlikely. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

That's what I thought at first, but I think it's misleading because of the metaphorical knife involved in "backstabbing". "Conniving" would make more sense, since there's not an actual knife involved in backstabbing; if there were, it'd be redundant to say "kniving" for "knifing", and there's no particularly good reason for the sentence to refer to one metaphorical and one actual knife in parallel. P Aculeius (talk) 05:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Use of the verb:

• 1873, The United Service Magazine - Volume 133 - Page 231:

  [...] naked and wounded, had only escaped being murdered by marvellous presence of mind in flinging such bright trinkets as he possessed among the monkeyish gang of murderers who were commencing to knive him, and now he sank quite [...]

• 1894, The Month - Volume 81 - Page 172:

  At length as an ape he was fain The nuts of the forest to rive; Till he took to the low-lying plain, And proceeded his fellow to knive.

• 1984, Peter Barkworth, More about Acting - Page 182:

  [...] do with the food: on which line I knived a potato on to my fork, when I lifted it to my mouth and when I ate it.

• 1996, Sudhir Kakar, The Colors of Violence:

  "If I hear that two of our people have been attacked and killed at the wooden bridge it takes me just five minutes to knive five of them."

• 2008, John Kinsella, ‎Alvin Pang, Over there: poems from Singapore and Australia:

  My mother stands beside a board, the onion falls in equal hoops, steady her eye, her mind abroad, she knives the ringlets into groups. Leasnam (talk) 02:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I can't tell what sense the 2008 citation is using. The 1984 citation is a good citation of the "knife" sense, of which many other citations have been found. It's the "connive" sense which only seems to be an adjective (kniving, a misconstruction of /k(ə)naɪvɪŋ/). - -sche (discuss) 02:15, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see, my bad Leasnam (talk) 02:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem; thanks for the additional citations (particularly good as they show forms other than kniving, the form used by all the previously-found citations). - -sche (discuss) 05:35, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

As she's preparing onions at a (cutting) board, the word would logically refer to using a knife, not to conniving. Not very happy with the 1894 example, as it looks like a humorously improvised rhyme. The others are convincing, assuming that they're not typos; f and v are next to each other on a keyboard. P Aculeius (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, good point, I somehow missed the mention of onions; it makes sense now. I can find citations going back to 1733 (Practical Husbandman and Planter: "all small weak Shoots should be cut close to the main Stems; and (generally speaking) nipping with your Nails, is a better Way than kniving of them"), so it's not (just) the product of modern keyboards. Also, it's in Merriam-Webster Unabridged, defined tersely as "knife". In fact, to knive (attested since 1733) seems to be older than to knife (attested since the 1800s per Merriam-Webster), which I suppose makes sense, since it parallels to strive (verb) vs strife (noun). - -sche (discuss) 06:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Not strictly relevant, but William Henry Armstrong, in The Siamese Twins (which contains a lot of wordplay), in Lays of Love (1832), page 68, writes: "But fear not these con-kniving men / Most lovely Gemini," italics sic. - -sche (discuss) 06:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

traceur

Guess who. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 07:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Google Books returns plenty of results. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

This is for the Spanish section. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

It turns out, though, that there are more than enough hits to be found with the proper filtering: here, here, and here to start with. The entry is wrong about it being uncountable, with the plural, traceurs, attested here, here and here. There also seems to be a feminine form, traceuse, but all the Spanish hits seem to be mentions. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Of course, sorry, I didn't even notice the Spanish section. I was wondering why this was RFVed! Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• Cited by Chuck Entz above? Spanish entry created by LWC noted for shoddy lexicography is being nominated, for the record. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:25, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

accordion-player

This WurdSnatcher entry has replaced the deleted accordion player. Why? What makes the difference? A hyphen? Donnanz (talk) 11:18, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

delete --Hekaheka (talk) 08:20, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

This is RFV. We seek attesting quotations here per WT:ATTEST. If the charge is made that this is a sum of parts, WT:RFD is the venue. A vote "delete" can at best be understood as an indication what would happen in RFD. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The entry has quotations, but the point is that they could have just as easily been found for accordion player, which was deleted in spite of its presence in Oxford [62]. And why was a hyphen considered necessary? Donnanz (talk) 11:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I would prefer to see the restoration of accordion player instead of this. Donnanz (talk) 11:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the hyphenated form is vanishingly rare. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Speedy delete as an alternative form of an rfd-failed entry. Nominating something for rfv doesn't make it immune to other deletion criteria. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Speedy delete is frowned on, unless the entry was created in error. It was created deliberately, along with similar entries. Donnanz (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Then let's move this to RFD. I don't believe a hyphen is any protection for SOP issues. Kiwima (talk) 18:51, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

preskaŭ freŝa ĉeĥa manĝaĵo

Esperanto. @Mr. Granger —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 23:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Mentioned in this Usenet post, whose author claims to have invented it as a replacement for eĥoŝanĝo ĉiuĵaŭde. Beyond that, I can find a few mentions online and one non-durably-archived instance of someone apparently using it for its intended purpose of testing the appearance of the letters, but nothing resembling a durably archived use. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 00:50, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mr. Granger: Thanks. But eĥoŝanĝo ĉiuĵaŭde is fine, right? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I think so—there are many examples on Usenet of people using eĥoŝanĝo ĉiuĵaŭde to test the appearance of the letters with diacritics. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 02:58, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Žmogus-voras

Lithuanian for Spider-Man; WT:FICTION applies. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Шанжаваля

Erzya for Spider-Man; WT:FICTION applies. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I don't think this one would pass even if WT:FICTION weren't a concern. It simply doesn't appear to be citeable. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Hämähäkkimies

Finnish for Spider-Man; WT:FICTION applies. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

This is the official translation of the name, should be easily citable?

http://www.egmontkustannus.fi/tuotteet-ja-julkaisukalenteri/sarjakuvalehdet/spider-man/

http://dome.fi/pelit/arvostelut/spider-man-web-of-shadows

http://www.iltasanomat.fi/elokuvat/art-1288482080646.html AliHautala (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

That's not Metaknowledge's point. He says we shouldn't have fictional characters at all. --Hekaheka (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Why, though? Isn't it a slippery slope that could lead to mass deletion of religious, mythological and folkloric terms due to the sometimes thin line between those things? It would probably first affect proper nouns associated with religions that are generally not taken seriously by most people, such as Scientology and Mormonism, eg. Moroni and Xenu; nothing of value would be lost in the eyes of a majority of people regardless of their beliefs, but who knows what would be next? I find it incomprehensible that some atheists regard Scientology and Mormonism and Christianity and Islam at the same level, and further some see no difference between Darth Vader and Lucifer.

And while most people see it for the joke that it is, there are a bunch of people out there who list their official religion as Jediism and I'd bet some of them are serious. So to play the devil's advocate, who's to say that mainstream religions like Christianity and Islam are not obvious jokes as well? Maybe the entries for God and Satan should be deleted, followed by Jesus, Muhammed, Buddha, etc. even though it would be pretty offensive to most people to lump them in the same category as characters from sci-fi films, including myself; but who draws the line between fiction and religion? What if someone decided that it's offensive to label Flying Spaghetti Monster as "humorous", went to the Wikimedia Foundation's headquarters and blew themselves up after shouting "SPAGHETTI IS GREAT!", killing dozens of innocent civilians? Would major religious leaders around the world be expected to publicly condemn radical Pastafarianism? I don't think so, but most likely at least one of them would; would that solidify its existence as a serious and valid religion and elevate all joke religions to the same status as serious religions?

If the choice is between deleting fictional characters and keeping them, the sheer amount of extra work that the slippery slope in the case of the former would bring about should hint to the latter being a more preferable option, when it doesn't really matter either way so long as the content is correct. Unless there are concerns over politics or trademarks, in which case it makes sense to delete "objectionable content" but only on a case-by-case basis... except, the possibility that Wiktionary is actively pushing an elitist agenda... hmm... I'll shut up before I get silenced by le bowers that bee. :DDDDD AliHautala (talk) 07:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

My experience shows that Wiktionary is anything but elitist. There are occasional debates about whether something ought to be considered a word, or over whether particular meanings are supported, but in general it's not hard to get things into Wiktionary if you can show the appropriate amount of independent use. Since Finnish is fairly well documented on the internet... er, interwebz, it ought to be simple enough to find three mentions of Spider-Man in Finnish that merely allude to Spider-Man. For example, newspaper stories about someone scaling tall buildings or catching criminals with a net, or acquiring super-powers (or any abilities) through some kind of accident. If they're not discussions of Spider-Man, but assume that the reader already knows who Spider-Man is and are comparing someone or something else to him, then the entry can go in the main Wiktionary space. If they merely discuss Spider-Man as a character in works of fiction, then they might justify inclusion in an appendix of terms from or relating to Spider-Man, under a heading for "Finnish". It seems simple enough to create such an appendix, and I'm sure someone better versed in the process than I could help you get started. P Aculeius (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Fictional characters can't be included by virtue of being fictional characters, but they can be if they become part of the language outside of their fictional universe. If you can find quotes where someone who climbs really well is described as Hämähäkkimies, for instance, that would allow the entry to be kept. See WT:FICTION for details.

As for the issues you raised: this is a dictionary. We deal with words and phrases as words and phrases. An encyclopedia answers the questions such as "Who or what is Spiderman?" and "What are some interesting facts about Spiderman?". A dictionary answers the question "what does 'Spiderman' mean?". Every work of fiction has a number of characters in it- far too many to have entries on all of them. We don't a notability criterion like Wikipedia does, so we would end up with entries such as Alice stuffed full of every character in every book, play, poem, comic, comedy sketch, etc. with that name. As for religions: we have decided to treat religious figures differently, so that's not an issue- there's no danger of our deleting Zeus, for instance. Really, the only slippery slope here is the one that would have fans of all descriptions descending on us to get the characters in their favored works represented. I would rather avoid that. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, alright. Thanks, all of you, for clearing that up. I could find a bunch of cites for hämähäkkimies as a general noun, but uncapitalised. AliHautala (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Ämblikmees

Estonian for Spider-Man; WT:FICTION applies. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Uomo Ragno

Italian for Spider-Man; WT:FICTION applies. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:37, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Örümcek Adam

Turkish for Spider-Man; WT:FICTION applies. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Spindelmannen

Swedish for Spider-Man; WT:FICTION applies. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

It has been in use and is populary still in use, even if Swedish comic books now prefer to use the original name Spider-Man. [63]

Pókember

Hungarian for Spider-Man; WT:FICTION applies. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

You sure must believe you are making this dictionary more useful. We would have been better off having Spider-Man as well, but somone deemed Citations:Spider-Man not good enough. Unfortunately, Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2008-01/Appendices for fictional terms has passed and we are in trouble. From the value standpoint, how would anyone know that Spider-Man is Pókember? By going to another service, I guess: translate.google.com--Dan Polansky (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Keep: The entry contains valuable information. --Panda10 (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

On RFV voting doesn't trump evidence. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Dan Polansky: If you disagree with policy, create a vote to change it. If you made a good proposal, I might support it; I don't necessarily think that these entries must be excluded from the dictionary. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 18:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Plus this is a dictionary. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Σπάιντερμαν

Greek for Spider-Man; WT:FICTION applies. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 00:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

hvener

User:Dreysman, a native Swedish speaker, created this entry, and User:LA2, also a native Swedish speaker, says "There has never been such a word in Swedish. "vener" (without h-) was the old spelling and is the current one." —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 01:23, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

We might both be native speakers of modern Swedish, but no-one writes natively in the old spelling (with hv-) that this article claims to represent, the one that was abolished in the 1906 spelling reform. I challenge you all to find a book (from before 1906) that uses this spelling. I give you this counterexample from 1876, where several other words are spelled with "hv-" (hvad, hvarifrån, hvilka), but "vener" is spelled without hv. --LA2 (talk) 06:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The definition line says "Obsolete spelling". Obsolete means no longer used. So the entry is accurate by your own admission, right? Taken back. Let us see whether we can find attesting quotations. google books:"hvener". --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

If Dreysman thought this was an old spelling of the word for veins, it seems odd that he created the plural (*h)vener and not the singular (*h)ven. Köbler has hvener as an alt form of hvenær in Old Norse. Both capitalized and uncapitalized it also seems to exist as an obsolete spelling-and-typographical- variant of Hühner in (Old or Middle High) German. And it means something in Danish; Danish author w:da:Niels Birger Wamberg uses it in Mens tid er and Laurids Kristian Fahl uses it in Ordmagneten. I haven't seen Swedish uses of it. - -sche (discuss) 09:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

décime

RFV-sense "10 franc coin". Fr.Wikt only has "10 centime coin". Tagged (and then detagged, and now retagged) but not listed until now. - -sche (discuss) 21:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

mạn họa

This is obviously the Sino-Vietnamese reading of "manga". But I've never seen or heard that is actually ever used. "Comics" is called "truyện tranh". Kids nowadays also simply employ direct transcriptions such as "manga", "manhua", "manhwa", etc. ばかFumiko￥^talk 12:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

RFV failed ばかFumiko￥^talk 04:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• I've restored the page. Please read the text at the beginning of this page, and don't close RFV discussions as failed before a month has passed. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 13:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

scheisse (as an English word)

Also:

• Scheiß
• scheiß
• Scheiss
• Scheisse
• Scheiße
• scheiße

I'm very skeptical that any of these—but especially the ones spelled with ß—are used as English words. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The ones spelt with ß are rare but appear to be existent. [64] & [65] --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 14:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I've heard it used several times over the years by native English speakers, as a way to avoid saying shit. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Amusingly, Germans use shit as a euphemism to avoid saying Scheiße. However, spoken usage doesn't verify the spelling and capitalization. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

• I've added three or more quotations for each sense of scheisse and Scheisse. I've also added one quotation for each sense of Scheiss, but I can't find any more. As a side note, the redlink scheiss seems to be attestable as an English word from Usenet and Google Books. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 00:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Mr. Granger, I added a citation page for Scheiss, but I can’t find many results for the interjective sense. This is italicized and this appears to be spam of some sort. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 06:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

maristino

Esperanto for "female sailor". I can only find one use and one mention. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a perfectly correct and regularly formed Esperanto word. Mutichou (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

shorty

Rfv-sense: (slang, hip-hop) An attractive young female, especially: a girl who is "down", who is counted among close male friends and sometimes loose sexually; or, one's "girl", one's "boo"

It would help if there were citations, so we could execute the cleanup of this sense that was requested in 2010. DCDuring TALK 04:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Cited, senses split, cleaned up. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

"I got a shorty that makes the bed hop" (LL Cool J, Rub My Back). Something like 'attractive young woman'. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

That's a good looking entry. DCDuring TALK 19:24, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

antic

Rfv-sense: (obsolete) To make a fool of, to cause to look ridiculous.

Only cite is from Shakespeare. Two more needed. DCDuring TALK 05:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Considering how widely-read Shakespeare is, that there are whole dictionaries devoted to words used by Shakespeare, and that there are far fewer published works from the Elizabethan era that can be drawn on for evidence of a word's existence, shouldn't we include Shakespeare's writings under some sort of a notability criterion? I'm aware that there is no such criterion for English, but it seems odd to me that someone (like me) looking up a word they found in Shakespeare wouldn't be able to find it in Wiktionary because of our rigid CFI. This especially considering how many times the play from which the quote used to illustrate this sense is included in compilations of Shakespeare's plays, or reprinted in some format (see here).

As a side note, I'm fairly sure senses 2 and 4 are identical. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

There used to be a criterion like that, but it was removed by this vote. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 05:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

The well-known work exception to the requirement for three cites from well-attested languages allowed all Shakespearean, Joycean, and Pynchonic nonces to be included. With only a single use how is one supposed to determine what the "conventional" meaning of the term is? DCDuring TALK 13:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Senses 2 and 4 are certainly identical, but I'm not sure sense 3 should be distinguished from sense 2 either. If they're combined, then only one more citation would be needed. P Aculeius (talk) 10:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure about any of these, but what I found was this: Another, but different Shakespeare reference with the same (or highly similar) sense:

Another transitive use of antic as a verb with what looks to me like a similar sense:

And finally (and most dubiously)

Kiwima (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

edison bulb

Without the capital? If deleted, please remove link from Edison bulb too. Equinox ◑ 15:27, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I notice edison (spellcheck "corrected") is a red link, that speaks for itself. It should be removed, I think. Donnanz (talk) 00:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't appear at all in Google n-grams, which is case-sensitive. I couldn't find it a Google Books on the first 200 or so hits for "edison bulb" -"edison's bulb". I'd be happy to let it await another citer and, in due course, be deleted for lack of citations. DCDuring TALK 00:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

allycholly

The first ten pages of hits are all the same work. It doesn't even seem to be attested as a drunken spelling of alcohol, which is what I expected when I saw the page. - -sche (discuss) 23:08, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

According to some sources, the Shakespeare quote is a deliberate malapropism, so you would not expect any other cites. As for the drunken version of 'alcohol', I DID find one cite for that:

which is certainly not enough. Kiwima (talk) 05:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

degunkify

"To eliminate an existing or potential structural mess by replacing it with structural order to facilitate value creation." Glossed as a legal term. Equinox ◑ 14:46, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm calling it bogus. The definition is a word-for-word unattributed quotation of the allegedly Swenglish definition on page 2 of this PowerPoint presentation. Hits for the word in connection with intellectual property all seem to trace back to links with the Chalmers University of Technology and University of Gothenburg's "Center for Intellectual Property". It looks like Mr. Hermansson invented the definition and is trying to popularize it. P Aculeius (talk) 15:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Creative invention/ Just delete it? SemperBlotto (talk) 06:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Zamenfek

Supposedly an Esperanto curse. Nothing on Google Books, Google Groups, or Tekstaro. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 02:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Seems to have been made up as an insult to the language's creator, Dr. Zamenhof. His name doesn't appear as a valid Esperanto word in Esperanto dictionaries I've checked (Esperanto was his nom de plume when developing and popularizing the language, so he's hardly likely to have made a word out of his real surname). The entry was created by an IP editor last November, and at least some of the other entries created by the same IP look suspicious as well. P Aculeius (talk) 13:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

It's definitely not an Esperanto word. I think we can safely assume this word comes from the imagination of the author of the page. Mutichou (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

gag

RFV-sense of the military sense. Had been tagged RFC for years. - -sche (discuss) 19:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Was concealed as a quotation for a long time. Added by Ed Poor on October 13, 2006. User has been inactive for a long time, making only ten edits since 2007, and none since 2012. Not getting anything obviously relevant on Google Books or trying to combine key words and exclude irrelevant ones. This rather short glossary of user-submitted military slang supports the definition of "smoke" but doesn't suggest that it's synonymous with "gag". This one and this one don't mention either. There are tons of hits for "army slang" or "military slang", but they're not very well organized. So far I haven't found either "gag" or "smoke" apart from that first hit for "smoke." Maybe someone else will have more luck than I did, but my instinct is that the editor was confused about the word when this entry was made. P Aculeius (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I could find a good number of hits for "get|got smoked", but not for "get|got gagged". DCDuring TALK 01:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

denario

Rfv-sense denier (coin, weight). SemperBlotto added this, but it.wiki seems to say that only denaro means denier in the money sense (which we already have here); I can't figure out how the weight sense is translated into Italian. As for denario, I think it only means denarius. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 02:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Cassell's Italian Dictionary only lists monetary senses for denaro and doesn't include denario, although the Italian Wikipedia article denaro uses it to refer to the denarius. It doesn't include "denier" under English, so there's no equivalent. The Oxford Paperback Italian Dictionary was much less inclusive. Should see if there's a more authoritative Italian dictionary. Denaro (unità di misura) does discuss denaro or danaro as a unit of weight, but no source is given. It makes sense and I wouldn't doubt it for a minute, but it would be nice to have a source documenting it. It doesn't indicate whether denario (with an i) could also be used this way, although that would make sense in Latin. P Aculeius (talk) 04:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

mégafarad

@SemperBlotto, are you checking your creations for attestability? I don't see any uses on BGC. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 08:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• I've found one citation for usage (and, of course, lots of mentions in other dictionaries etc). So I suppose it will get deleted. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • p.s. Is the English translation OK - it doesn't seem to have any citations. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • p.p.s. If this fails, should we also remove the interwiki link to the French Wiktionary so that people are not directed to spurious information? SemperBlotto (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The "on a adopté mégafarad" citation is to me a clear mention, it means "one has adopted mégafarad" (i.e. the word mégafarad) which is a reference to the coinage of the word mégafarad to represent a million farads. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
    • No, it means they have adopted mégafarad as their base unit, rather than the farad.
• There is some confusion here. There are two meanings to mégafarad; one is a valid construction in the SI system of units of a unit of capacitance. While valid it is never used because it is larger than anything that would ever be encountered. The two citations in the article (both form non-durably archived bulletin boards) seem to be joking references to this. One is only in the signature of the contributor. The other meaning is an old unit of quantity of electric charge. The 1880 cite found by SemperBlotto seems to be this old meaning. The English megafarad entry causes this confusion by conflating the two meanings. I will fix this shortly, but the capacitance meaning has only one cite to a work of fiction, and has about as much connection to reality as photon torpedoes and flux capacitors. It is that entry that should be RFVed in my opinion. SpinningSpark 23:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

megafarad

Not sure why you added Italian, because I don't see any uses of this one either. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 19:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

• Well, I've added some Italian citations, but they are difficult to pick out from the English and they look a bit mentionish (and I'm not very good at formatting citations). SemperBlotto (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

  Only one of the citations you added is durably archived, and that one is a clear mention (it says "parole ... megafarad", so it's talking about it as a word). —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 20:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Russian obscure military terms

This is a partial list of these terms. There are almost certainly more. AFAIK they were all added by User:Stephen G. Brown. Translation as given in the entry follows in parens.

• бронирование кабины ("cockpit armor")
• диэлектрический обтекатель антенны ("dielectric antenna housing")
• задняя створка передней стойки шасси ("rear nosewheel door")
• крыльевой топливный бак ("wing fuel tank")
• люк ствола пушки ("cannon port")
• направляющая фонаря кабины ("cockpit canopy sliding guide")
• носовой радиопрозрачный обтекатель антенны радиолокационной станции ("dielectric plastic nose cap"??? is this mistranslated?)
  • "Radar-transparent nose radome" makes more sense. SpinningSpark 02:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
• подвод воздуха для охлаждения реактивного конуса ("tailpipe cooling air inlet")
• прибор управления фотопулемётом ("gun camera control device")
• рукоятка стояночного тормоза ("parking brake lock handle")
• передняя створка передней стойки шасси ("forward nosewheel door")
• чаша катапультируемого сиденья ("ejection seat pan")
• цилиндр выпуска воздушного тормоза ("airbrake jack")
• селекторная коробка двойного ручного управления силовой передачей ("transmission dual manual control box")

These terms are cute and some serve as interesting tests for my declension module because of their length, but I doubt very many if any are verifiable, and per User:Atitarev they're all SoP anyway.

Apologies if I should be splitting this request up; I'm not very familiar with the RFV procedure but it seemed to make most sense to process them all together. Benwing2 (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

• бронирование кабины ("cockpit armor") : google books:"бронирование кабины" - attested; move to RFD if it's not idiomatic
• диэлектрический обтекатель антенны ("dielectric antenna housing") : seems to be unattested and SOP
• задняя створка передней стойки шасси ("rear nosewheel door") : seems to be unattested and SOP
• крыльевой топливный бак ("wing fuel tank") : google books:"крыльевой топливный бак" - attested; move to RFD if it's not idiomatic
• люк ствола пушки ("cannon port") : seems to be unattested
• направляющая фонаря кабины ("cockpit canopy sliding guide") : seems to be unattested and SOP
• носовой радиопрозрачный обтекатель антенны радиолокационной станции ("dielectric plastic nose cap") : seems to be unattested
• подвод воздуха для охлаждения реактивного конуса ("tailpipe cooling air inlet") : seems to be unattested and SOP
• прибор управления фотопулемётом ("gun camera control device") : seems to be unattested and SOP
• рукоятка стояночного тормоза ("parking brake lock handle") : seems to be unattested and SOP
• передняя створка передней стойки шасси ("forward nosewheel door") : seems to be unattested and SOP
• чаша катапультируемого сиденья ("ejection seat pan") : seems to be unattested and SOP
• цилиндр выпуска воздушного тормоза ("airbrake jack") : seems to be unattested and SOP
• селекторная коробка двойного ручного управления силовой передачей ("transmission dual manual control box") : seems to be unattested and SOP

- -sche (discuss) 18:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I really appreciate the work. Benwing2 (talk) 06:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

doc

"A friend". Evidently intended to be the "what's up, doc?" sense. Is the definition correct? Could you say e.g. "I invited all of my docs to the party"? If not, we may need to redefine it as an informal term of address, or similar. Equinox ◑ 01:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

girl

Rfv-sense: A girl friend.

I'd like to know if this is used in a platonic context. As I've heard it being used more in platonic than romantic. In the mean time I will find quotations myself. Ubuntuuser13 (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Definition one ("a young female human") and two ("any woman, regardless of her age") and five cover non-romantic use, do they not? Are there citations where "girl" distinctively means "a female friend" and not "a [young] female (who may or may not be a friend)"? That might clarify matters. As it is, it seems like someone calling a female friend a "girl" is comparable to someone calling a blond-haired friend a "blond" — it doesn't cause "blond" to mean "a blond-haired friend", it's just the general definition. Usage like "girl, let's go see Andy!" seems like sense 5, the term of endearment. - -sche (discuss) 03:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

One and two are not, but five may be. That's one way to see it. Ubuntuuser13 (talk) 04:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I suspect what's being questioned is whether it can mean non-romantic friend in conjunction with a possessive: Can "She's my girl" and "Joanne's my sister's girl" refer to a platonic friend? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I would normally surmise from X(possessive) + girl that there was a romantic relationship, not necessarily sexual, between X and the referent of girl. I might further surmise that girl meant "best girl"/"the only one".

This doesn't seem like a semantic property of girl or of any single possessive word. There could be a semantic property of personal possessives in general that is needed to make the surmises.

That means that I do not think it is likely to prove a conventional use of girl to mean a non-romantic friend when used with a possessive, though some may use it that way, possibly to confuse or conceal.

BTW, in my idiolect, romantic and platonic are not antonyms, whereas platonic and sexual are and romantic and sexual overlap. DCDuring TALK 12:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

From what you've said, yes, they do refer to a platonic friend. Ubuntuuser13 (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

منطقه شهوانی

Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 03:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

pot-hole

Rfv-sense: "Used other than as an idiom: see pot,‎ hole"

I was unsure of whether to RFV or RFD, I think it might fail both. Pot-hole isn't an idiom it's a word. Are we going to add used other than as an idiom to catlike as well? Anyway since this isn't rfd I'll challenge existence first and we'll worry about acceptability later. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

pot-hole is used to mean a hole for pots in several stove patents and perhaps in other objects, as well as the ground. I thought the usage example was clear enough. I wonder whether someone refers to the location of their stash as a pot-hole.

I think it is also used to refer to holes the size or shape of a pot, to holes that serve as pots, privy holes, and exceptions to marijuana laws, none of them common and few with three citations. That is, it seems that the combination is productive. Even if there were more than three instances on a single type of use, it would hardly justify a definition.

By my lights only three cites of distinct uses would be required to justify a "literal" combination definition. DCDuring TALK 14:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Let's cite it first and worry about the rest later. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Why should I bother citing it if I cannot understand what type of cites would be deemed acceptable? I don't care that much about the definition. DCDuring TALK 17:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I've added three citations of "pot-hole" meaning "hole atop a stove, for a pot", but I can also cite "pothole" with that sense (and have added it there), so those citations are using the "alternative form of pothole" sense. - -sche (discuss) 18:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm seeing one, not three. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

translicense

Really? (might just be a verb) SemperBlotto (talk) 16:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

warp

RFV of four senses:

noun

1. (dialectal) The young of an animal when brought forth prematurely; a cast lamb, kid, calf, or foal.

verb

1. (obsolete, rare, intransitive) To weave.
2. (transitive, intransitive, dialectal, of a door) To throw open; to open wide.
3. (transitive, obsolete outside dialects) To utter, give utterance to.

- -sche (discuss) 05:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I tried to attest the noun sense, only found uses for what seemed to be past participles of the corresponding verb sense. DCDuring TALK 14:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Try While he doth mischief warp. for "to weave" Nevermind, this is already at sense 8. Some dictionaries have "weave" and "fabricate" in the same sense, where we show them separately (and curiously "weave" is intransitive. Should be make "weave" transitive and combine 7 & 8, do you think ? Leasnam (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Incorporating sense 7 into sense 8 as something like "to fabricate or weave (a plot or scheme)" would be fine. I RFVed it because it doesn't seem to ever mean "weave" in a literal, cloth-related sense when used intransitively, even though "weave" can be used that way, and even though some dictionaries imply that "warp" can be used that way. For example, Century has "II. intrans. [...] 5. to weave; hence, to plot", where the semicolon and "hence" implies they thought "warp" sometimes meant just "weave" (intransitively) and didn't always entail "plot". Curiously, their usex — "warping profit" — seems transitive (and the "plot" sense does seem to be, as we label it, ambitransitive). Btw, the English Dialect Dictionary lists several more senses of warp which I couldn't find any attestation for; I listed them on the talk page, if you happen to know of citations of any of them. - -sche (discuss) 21:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Verb sense 18, 3 above, is attested in in the OED in Middle English in various spellings and, barely, in EME in inflected forms warpit and warpis. DCDuring TALK 23:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Similarly for verb sense 2 above.

I could not find anything in the OED that corresponded to verb sense 1 above. DCDuring TALK 23:50, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• The OED has a large number of other definitions which, were they in our entry, especially in historical order or in a sense/subsense structure, would completely obscure the senses in current use. Even combining some of their barely distinguishable definitions would hardly help. Perhaps hiding (or omitting) all EME-only definitions would help. The sense development from "throw, cast", through "weave", to "twist" and "distort, bias" is probably fascinating as an object of study in the comparative historical semantics of Germanic languages, but in this case IMO might deter a language-learning user from ever coming to Wiktionary again.

Maybe we should select certain definitions in such entries for highlighting or exclusive or prominent display for default users and display full entries only to those who select an option to do so. DCDuring TALK 00:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the concern that someone unfamiliar with the word's common uses might be confused by the number of definitions if kept in generally historical order. But I disagree with the idea that keeping them in rough order is only of interest for obscure semantic study. The reason why OED and many other dictionaries tend to give definitions in historical order rather than frequency of use (often difficult to prove) is because the subtle meaning of a word in most or all of its uses is often derived from or based on those earlier uses, and knowing them or being able to peruse them helps a general understanding of the word's meaning. Most words, of course, don't have nearly as many meanings as this one, so readers aren't faced with the same level of difficulty sorting between inapplicable definitions and the one that fits the context in which they found it used.

That said, many of the 18 current definitions (three of which are RFV'ed) could be grouped or combined to make the senses easier to understand. For instance, senses 1 and 2 are simply transitive and intransitive versions of the same sense, as are senses 3 and 4; and all of them are very closely related. Senses 7 and 8 seem to be literal and metaphorical uses of the same sense, and seem related to senses 5 and 6; senses 10 and 11 are also transitive and intransitive versions of the same sense. The odd men out, largely ungroupable, are senses 9 and 12–18, which really shouldn't move much, except perhaps for moving sense 9 after the current sense 11.

I add that the number of notes preceding each definition looks quite distracting. Is it really helpful to describe the same sense as both rare and obsolete? Surely if the term is obsolete, it would rarely be encountered. Why does the verb's transitive or intransitive nature precede other descriptions in every sense except sense 7? Figuratively doesn't make sense in sense 8, unless plots are normally woven from real fabric. I would definitely combine 7 and 8: "to weave, fabricate; metaphorically, to plot" or something along those lines. P Aculeius (talk) 14:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I take (rare,obsolete) to mean that the term is obsolete and that, even when it was not obsolete, it was rare. The grammatical notes about countability and transitivity have been thought to be helpful in differentiating senses. I thought that all of weave, fabricate, and plot were metaphorical or figurative senses of the verbs used. I don't think that literal and metaphorical senses should be grouped. We might end up with very short lists of definitions for a term like head, as virtually all but one of the senses are figurative or metaphorical. What we see in the "weave, fabricate, plot" definition is an example of why a polysemic term can be confusing in a definition. We sometimes have list-of-synonyms definitions, usually copying Webster 1913. They can be among our least comprehensible definitions. DCDuring TALK 14:53, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I've combined the "intransitive: weave" and "plot" senses in the manner Leasnam and I discussed, which makes clear (IMO) that it doesn't refer to literal weaving of cloth. Yes, "obsolete, rare" indicates that the sense was rare even when it wasn't obsolete; I've reordered it to "rare, obsolete". I've subsensed some of the senses; if the RFVed senses fail, there'll be only 9 noun and 9 verb senses, plus subsenses. - -sche (discuss) 16:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

It looks much better. Perhaps we should have at least one usage example for each of the current definitions and none for the obsolete, rare, or specialized senses to give more visual weight to the current definitions.

By comparison, for the verb OED has 53 definitions (!!!), including subsenses, in 30 senses. 29 definitions don't have three citations from 1470 or later, some not even any citations in Middle English. That would give them 24, where we would have 17 after the expected RfV failures. We haven't yet been excessively inclusive. DCDuring TALK 17:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

epicaric

I had deleted it as a protologism but the creator commented on my talk page: "This word is derived from the Greek language. Examples exist of its use as 'epikarik' in Middle-English, and it was used sparingly in some writing during the renaissance period. I can probably find specific examples but don't have the time to at the moment. I'm guessing it seems like a protologism because it is an archaic, little used modifier, and in English this phenomena is usually described by nouns only (epicaricacy, schadenfreude)." I can't seem to find it though. Equinox ◑ 19:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I've had a quick go and I can't find epikarik. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

gutbread

All hits are for "The pancreas is vulgarly termed the "gutbread" or "belly sweetbread," and -is the article which would be supplied in the great majority of cases by butchers asked for sweetbread." which isn't actually a use. Any more? DTLHS (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I've added some additional citations Leasnam (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

cited. tag removed from the page. If everyone is okay with this, I suppose we can close ? Leasnam (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

• Unstriking, and I've restored the tag. Of the nine citations currently on the page, five (1999a, 1999b, 2006, 2007, and 2014) are of different spellings (either gut bread or gut-bread) and five (1909, 1967, 1999a, 2007, and 2014) are mentions. Moreover, 1999b appears to be SOP gut + bread and 2013 is hyphenated at a line break. That leaves only one solid citation (1920) of this spelling. If we lump together the 1920, 2006, and 2013 citations, that would give us three uses (of two different spellings), but then it is not obvious whether the entry should be kept at gutbread or moved to gut-bread. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 01:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I see that we also have entries for gut-bread and gut bread. I've tagged them with {{rfv}} as well, so that we can discuss all three forms together. I've also added some more quotations to gutbread, including a use of "gut-bread" from the 1909 work. As far as I can tell, we now have two citations (1919 and 1928) of "gut bread", two citations (1909 and 2006) of "gut-bread", one citation (1920) of "gutbread", and one citation (2013) that is ambiguous between "gut-bread" and "gutbread". —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 02:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Google ngram only shows for gut-bread [[66]] Leasnam (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Is an instance of reported speech a mention? DCDuring TALK 12:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think so—if there's a quote like "Mary said she wanted to buy some gutbread", I think that would be an acceptable citation. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

My long-term position has been that quotations for gutbread, gut bread and gut-bread should not be pooled. Other editors may differ. As for mentions, I agree with Mr. Granger's assessment above. I agree that the 1920 quotation is the only CFI-good one. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I do differ on that opinion. I see no negative issues resulting in pooling alternative forms. When I learned English, I learned it first by the hearing of the ear, associating the sounds with the concept. Only later did spelling come into play. So for me and millions of others like me, a "classroom" is one word, representing one thing, whether it is spelt "classroom", "class-room", or "class room". Those are just different styles of displaying the idea. As a native speaker, I grew up accustomed to the fact that words can have multiple spellings, but they are the same word; not different words. The spelling represents the word, not the other way around. So too is it for me with "gut-bread". In speech there is no distinction between it and "gutbread" or "gut bread". We must take heed that rare words do not suffer due to the fact that there may be more than one way to spell it. Leasnam (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Non-lemma entries such as alternative forms should generally not contain quotations, which should instead be placed at the lemma entry. The OED, for example, often notes multiple variant spellings, but quotations are all under the headword. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

catanyol

RFV of the Spanish word. "catanyol" is attested as a Catalan word, and the expected Spanish spelling "catañol" is attested as a Spanish word, but I can't find any quotations of "catanyol" used as a Spanish word. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 00:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Russian obscure military terms, part 2

• баллон противопожарной установки "fixed fire extinguisher cylinder"
• коробка двойного ручного управления силовой передачей "transmission dual manual control box"
• стойка шасси с масляно-пневматической системой амортизации "oleo-pneumatic leg" (may not be SOP?)
• панель эксплуатационного лючка "inspection panel"
• передняя бронеперегородка "forward armor bulkhead"
• поперечная тяга педалей руля направления "rudder bar" (may not be SOP?)
• разъём тяги руля поворота "rudder control link"
• сбрасываемый сдвижной фонарь кабины "jettisonable sliding cockpit canopy"
• элемент крепления шасси "undercarriage member"
• элерон левой консоли крыла "port aileron"
• элерон правой консоли крыла "starboard aileron"

I can't find any of these in Google Books. I've left out some other terms that look SOP but are attested. Benwing2 (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

exeunts

I don't understand how a third person singular form is even possible for a verb we've defined as "They leave the stage." Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:51, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

• Cited. I added the labels nonstandard and jocular. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:26, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

pizzaboy

Looks weird without a space. Google Books finds mostly a nickname "Pizzaboy". Equinox ◑ 02:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Groups gets some valid results. Surely not all of them are amateur speakers. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 02:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

žižljiv

BrunoMed again. @Ivan Štambuk, can you look at his contributions? Is it time to block him for even longer? —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 21:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

folfutik

Volapük for quadripedal. No hits on Google Groups or Google Books. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 21:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

dinosaurablud

Volapük for dinosaur blood. Nothing on Google Books or Google Groups. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 22:13, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

dinosaurafösil

Volapük for dinosaur fossil. Nothing on Google Books or Google Groups. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 22:15, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Volapük words for dinosaur

jidinosaurül, jidinosaur, ledinosaur, dinosaurül, hidinosaurül, hidinosaur, and dinosauril. All refer to dinosaurs (young female, female, big, young, young male, male, and small). None have any results on Google Books or Google Groups as far as I can tell. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 22:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Swedophone

This is not verified and sounds like it's not really right. OTOH, I quickly find sources for the word suecophone which is listed at -phone: [67], [68], [69]. 83.251.82.102 11:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I've added an adjective sense and three quotations for each sense. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 13:33, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

"Purists" may not like it, but it makes sense as the vast majority of English speakers won't know what the Latin for Sweden is. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

beamer

Rfv-sense - an employee of IBM. Any takers? (I've only ever heard of (deprecated template usage) IBMer) SemperBlotto (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• User:Bgoldnyxnet and I have added several quotations, and I think the form "Beamer" is now adequately attested. The form "beamer" only has two quotations, so unless more can be found, I suggest moving the sense to Beamer. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 18:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

And User:Bgoldnyxnet has made the move I suggested. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Nevidebla Rozkolora Unukornulo

And the alternative forms nevidebla rozkolora unukornulo, Nevidebla Rozokolora Unukornulo, and nevidebla rozokolora unukornulo, and the initialism NRU. Esperanto for Invisible Pink Unicorn. Nothing on Google Books, Google Groups, or Tekstaro that I can find. Some of these forms are listed as having plurals and others aren't, so if any of the forms turn out to be citeable, it would be nice to figure out whether or not they have plurals. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 18:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

hu

Rfv-sense: Esperanto for "boo". I'm not sure which interjection sense of "boo" is intended, but I can't find any evidence that the word is used either to scare people or to indicate disapproval at a performance. It is in John C. Wells' Esperanto-English dictionary, and he seems to mean the disapproval sense. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 03:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

repór

I highly doubt that Galician uses this form. The correct form is repor. --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 09:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

platinum gay

Equinox ◑ 11:04, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

futured

Of a language: having the future tense. Not apparent in Google Books. Equinox ◑ 11:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

All I can find is this master's thesis which uses the term in quotation marks. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 13:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

This transcript of a TED talk is presumably durably archived somewhere, but I couldn't actually prove it. SpinningSpark 13:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Keith Chen, "Could your language affect your ability to save money?", TEDGlobal 2012, June 2012.

• What you see is that these bars are systematically taller and systematically shifted to the left compared to these bars which are the members of the OECD that speak futured languages.

There is also a lot of people writing about Chen's talk, this Huffington Post article for instace ("Futured language speakers, presumably seeing the future as distant and less important..."). So do we accept the Huffington Post as durably archived? And more generally, do we accept articles talking about Chen as being independent? SpinningSpark 13:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

The master's thesis linked to above is also just quoting Chen. I wish economists would stick to economics and let linguists do the linguistics. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

and perhaps you also think that Samuel Morse should have stuck to art and left telegraph design to the engineers? SpinningSpark 22:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Not knowing anything about telegraph design, I'm not in a position to say whether Morse had as poor an understanding of it as Chen has of linguistics. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

This one is unarguably a print source as Infotrac returns the page number: SpinningSpark 13:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Wan A Hulaimi, "The connection between language and money", New Straits Times, p. 22, 6 September 2015

• Futured language speakers, he says, tend to save less than those whose language is unfutured.

If the "he" in that sentence refers to Chen, we still don't have independent usage. So far, everyone using this word is either Chen or quoting Chen. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

P.S. If this does fail RFV, the link from futureless needs to go. Equinox ◑ 14:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Dahl uses the term futureless repeatedly in Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe which I found from the bibliography of this published paper by Chen (don't know why I didn't find that earlier). Chen also, after several mentions, actually uses the term without quotes: "In Europe for example, most Germanic and Finno-Ugric languages have been futureless for hundreds of years ." SpinningSpark 17:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Equinox is saying that the link to futured in the entry futureless should be removed if this fails (which I agree with), not that the entry futureless should be deleted. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 21:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I misread that comment. SpinningSpark 12:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

confessio

Praise of superior attribute in another. There are several meanings that are close enough for this to be plausible, but I can't find it directly. —JohnC5 15:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

quizzaciously

A famous YouTuber humorously coined this word in a video so it's all over the Internet, but real usage is rare or non-existent. The adjective quizzacious itself is a single writer's nonce word. Equinox ◑ 22:49, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

cumque

Latin adverb. RFV for the recently added sense "and when" (added five days ago). — I.S.M.E.T.A. 23:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no doubt it's attestable, but it's just cum + -que, and since -que can be added to just about anything in Latin, the established practice here (confirmed about 3 years ago by the discussion at Talk:fasque#Deletion debate) is not to include such forms. And I see it's already been removed; so I hereby support the removal of this sense (but not the "however, whenever, etc." sense, which is legitimate). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:52, 24 February 2016 (UTC) Now it's been restored, so I say skip the RFV and delete per precedent. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:41, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• Removed. This is not deemed acceptable content, both by the standards of the Latin editing community and by precedent, as Angr noted. Moreover, this is the wrong forum to have this discussion; there is no reason to fill RFV with RFD matters. If you want to continue it, do so there. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 22:31, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

sexual intercourse

What's the f-ing (!) difference between these definitions? I mean #1 is just a special case of #2:

1. Coitus or genital-genital sexual contact; copulation.
2. Sexual interaction, usually involving vaginal and/or anal and/or oral penetration, between at least two organisms.

--Hekaheka (talk) 06:58, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

It appears that the second one includes oral and anal sex; the first one doesn't. However, "normal" traditional sex is covered by both definitions, which seems a bit redundant. Equinox ◑ 07:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Some authorities consider true sex to only be genital to genital (i.e.penis in vagina). I have heard this stricter, more technical definition on sex talk shows, so it does exist. Everything else (sense 2 above) would be considered "sexual activity" (by them) Leasnam (talk) 07:48, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's an RFV issue (no-one's challenging existence are they?) so much as we need a penis-in-vagina definition and one to cover other forms considered intercourse. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Which issue would it be, then? --Hekaheka (talk) 18:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Tea room, RFC or RFD. Personally I'd go with Tea room. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Pseudo-Mazedonismus

German. — Ungoliant ^(falai) 17:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

forté

Sources are needed for this accented variant. The word exists in Italian (language typically used for musical dynamic indications) only in its non-accented form, and it is unclear how can one infer the existence of an accent while claiming that it is " used [...] in its abbreviated form f " --Gengis Gat (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

If it's attested, I'd call it a misspelling. In fact, I predict this misspelling is more common for forte in the sense of 'strength, talent' than in the musical sense. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've added another sense (with quotations) to the entry, and converted the rfv to an rfv-sense as a result. For the challenged sense, I've only been able to find two citations [70] [71], of which one uses quotation marks and the other uses italics. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 21:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

While not being a French speaker, I'd argue that even the use of forté in the sense of "strong" could be considered a (possibly common) misspelling, as the word does not exist in French. After a quick search in various online dictionaries I was only able to find it in the Urban Dictionary, which I guess is not an authoritative source. Anyway, I am only sure of my opinions for what concerns the musical meaning. (Disclaimer: I've come here because of today's xkcd comic). --Gengis Gat (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I found a third quote: [[72]]. In addition, there are a few that are the same basic idea, but not really an adjective: [This] is a noun, [[73]] simply calls it a musical term, and [[74]] describes a stop on an organ. Kiwima (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

angkop na kubtangkas

Questionable Tagalog math terminology. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 05:57, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

gǎixíng

改行 should be gǎiháng. Are there any other words pronounced as gǎixíng? — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 11:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Justinrleung: 改行 (行 in the sense of acts), 改型. --kc_kennylau (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kc kennylau: Thanks! — justin(r)leung _{{ (t...) | c=› }} 16:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

lexiphane

Unlike lexiphanic and lexiphanicism, I cannot find lexiphane in any dictionary or in Google Books (the hits are of a proper noun). Nibiko (talk) 14:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I've added three quotations, though one of them strangely says "I'm not lexiphanic; I'm just a lexiphane." There is a lot of interference from the proper nouns Lexiphane and Lexiphanes. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:45, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

jifösilavan

Volapük for "female paleontologist". Nothing on Google Groups or Google Books. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 01:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

hifösilavan

Volapük for "male paleontologist". Nothing on Google Books or Google Groups. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 01:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

krizeskar

Ido word with an unknown definition. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 14:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Speedied as no definition nor citations. Use Requested Entries instead of creating a basically empty entry. Equinox ◑ 14:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Volapük words for goats

User:Hans-Friedrich Tamke, who became inactive in 2014, created entries for a large number of seemingly unattestable Volapük terms, especially for animals. These are the ones that refer to goats: hikapar, hikaparanatäl, hikaparanatälik, hikaparil, hikaparül, hokapar, jikapar, jikaparil, jikaparül, jokapar, kaparil, kaparül. None have any hits on Google Books or Google Groups as far as I can tell. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 15:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

It seems that quite a few of these Volapük words never entered the mainstream. Perhaps a deletionist rampage would now be acceptable? --Romanophile ♞ (contributions) 15:52, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Weird, I recently published a book called "Volapük words for goats". --Sit comfy (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

olli

RFV of Latin section. Supposedly poetic dative plural and ablative plural forms of olla (“pot”). The form is not mentioned by Lewis & Short, du Cange, Gaffiot, or the OLD. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 03:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

googology and googolplexian

The study of large numbers and one with a googolplex zeroes. 2602:306:3653:8920:C159:1712:7479:32E9 22:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I've added three quotations for googolplexian. —Mr. Granger (talk • contribs) 23:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I've added two quotes for googology. Kiwima (talk) 00:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

narta

Latin:

1. ski

scienceman

Scientist. Seems to be creole or learner error. Equinox ◑ 14:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)