Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:33, 5 May 2022

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

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

Shortcuts:
WT:RFVE
WT:RFV:en

This page is for entries in English. For entries in other languages, see Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English.

Newest 10 tagged RFVs

attended
abasia atactica
PEQVI
Mahdi
labimeter
kyaw
kneck
on
comey
boygina

Scope of this request page:

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

Templates:

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

Shortcut:

WT:RFV

July 2021

PMV

— sur jec tion ⟨??⟩ 12:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for "PMV" "music video" I find it standing for several other things (see Talk:PMV), but not this. I also found enough citations to attest "public motor vehicle" as a sense; see Citations:PMV. - -sche (discuss) 14:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to exist. See e.g. "I hope you enjoy this PMV" [1] or "I know this song has been in other PMV's by other YouTube bronies" [2]. Searching for PMV my little pony yields more. Mihia (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to find any durably archived citations other than a single rather mentiony one. I did, however, find and add a number of other initialisms. Kiwima (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can't claim "clearly widespread use", but I do think we can claim "clearly in use", and I hope that this might be enough to save the entry. These kinds of terms are by their nature unlikely to appear in traditional "permanently recorded media", but I don't see that as any good reason why we should not include them. This is exactly the sort of thing that someone might encounter and would want to look up. They would find it in Urban Dicktionary, and we wouldn't want to lose readers to that, right? If necessary, can we upload screenshots as a permanent record of use? (I know this has been mentioned before, probably by me.) Mihia (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it is clearly in use, although it does not meet our CFI. I also think this is another example of why our CFI is in need of updating, as we are in danger of becoming less relevant for modern users. Kiwima (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What about screenshots uploaded to Commons with lots of metadata about url, time and date of capture, etc. with multiple confirmations that the url was authentic? DCDuring (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Never having done this before, I am not sure I have done it correctly, but I have tried to create a vote for handling entries like this. Please weigh in! Kiwima (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021

melanoheliophobia

Fear of black holes. Equinox ◑ 17:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fear of made-up phobias. – Jberkel 10:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This means a fear of a black Sun – not even a black star. A black hole would become μέλαινα ὀπή (mélaina opḗ) when translated (by calquing) to Ancient Greek. --Lambiam 12:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the poor construction (as many words have poorly selected roots), the meaning is clear from the way people on social media keep re-stating the definition, as the fear of black holes. #melanoheliophobia. -- 65.92.246.43 02:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, people repeating a word, and saying "what a funny word this is", doesn't demonstrate actual usage or adoption into the language. (People have made good money selling books that are just "lists of phobias" that no doctor in the world would recognise, and perhaps have never been genuinely used at all.) Currently we don't usually allow tweets as citations either (WT:CFI), but I suppose that will change some day, since even the OED cites tweets. Equinox ◑ 02:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've only been able to find the one (repeated) usage on Google Books. No hits on Google Scholar nor Issuu, and I've seen no news articles thus far. AG202 (talk) 04:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those humorous pseudo-Latin coinages like necrohippoflagellation where half the joke is being able to work out the intended meaning with a basic knowledge of Latin roots. Sadly, it doesn't seem to be attestable by our standards at the moment. The Killers of the Cosmos cite is a use and CFI-compliant. The books have melanoheliophobic as a use, but only a mention of melanoheliophobia. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has put a lot of (not durably archived) quotes on the page, but as @WordyAndNerdy says, all we really have is Killers of the Cosmos, unless you want to count the rather mention-y quote from Omnidoxy. Kiwima (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See Wiktionary:Votes/2022-01/Handling_of_citations_that_do_not_meet_our_current_definition_of_permanently_archived. Kiwima (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021

sin flattening

Nothing obvious on Google Books, Google Scholar, or Issuu. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 09:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest reliably-dated uses I can find on twitter or elsewhere on the 'raw' web are from 2018 (in both cases). It's used in online exvangelical discourse (possibly coined by Kristen Rawls and popularized by Chrissy Stroop), but not often enough to have made it into anywhere durable AFAICT. - -sche (discuss) 04:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Andy

Rfv-sense "(Internet slang, sometimes derogatory) A live streamer, particularly one who makes uninteresting and repetitive live streams" — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely exists, usually as the second part of a compound: KnowYourMeme, reddit. Probably won't pass RFV though. Fytcha (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022

anasteemaphilia

If the usage note is true, then maybe it can be moved to Appendix:English dictionary-only terms. But who knows, maybe someone can scrape together 3 actual usages. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Has two uses (citations tab) and a mention (talk tab) so far. The uses are kinda mentiony though but maybe that's par for the course with more technical-sounding terms. Arlo Barnes (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

christcuck

This does not seem durably attestable per Google Books and Google News, and the definition is probably wrong anyway. Attested use seems to mean "Christian cuckservative". ~~←₰-→~~ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

gox

With the meaning "The alfaproteobacterid organism Gluconobacter oxydans.". Moved over from Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/English#gox. Tagged by User:Pious Eterino here. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 20:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have been used attributively in gox 1122 and gox 0499, referring to genes of the organism, in perhaps two articles. GOx can also refer to glucose oxidase, which unfortunately occurs in many articles that also refer to G. oxydans. GOX might be in attributive use in those articles with either meaning. My biochemistry is nowhere close to good enough to tell which.

GOX and GOx can also refer to "gaseous oxygen", as used in rocket engines. DCDuring (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022

Gezlik

Only one internet news article mentions this location- I added it to Citations:Gezlik. Does not yet have two more cites unless there are some maps or unsearchable sources. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we use the Arabic spelling? It should be easier to find. The Uyghur Wikipedia has it .... I searched for gezlik and got this .... [[3]] .... but its only using Gezlik as a transliteration. It might be better to just use the Arabic spelling and then respell it in the definition the way we do with some other languages using foreign alphabets like Russian.—Soap— 10:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Minor geography like this will always be hard to nail down with the three cites system. If you find examples of any of the other spellings, those would be helpful long term, even if the three cites for one of the spellings can't be found. At minimum, they could be saved on the Citations page in case this location got more attention in the future. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

oof

ergative video game verb, "to kill". Equinox ◑ 10:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This term is definitely in usage (search "oofed" on YouTube as an example), though I think it's going to be difficult to find durably archived cites, as it's mainly used within the Roblox-playing community it seems, especially from a much younger demographic. See also Oof sound effect on Wikipedia and OOF on KnowYourMeme. AG202 (talk) 09:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bushtard

--Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks citable from Usenet: [4] [5]. 70.172.194.25 00:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I get no results there; logged in to gmail. What does it look like? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to add a usenet cite- this is my first attempt ever. Let me know if my usenet cite is correctly done (that is- you can find the post I'm citing and it was appropriate to cite that post). --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LGTM. The only thing I would add is |url= with the link to the Google Groups post, but I suppose it's not required by our rules. 70.172.194.25 01:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

pigskin

Ethnic slur for a white person. Equinox ◑ 01:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Googling "you pigskins" turns up a tiny handful of uses, e.g. a commenter here, and a now-deleted Reddit account that said "Cause you pigskins are great at both. Remember when a white dude, Brock turner, raped a woman and then another white dude let him off Scott free." For some of the cites it's not clear to me what race is being slurred, since a comparison between brown human skin and a brown pigskin (“football”) is also possible. Unless we want to invoke the online-cites rule and scrape some very low-quality sites, I think this will fail like Talk:pukeskin and Talk:pinkskin. - -sche (discuss) 22:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

mister

(obsolete) Need (of something).
- 1485, Sir Thomas Malory, “viij”, in Le Morte Darthur, book VII:
  And thenne the grene knyghte kneled doune
  and dyd hym homage with his swerd
  thenne said the damoisel me repenteth grene knyghte of your dommage
  and of youre broders dethe the black knyghte
  for of your helpe I had grete myster
  For I drede me sore to passe this forest
  Nay drede you not sayd the grene knyghte
  for ye shal lodge with me this nyghte
  and to morne I shalle helpe you thorou this forest
  (please add an English translation of this quotation)
(obsolete) Necessity; the necessary time.
- 1485, Sir Thomas Malory, chapter XV, in Le Morte Darthur, book I:
  It was by Merlyns auyse said the knyghte
  As for hym sayd kynge Carados
  I wylle encountre with kynge bors
  and ye wil rescowe me whan myster is
  go on said they al
  we wil do all that we may
  (please add an English translation of this quotation)

Removed / moved to Middle English by Astova. J3133 (talk) 21:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to exist with both of these senses, but again, searching is challenging. This, that and the other (talk) 09:12, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cited Kiwima (talk) 11:05, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "need" sense may be Scots only. Words such as mair and quhen are (questionably imho) given as English by us, but I would say the Philotus and Pinkerton texts are Scots. I'm no expert though. Do we have Scots editor(s)? This, that and the other (talk) 01:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 06:44, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022

coon dick

Rfv-sense: The penis bone of a raccoon. Possibly made up sense? —Svārtava (t/u) • 14:28, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It appears to exist: [6], [7], [8]. 70.172.194.25 17:23, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The definition is for the penis bone, which is only referred to in the second of your three quotes. Of course, raccoon anatomy being what it is, any raccoon penis is going to include a penis bone- but the definition seems to call for the bone without the soft tissue. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest just revising the definition to just "The penis of..." rather than "The penis bone of..." per the cites; I see no reason to think the phrase would ever refer specifically to the bone to the exclusion of soft tissue. - -sche (discuss) 20:10, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The term seems to refer to the use of the raccoon penis bone as a talisman or trophy (compare [9]). The uses found by our IP support this as a non-hyphenated term, coon dick. Whether it would pass RFD is another matter. This, that and the other (talk) 06:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cited. I moved the entry to coon dick, as that is the more common form. If you consider it SOP, you can bring that up at RFD, but I would vote to keep it, because it really is the bone rather than the penis itself, so I think the fried egg rule applies. Kiwima (talk) 23:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bangla

Rfv-sense 2. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 15:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cited Kiwima (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

katabasis

The one definition says "A journey downwards: a journey downhill, a decrease of winds, a military retreat, a trip to the underworld; a trip from the interior of a country to the coast." I highly doubt it's used in English of going downhill, a decrease in winds, or a trip to the coast. The senses should also be separated. --Simplificationalizer (talk) 22:49, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The OED's definition is very specific: "A going down; a military retreat, in allusion to that of the ten thousand Greeks under Xenophon, related by him in his Anabasis." (The situation seems similar to tetragamy, which I was looking at just now; we define it as "marriage for a fourth time", but in practice it only refers to the so-called Tetragamy affair of Leo VI the Wise.)

Wikipedia has an article about this word's varied meanings, which is worth consulting. Anyone trying to cite this should also look for uses of the alternative form catabasis. This, that and the other (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are we sure it means a decrease in winds rather than a downhill motion ? I would expect it to align with the meaning of katabatic. —Soap— 17:32, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That sense is nonsense and is going to get deleted soon. However, sense 4 is not nonsense. When I was searching for this word a few weeks ago I remember finding various things that hinted at that sense - perhaps they were mentions or italicised uses. Some more looking might be in order. This, that and the other (talk) 13:46, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Senses 1, 2 and 3 cited. Sense 4 is a definite maybe. Sense 5 can fail. This, that and the other (talk) 04:04, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cited. I changed the wind definition to the presence of katabatic winds, which is used in some of the literature about Antarctica, although it is rare. Kiwima (talk) 05:12, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 08:50, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

pragmatum

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 11:06, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cited. It is often italicized, indicating code-switching, but there are enough unitalicized uses out there that I accept it as an English term, at least on the part of some philosophers. Kiwima (talk) 05:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 08:51, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

street shitter

Rfv-sense 2. A cat added claims it to be 4chan slang. --Richard-of-Earth (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a 4chan meme about "designated shitting streets", documented here on KnowYourMeme: [10]. Equinox ◑ 17:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added two cites. But from them, it seems more like a generic insult for street people rather than someone of a specific ethnicity or who literally defecates on the street. Kiwima (talk) 05:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FaCIAbook

This has failed before, and no citations have been added, so it could probably be deleted immediately. However, now that the CFI has been updated to allow for online sources, this term could potentially be cited using Twitter and various other websites, provided that the community agrees with it (compare dorcassing, sniddy). 70.172.194.25 07:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, agree with that. Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have added a bunch of cites to the citations page. Does anyone know how we go about voting whether they are acceptable? Kiwima (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

creeper

Rfv-sense "(video gaming) A mottled black-and-green enemy in the video game Minecraft, which attacks the player by chasing them and exploding.", see WT:FICTION. Tagged as RFD here and removed out of process here. See also WT:RFDE#creeper. I've restored the sense as this is clearly an RFV issue. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 16:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why bother really? I don't see how this can be cited independent of reference to the game universe, since even the definition mentions Minecraft! Equinox ◑ 17:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You could've at least had this discussion first. See also: Pikachu, Scooby-Doo, which unsurprisingly you nominated for deletion yourself, Jigglypuff, Count Dracula, and more in Category:en:Fictional characters. Regardless of how you personally feel about these entries, consensus and CFI point towards finding figurative usages before deleting the entry, so you really should not have speedily deleted it, especially considering that you've participated in these discussions before. Let alone the fact that someone else already suggested that it was an RFV issue before you speedily deleted it, and then you then chose to ignore repeated suggestions to move it to RFV. That overall bothered me. In terms of the RFV though, @WordyAndNerdy I know you mentioned cites for it specifically in the RFD discussion, and I can look for some as well later. AG202 (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I remember stating that I'd seen this used figuratively in the wild. I don't remember stating that I'd already found CFI-compliant cites for it. I would've added them to the citations page if I had. I haven't had much luck with this even using precise search terms. "Like a creeper" mostly nets comparisons to clinging plants and creepy/stalkerish people. "Creeper" + "blow up" returns equal parts Minecraft game guides and science-fiction novels where various monsters called "creepers" are destroyed with explosives. I encountered the same signal-to-noise problem when I tried to attest figurative usage of Chewie. The cites are out there but there's only so many times I want Google to force me to identify boats and traffic lights because it thinks using advanced search functions means you're a bot. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I dug deep and found some diamond blocks...I mean, eleven years of Twitter cites. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ashcoloured

Can't find unhyphenated, though there are many scannos and hyphens at the line break. Equinox ◑ 17:35, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cited. I could find sufficient instances of ash-colored, ashcolored, ash-coloured, and this one, ashcoloured. I made ash-colored the primary entry, as it is the most common. Kiwima (talk) 00:43, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Incredible but okay! Thanks — mainly for the sanity of centralising around the common form. above and beyond! Equinox ◑ 00:50, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 06:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

byhanger

Equinox ◑ 18:41, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's in OED with one cite for each sense. In EEBO I find an additional cite for the "hanger-on" sense, and another text by Foxe (who is also responsible for one of the OED cites) which doesn't make a lot of sense to me: what are "byhangers of accidentes" and "byhangers of bread"? This, that and the other (talk) 08:53, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 08:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

troid

The three quotes given are not durable. This meaning does not show up in the first 10 pages of my googling of "troids". Seems to be the dominant use of "troids" on Twitter, although that isn't saying much.--Simplificationalizer (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CFI has never explicitly precluded online sources. It was just commonly interpreted that way for a long time due to unclear wording. A recent vote updated CFI to explicitly allow online sources for attestation provided editors reach a consensus through "discussion lasting at least two weeks." It's unclear whether that means a two-week discussion to consider each online source (e.g. one for Twitter, one for Reddit, etc.) or every single term attested with online sources. The latter would be an unnecessary and obstructionist consumption of editors' limited time.

In any case, I'm satisfied with the provided citations. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

adultcentrist

Beside this scare quote usage [11], seems quite rare. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:29, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can also find it in the English abstract of a Spanish-language paper: [12]. It seems to be a calque of Spanish adultocentrista, which is citeable in that language. This, that and the other (talk) 04:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cited Kiwima (talk) 02:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 00:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

orc

Sense Russian soldier. It's probably been used, but not as a distinct sense, just a general term of abuse.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:44, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The usage that might be English usage that I've seen is in Western news articles reporting on Ukrainian use of the term. Presumably, the term is attestable in Ukrainian. Orc is almost always accompanied by a "translation", usually "Russian soldier". DCDuring (talk) 21:28, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added several quotations to the entry itself. The term indeed originates from Ukrainian and is mostly used in the context of the Ukraine-Russia wars. Bommbass (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been nice if they were properly formatted.

At least 4/6 are from sources that, prima facie, are not-durably archived. (See WT:ATTEST.) The same 4/6 are fairly clearly written by authors and editors for whom English is not their native language and are all part of Ukrainian PR. OTOH the Time and Daily Kos cites, though possibly not durable archived, do seem to use the word as defined, though the Daily Kos uses it in uppercase, as if it were a demonym, which seems a meaningful distinction in this context.

All things considered, it would be better if we did not rely on the Ukrainian-source cites and it would help all the cites were in lower case. They could be from UseNet, though that has become difficult to efficiently search. DCDuring (talk) 16:20, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pre-"special military operation" cites include:

2015, April 16, Leo Barraclough, "Russia Bans ‘Child 44’ for Portraying Soviets as a ‘Bloody Mass of Orcs and Ghouls’", Variety
Culture minister Vladimir Medinsky said the movie, which was due to be released on Friday, portrayed Soviet citizens as “physical and moral subhumans, a bloody mass of orcs and ghouls.” Medinsky said the film makes Russia out to be “not a country but Mordor.”

This might fit a broader definition. DCDuring (talk) 16:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cited. I reformatted the existing cites, and added a couple from 2015 (so this is no longer a hot sense). Kiwima (talk) 04:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 00:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wehrb

This was closed as RFV-passed in 2020 without providing three durably archived cites: Talk:wehrb. Google Groups has nothing. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 16:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wokelash

Rfv-sense: A backlash against media, speech, etc. seen as lacking a sense of social justice, or as not sufficiently woke.

This sense was actually added by me, just today, when I found a 2019 quote using the word in this sense. It now seems to be hugely outweighed by a slight newer (2020) "backlash against wokeness" sense. I'm not sure if the 2019 quotation was a one-off, or if other writers use the word in this sense as well. I only saw the one on ProQuest or Lexis, but there might be others out there. Cnilep (talk) 05:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. One of the citations attributed to the "backlash against wokeness" sense (Rifkind 2020) seems to actually be an example of the "backlash against anti-wokeness" sense. It's used in reference to criticism of racism in the UK media. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 04:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

troll-my-dames

Another Shakespeare nonce VealSociedad (talk) 19:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OED lemmatises this at troll-madam. It's one of those annoying words that is definitely attested, but spelled differently every time. Here's the full list of OED's alternative spellings (not for copying into this dictionary): "troule in madame, trol in madam, trowe maddam, trolemadame, trol-madame, troll-my-dame, troll-medam, trou-madam, troll-madame, trou-madame".

Also of note is that we define this game as nineholes, while OED and M-W give it as bagatelle. These may be the same game, but it's not entirely clear to me. Our entries for these games talk past each other. This, that and the other (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cited. I also added and cited troll madam. Bagatelle, from what I can see, is a slightly different, more modern version of the game. Kiwima (talk) 23:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 01:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

elfism

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why does Google give me results for Williams syndrome? General Vicinity (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quick peek at GBooks: the word does seem to exist, but rare, and probably coined as a nonce independently each time. Various senses, e.g. being like an elf, and other things... Equinox ◑ 02:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cited, but only using online quotes as well as Google books. How do we put these up for vote? Kiwima (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

run with scissors

"To behave recklessly." I know that running with scissors is a sort of traditional example of reckless behaviour, but does "run with scissors" ever mean "behave recklessly", in the abstract? For example: "when he let his 8-year-old girl drive the tractor down a steep slope, little Anna was really playing with scissors"?? umm? Equinox ◑ 19:34, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems common as a metaphor (e.g.the kid who ran with scissors “a reckless person”), and fairly common as reference to literally running with scissors, but it's also sometimes used idiomatically with no scissors (real or imagined) involved. For example: “Sure, it’s safer to go [backpacking] with a partner, but every once in awhile you have to run with scissors.” I've added several quotations. Cnilep (talk) 07:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does the idiom really imply recklessness (irresponsible behaviour), or merely (possibly calculated) risk taking? --Lambiam 12:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve added calculated risk taking as a sense, as two of the quotations imply calculation instead of recklessness. I think this is better than generalizing into one sense, since the others do IMO mean reckless behaviour. --Lambiam 13:14, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cited Kiwima (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:43, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cumskinned

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appears on on 4chan, LooksMax, r/okbuddyretard, and various other sites [13], [14]. I would doubt there are many durably archived uses. Whether "widespread usage" is/can be established, I'll leave to other editors to consider. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

forfret

The OED has this word as exclusive to Middle English. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 07:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed Everything I found was either a scanno or Middle English. Kiwima (talk) 03:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lambda

Female given name? Equinox ◑ 20:13, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

quite a few women in the US are named "Lambda" in honor of their fathers who are mathematicians 2602:306:CEC2:A3A0:8828:EC7D:5575:A728 05:15, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a Lambda Green who works for Kamala Harris: [15] [16]. I also found a Belgian woman and a Uruguayan woman, both of whose Facebook names are probably their real name based on other online evidence. So it seems to be a real name, if rare. At the same time, how to go about attesting it seems unclear. This, that and the other (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Their mothers can't be mathematicians? – Jberkel 08:46, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or functional programmers? --Lambiam 12:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or fans of Gnome et Rhône rotary aeroengines? Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 14:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 03:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

identarian

Attestable, but looks like a misspelling of identitarian. – Jberkel 20:30, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some occurrences are clearly typos,^[17][18] and an interesting case is an often quoted sentence from Sonia Kruks, “However, what makes identity politics a significant departure from earlier, pre-identarian forms of the politics of recognition is its demand for recognition on the basis of the very grounds on which recognition has previously been denied”.^[19] When quoted, we may find the term “pre-identarian” corrected to “preidentitarian”,^[20] or hidden by paraphrasis.^[21] However, the academic study Asian Americans and the Spirit of Racial Capitalism by Jonathan Tran, Associate Professor of Philosophical Theology at Baylor University, published by OUP and so presumably vetted by an editor, contains many uses of identarian(ism)^[22] (and none of identitarian), so there it is not an incidental error but a conscious choice. --Lambiam 12:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced, it seems to be an outlier. The first page of Google results for identarian are almost all Wiktionary-derived. – Jberkel 18:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact it's intentionally used in a serious academic article suggests that we should be looking in a lot more depth than the first few pages of Google results. Theknightwho (talk) 12:34, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but it's one single publication, that doesn't mean much. It's a very recent one though (November 2021), so maybe more identarians are on their way. – Jberkel 14:48, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The term is consistently used in Rosario Lentini (2011), "The Tuna-fishing Structures in Sicily: an Identarian Architectural Heritage" (2nd CITCEM Conference: The Sea: Heritage, Uses and Representations, Universidade do Porto), cited in the Wikipedia articles Favignana and Mattanza. It is also extensively used in Vasile Constantin (2018), "The Feminine Identarian Archetype – a Symbolic-Experiential Perspective Revealed within the Creative Improvisation through Literature", Journal of Experiential Psychotherapy 21:4, pp. 29–36 (see item 5 here). Likewise in Amitava Chowdhury (2014), "Exploring an 'Old Verbal Ambiguity': East Indian Ethnicity and Identity in Trinidad and the British Caribbean", Canadian Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies 37, pp. 209–220 (doi:10.1080/08263663.2012.10817033). --Lambiam 12:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, consistent repeated use in certain academic works convinces me that it's an intentional formation that should have an entry. (And it's not the first time a rare alternative formation using a different suffix has existed alongside a more common formation; I just created decate as distinct from decatize, we've all seen various -er vs -or pairs, and I recently encountered lituicone as distinct from lituiticone and adhese used repeatedly even in technical works rather than adhere.) But let's examine whether the definition ("Of or pertaining to the formation of identity") is correct and, if so, whether it also exists for identitarian, in which case this entry could be converted to an ({{lb|en|uncommon}}?) alt form or synonym entry. (At present, it is presented as if it has a different meaning from identitarian. If this is true, fine, but is it?) - -sche (discuss) 18:58, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cited Kiwima (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citing is not the problem here, it's figuring out the relationship to identitarian. – Jberkel 07:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"" @Jberkel: That's not really a question for RFV - sounds like something to bring up at the Tea room. Kiwima (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

gmail

This entry was moved out-of-process in 2012, so I'm bringing it here so we can try to verify it properly as an alt form. This, that and the other (talk) 11:30, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I always type in "gmail" when I want to look at my own account. Google isn't fussy. DonnanZ (talk) 10:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is irrelevant to Wiktionary. Equinox ◑ 12:17, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that you would still find Gmail by typing "gmail" if the entry/redirect for gmail didn't exist. DonnanZ (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cited Kiwima (talk) 03:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that the proper noun is cited, the verb not. This, that and the other (talk) 05:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had to work hard to find 3 for the verb. I'd have to boil the ocean to find a fourth. DCDuring (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cited for the verb. AG202 (talk) 19:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now you would all hate me if I RFV'd gMail, wouldn't you? This, that and the other (talk) 04:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Hate" is a little strong, I think. I'd be happy to let others do the searching. DCDuring (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

eosophobia

Is this an attestable phobia, or does it only occur in those lists of phobias the Internet is so fond of? Sounds like something vampires would suffer from. —Mahāgaja · talk 12:18, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found only one good use (by a well-known author, surprisingly enough) on the citations page. There's a handful of other borderline mention-y uses in lists of fears in prose form which I didn't bother to add. This, that and the other (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cited Kiwima (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The "esophobia" cite appears to be an error for esophoria. This, that and the other (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I added more cites. J3133 (talk) 07:21, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

entreporneur

I can find only mentions. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 12:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Found and added two book cites. Equinox ◑ 22:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I added a third. This is cited Kiwima (talk) 09:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

headmouth

One who performs fellatio. Equinox ◑ 22:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 09:49, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

point-stealer

"A basketball player who cheats by stealing points from the other team." How does one "steal" a point? Is this form of cheating specific to basketball, if it exists at all? Note the IP created some other dubious stuff promoting basketball teams etc. Equinox ◑ 02:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed The original entry had a citation that was for "point-stealing", not point-stealer. I could find a number of citations for "point-stealer", but they do not seem to reflect a single definition, and most seem pretty NISOP. No meaning had enough citations to be verified, but I put what I could find on the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 10:13, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

vernage

EEBO only has this in lists of wine names and editions of ME works; people might be able to find something if they elect to comb through 16th-century records, but this doesn't look promising. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 11:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've managed to cite this as a {{lb|en|historical}} rather than {{lb|en|obsolete}} term, from one work of historical fiction, one historian discussing a scene in John Gower's works, and another work about the middle ages (but not, AFAICT, about Gower) : Citations:vernage. Along the way I also spotted one work which mentions vernages as a French(?) term for some kind of ducks. - -sche (discuss) 21:59, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cited (for completeness) This, that and the other (talk) 10:12, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:45, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sa/vol

Can’t find any attestation. It was created by Wonderfool as ‘transwiki material’. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 22:05, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is real old-school WF, but it does seem legit. Lots of educational worksheet-type PDFs on the broader web have it. Surely it's easily cited from [23]. This, that and the other (talk) 02:36, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting a cite in the exact case form here. Theknightwho (talk) 02:45, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This occurs in almost any combination of majuscules and minuscules, such as “Sa/Vol”, but the most common form in a book search seems to be “SA/vol”. The abbreviation “SA” for “surface area” in formulas is readily attested,^[24][25][26] as is “vol” for “volume”. I think this is as much a sum-of-parts as “V/R”.^[27] --Lambiam 11:50, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but we're discussing sa/vol not SA/vol. Theknightwho (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But isn’t “sa”, as seen e.g. here, simply an alternative-case rendering of “SA”? Compare also the abbreviation “s.a.”.^[28] --Lambiam 10:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We would simply move the item to the more common, attestable form, since we don't have it. The result of an entry or definition failing RfV is not always mere deletion. DCDuring (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My issue is that there seems to be a two-stage argument going on here that doesn't hold up: (a) that SA/vol is more common (and therefore we should make that the primary entry), and (b) that SA/vol is sum of parts, because SA can readily be attested as meaning "surface area", which justifies deleting the entry. What this misses is that the second argument doesn't follow through for sa/vol, because sa is not currently attested as meaning "surface area", which means that sa/vol is not sum of parts.

I appreciate that it seems pedantic, but if we care about case forms then we should do so properly. Theknightwho (talk) 19:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's SOP (as Lambiam shows, and as any citations of sa/vol show, sa can also mean "surface area" in this case-form, as well as many other case forms), like other such terms we've deleted (Talk:m³/s, and soon µg/l.). - -sche (discuss) 20:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cited, although it is far more common to se "SA/Vol". The question of whether it is SOP is more properly addressed under RFD. Kiwima (talk) 23:59, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

bourdon

Rfv-sense "pilgrim's staff". This doesn't ssem to have survived into English except for in the works of Urquhart, where it is probably a Scotticism (there is a Middle Scots burdoun). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 09:57, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cited, and easily so. Kiwima (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

rix

As far as I know, this verb didn't survive beyond Early ME. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 16:11, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed This, that and the other (talk) 02:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

go downtown

Rfv-sense, removed out-of-process by an anon. —Svārtava (t/u) • 17:38, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The same anon has been at work again. I wouldn't have a clue, the whole entry is American English. DonnanZ (talk) 08:14, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "police custody" sense is iffy as well; downtown itself means "the police station," (in this context) so phrases like "take him downtown" and "we're going downtown" refer to being taken or going to the police station. If someone was taken into custody but not taken to the police station (e.g. put in the back of a cruiser temporarily but then released) that would not be "going downtown." That makes it seem to me like the definition is inaccurate, and "go downtown" in this sense is non-idiomatic. It is slightly confounded by the fact that "downtown" can also mean other civic institutions, like city hall. - TheDaveRoss 13:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cited Kiwima (talk) 00:45, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

chakshang

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed. I found some uses, but they were all italicized. Kiwima (talk) 00:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

faker

Rfv-sense: A workman who dresses things up. Hidden text say "in what sense?". This is probably just lazy copy-pastage from Webster 1913 Notusbutthem (talk) 19:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from W1913 doesn't automatically mean it's wrong though. So, indeed, in what sense? Equinox ◑ 19:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed, WF spot on here This, that and the other (talk) 02:21, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

water-line model

Apparently taken from Webster 1913, but apparently it's not in there either. Notusbutthem (talk) 19:40, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abundantly citable at Google Books here. DCDuring (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DCDuring: the entry is at the hyphenated spelling, not the unspaced one that you linked to. Not that it makes a huge difference- both are sufficiently attested. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Notusbutthem: It's part of the entry for water line. The hyphen is only there because water line is used attributively to modify model. At first glance, the definition make no sense- until you realize that they're using a specialized sense of water line. Even then, it's not all that clear to those of us who don't know a lot about shipbuilding. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's one of those places where images help. I didn't find one at Commons. We might benefit from a reference template that linked to Google Images. I'll pull something together for that. DCDuring (talk) 12:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cited Kiwima (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

keelyvine pen

Probably just used the once in that Walter Scott book... Notusbutthem (talk) 20:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We really need meaningful entries for keelyvine/keelivine. DCDuring (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OED has a robust entry for "keelivine", suggesting a derivation from keel (Ety 2) or killow. The entry does not cite many uses, though. EDD has an entry as well.

Here is a use, spelt keelavine. This, that and the other (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cited Kiwima (talk) 02:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

scleroalphavirus

Equinox ◑ 14:26, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All I could find is this paper which proposed the name. It does not appear to be a commonly accepted/used term (yet). 70.172.194.25 19:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 02:14, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022

polyfrob

Synonym of polyhex. Equinox ◑ 19:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed There are plenty of mentions out there, but no actual uses. Kiwima (talk) 00:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hang tight

Rfv-sense "to remain in one's current location" - I've never heard it used this way before, is this an older meaning ? I've added sense #2, which is how I typically hear it used. Leasnam (talk) 05:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like sit tight. Equinox ◑ 05:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neither definition seems right to me, nor to MWOnline. DCDuring (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’d have to inspect a bunch of citations, but off the cuff the idiom suggests to me the sense of hang on (sense 6, persevere) in a situation in which one may be tempted to let go, like a blend (or even mix-up) of hang on and hold tight . --Lambiam 13:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To me the MWOnline definition seems, well, spot on. DCDuring (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the "wait expectantly or in anticipation" sense to the RFV, because it does not seem to match the cites any better. I have made a stab at a definition, and backed it up with a boatload of citations, plus a more literal definition (also with citations). Kiwima (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Morning Star

morning star

RFV seeking citations of these being used to mean Lucifer, Satan, or Jesus, like "then Roman soldiers crucified [the] Morning Star" or "then [the] Morning Star tempted them to sin". Be aware citations I've found so far seem to be about other people named "Morning Star" (a la Native Americans being named Sitting Bull), not Jesus or Satan. The Isaiah quote is not usable because it doesn't clearly mean this (many scholars think it means something else). I also don't think it's clear the Relevation quote, "I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you a this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star", is a use of this sense per se: we don't have Root defined as "Jesus", nor Offspring of David, and it seems like how if John Doe says "I am your worst nightmare, I am the Devil", it doesn't make "# John Doe" a sense of "worst nightmare" or "Devil". - -sche (discuss) 22:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think this is possible. This is my thinking:

I live in area with moderate light pollution, such that when I look out the window in the morning (at least this time of year), Venus is the only star I can see, and because it's visible early enough, the sky is still fully dark, and Venus is the only reason I know that the sun is coming up soon. Also it happens that Venus is always in the same part of the sky where the sun will appear.

I learned recently that Romans named the planets after their gods, but they did not (as I'd expected) believe that the planets actually were their gods. So, even if the Romans were using a name like Lucifer as a common appellation, it might still have been distinct from Venus, since Venus was both a god and a planet named for a god, whereas Lucifer can only mean one of those things.

Therefore I assume the name Lucifer was meant as a nickname, or appellation if that's a better word, for someone who brings light. Therefore it may be that no usex of the sense we want is possible, as it would be like asking for a usex of an appellation like blondie to mean one specific person with blonde hair. Even if the context is abundantly clear, the meaning we want still doesnt belong to the word we want. —Soap— 12:04, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Latin Lucifer was used for the planet Venus appearing as morning star. It does not follow from this observation that English morning star is not used for “Lucifer” in the common Christian sense. (I do not see the connection of a particular Christian interpretation of the latter term to “historical Judaism”, whatever that means.) --Lambiam 14:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closest I can get is that a few works take advantage of the (long) use of Morningstar as a surname to make if Lucifer's surname: Citations:Morningstar. Though various other appellations are quite widely used for Luci or Jesus, e.g. it's no trouble to find books saying "then the Son of God is put on one footing with men, so that the Son of God lives by the Father just as we live by the Son of God", the closest I've gotten here is one book that says "It means, Enemy of the Morning Star's Light, which is Christ the Light of the world!" The use of [The] Morning Star as the name of various publications, only one reflected in our entry, makes searching difficult. This book seems to define "Morning Star" as not Jesus, and instead uses "Bright and Morning Star" for Jesus:

(Can we date this quote?), Arrival Of Morning Star, Father Thomas Devlin, page 115:
Morning Star is Eucharistic man. Morning Star prepares the way for the arrival of the Bight and Morning Star - Christ Jesus. As the morning star announces the arrival of a new day, so too, Eucharistic man, Morning Star, announces the arrival of the great day of the Lord.

- -sche (discuss) 14:53, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

burn the coal, pay the toll

Nothing on Google Books, Google Scholar, or Issuu. May be citable from Usenet or Twitter. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s been used hundreds of times on Twitter, this tweet seems to be the first use (readers of a sensitive disposition may wish to refrain from clicking on the link) [29] — This unsigned comment was added by Overlordnat1 (talk • contribs).

no blacks, know peace, know blacks, no peace

someone's got a slur addiction (see also Talk:once you go black, we don't want you back, but currently at RFD) —Fish bowl (talk) 07:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you also include instances where only the first or second half of the phrase is used as well as the phrase in its entirety, it’s been used 43 times on Twitter since this tweet in 2013 [30]. I think it would fail RFD as SOP in any case though. Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to note around blacks, never relax and with Jews, you lose as more potential SOPs added by the same user. Binarystep (talk) 09:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, I have an addiction to being red-pilled. 2602:306:CEC2:A3A0:3149:94D:519C:A893 06:24, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cordate

This is for the noun sense: "Any animal with a heart." It was added last July in the edit preceding mine. When I looked up the word "cordate" on multiple dictionaries, none of them gave a definition for it as a noun. Merriam Webster, Oxford, Collins, you name it, give only the adjective sense ("heart-shaped"), with no mention of a noun sense. See for yourself here: This page is a list of links to dictionary entries on "cordate" on several online dictionaries. Inner Focus (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added 3 cites. Equinox ◑ 00:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 2012 cite looks to be an error for chordate. Drosophila fruit flies have hearts, so it is (admittedly possible, but) unlikely that "animals with hearts" is what is meant. On the other hand, it would be very logical to appose arthropods and chordates in that context, especially reading the surrounding paragraphs.

If the other two cites are the best we can find we had better mark this as (rare, philosophy) and give it a usage note... This, that and the other (talk) 10:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cited (I removed the Drosophila quote as suspect). while it is true that most of the occurrences one finds are variations on Quine's classic example of the coextension problem of cordates and renates, I managed to find some other cites that are completely independent of that example. Kiwima (talk) 03:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PanDeism

Per #pan deist etc. This, that and the other (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Damn those pesky camels. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

quadran

Simply defined as "square", with no context. @SemperBlotto created it. Equinox ◑ 07:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's in OED (SB was apparently doing a trawl of Latinate numeric prefixes in OED that day) but in true OED fashion, none of the noun cites are actually spelt this way - Quadern (1578), quadrons, Quadraines, Quadren, Quadrains (1653). The purpose of the entry seems to be a catch-all for forms of quadrant that showed a loss of final -t. This, that and the other (talk) 08:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oof. If none of the cites are of this word/spelling, I don't think we can just assume like the OED that the other words/spellings support this, particularly if the forms in -s above could be taken to be renderings or borrowings of Latin quadrāns instead (where the -s is part of the base word, not a plural of *quadran), like seems to be the case here. - -sche (discuss) 14:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The OED uses in -s are definitely plurals. Nonetheless, I don't think this is worth keeping. This sort of rare alternative spelling can be collected at quadrant, I think. This, that and the other (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cited Kiwima (talk) 04:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

chekay

Australia: interjection meaning "wait!". I don't think this is English. Equinox ◑ 09:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be from this dubious video: [31]. Many commenters are saying that they haven't heard of these words. Same reaction on Reddit. Equinox ◑ 10:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As an Aussie I've never heard this, although a couple of the other words in the video are Pig-Latin-esque eshay slang, so if this term belonged to that lect that might explain why I hadn't heard it. The word has the shape of Pig Latin, although I can't manage to unravel it to an English word. (FWIW almost everything else in the video is plausible Australian slang - the Redditors do a pretty good job of breaking it down.) This, that and the other (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Several people in the comments section to the YT video mentioned above claim that this is a borrowing from the Macedonian word че́ка impf (čéka) or a related Slavic word and further claim that such Slavic words were borrowed from the English word check in any case. I’ve no idea how accurate such claims are though.. Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:14, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this seems to indicate that it is treated as code-switching, and reinforces the slavic connection. Kiwima (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find there, Kiwima. Easy to mark it RFV-failed on that basis (well, and the fact that it's unfindable anywhere else) This, that and the other (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

uninferant

Apparently a nonce word only used in the single (Faulkner) citation given. Equinox ◑ 10:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cited Kiwima (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the citations do not all have the same meaning. Definition: "From which an inference is unable to be made." The 1975 one is pretty much gibberish to me, but the 2020 one refers to a person, so apparently it means the person cannot make an inference, rather than that no inference can be made from the person. Equinox ◑ 22:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that the definition is substitutable into any of the citations. Can someone see how to reword it? The 1975 Willams cite seems so unwilling to depart far from how Faulkner used the term that it scarcely seems independent. We are stuck trying to infer a definition from morphology, as in non-so-well-attested dead language. DCDuring (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't realized that Faulkner could be as bad as Joyce in this regard: often worthless as a source of unambiguous cites and a positive geyser of lexicographic time-wasters. DCDuring (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Snopes" in the title of the 2020 source looks like a clear Faulkner reference. I think I'm starting to see a theme here. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ungreen

"Of plant or vegetable matter: decaying". Needs to be distinct from sense 1, "not green", which seems the more likely intended meaning when referring to a plant. Equinox ◑ 06:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

gekyume

The citation looks like "gekyume is a word somebody made up": mention, not usage. Equinox ◑ 06:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed This, that and the other (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gekyume

The invented name of a rapper's son; so, a nonce word? Not a general English name in use. Equinox ◑ 06:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-deleted — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 14:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

kiddo

Rfv-sense "(fandom slang) A fictional teen character from non-live-action visual media (typically an anime, manga, or video game) to whom one is attracted and/or considers their significant other." Good luck searching for this without ending up on some kind of list. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:39, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's got the exact same definition that we currently list for waifu except for the one crucial word "teen". I've never heard this, but if it exists, I assume it was coined by the same method as waifu ... take the English word, respell it in Japanese, and then respell the Japanese in English again. We might be able to find it by searching for キッド ("kid" spelled in Japanese katakana) plus some other words such as the titles of the manga series being talked about. Alternatively, we could just search in English, but I wouldnt know what else to add to the search string. —Soap— 19:52, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like it would be difficult, although not impossible, for a citation to clearly mean this and not the more common meaning, "(endearing) A child". Like, one idea would be to search for "(possessive pronoun: my|your|his|her|etc) kiddo" in works that also use "waifu" or "husbando", but even there it'd take some effort to weed out cases where someone is just saying they want such-and-such fictional kid to be their kid, or think of some fictional kid as (spiritually, etc) their kid (when the kid tells someone off, you think "that's my girl!" / "thattaboy!", etc). - -sche (discuss) 15:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

google books:"waifu" "kiddo" finds nothing at all, though. - -sche (discuss) 14:30, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sciencemas

Atheist Christmas mockery. The given citation looks like absolute gibberish, with no grammar at all: scannos? Equinox ◑ 18:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The single citation doesn't support "December 25" as def., January 3 instead. DCDuring (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

forbruise

Occurs in Chaucer. Anything in Modern English? Equinox ◑ 22:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OED and EEBO both say no. In fact, OED notes that even in Middle English only the past participle is attested. This, that and the other (talk) 10:48, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

amogus

Equinox ◑ 03:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP redirect was deleted multiple times before it got ECP salted. But then someone created it again and it still stands. 2600:387:9:9:0:0:0:26 18:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is "ECP snowed"? Equinox ◑ 02:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the IP means "ECP salted". See [32]. This, that and the other (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, got confused with W:WP:SNOW and W:WP:SALT. 2600:387:9:3:0:0:0:1C 12:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what 142.113.162.38 21:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Someone put a citation. Check please. 2600:387:9:9:0:0:0:5D 17:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not durably archived, but that shouldn't get in our way anymore. Now let's have two more good ones. Apparently this figure was royalty back in the day [33] This, that and the other (talk) 10:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have empirical evidence (See #for all intrinsic purposes.) that linkrot for "non-durably archived" citations removed 4/6 from 2007 to ~May 1, 2022. DCDuring (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

swinge

RFV for the claimed past forms swonge and swongen. This, that and the other (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be surprised if these exist; swinge has been a weak verb since its first attestations (as Old English swenġan). Perhaps our editor misinterpreted a ME or EModE past tense of swing? (Middle English swyngen can mean "to beat"; off the top of my head, this use persisted into EModE). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 13:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

westaboo

98.170.164.88 19:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"...enjoys western media" is a poor definition, too. It means popular entertainment like films and music, doesn't it? Not western media like The New York Times. Equinox ◑ 20:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added Twitter cites spanning 12 years over here. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 05:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

get out at Haymarket

98.170.164.88 21:27, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You could probably cite get off at Haymarket, but this form is going to be tough to attest. This, that and the other (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This obviously doesn't exist at all. Let's congratulate the creator on a troll well done. Can you spot the totally fake entry I made in 2022? There is one, precisely one, only. Equinox ◑ 05:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

subpœnæd

Is this spelling right? I came across the spelling subpœnaed, which I included in a quote under the verb subpœna. DonnanZ (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Donnanz It already has cites at Citations:subpœnæd. Probably should just be marked as an alternative/obsolete spelling. There are some hits on Google books from the past 5 years, but I wonder if the Wiktionary entry could've affected that. AG202 (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AG202: Oh, I didn't spot those. But we still need to incorporate subpœnaed, surely? DonnanZ (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AG202 Only the 1800 cite shows the ligature when you click through to the source. The 1921 one shows unlinked "a" and "e", and 1948 one has "subpnaed". It looks like it's text generated by OCR, not the original, and the missing "œ" is what one would expect from OCR software that doesn't know about ligatures.

The problem with citing a ligature is that it's strictly a matter of typography, so you have have to have visual confirmation- people don't pay attention to such details when transcribing texts, and OCR does all kinds of conversions (or just gets things completely wrong). Chuck Entz (talk) 03:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm the 1921 one from all five of these Google Books results. I can't find any corroborating evidence in Google Books for the ligatured version of the 1948 cite. This, that and the other (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible that theyre all misspellings? From what I know, æ cannot cross a morpheme boundary. The scan of the book from 1800 is surely not the original, right? Maybe someone overcompensated for the style of the day by substituting æ for every ae. —Soap— 05:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fully supportive of deleting this entry as a rare misspelling. This, that and the other (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Surely æ can't do that. Thanks Soap for saying "cross a morpheme boundary", as I don't have the terminology, I'm just wondering why my Chomsky's weevil (that's part of the brain that deals with language) is screaming and screaming. Equinox ◑ 05:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does "not crossing a morpheme boundary" apply to plurals too? Witness subpœnæ. DonnanZ (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But -ae is the Latin feminine plural ending ... it's not two morphemes, because there is no "-e" that can be separated out from this as a plural marker. I've always seen Latin feminine plural -ae analyzed as a single morpheme, so a spelling with an æ would be valid, and not a hypercorrection. —Soap— 23:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If subpœnaed can be further attested, can the entry in question be moved there, lock, stock, barrel and citations? DonnanZ (talk) 09:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which is “the entry” you wish to see moved? And aren’t the current three citations enough attestation? --Lambiam 11:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If subpœnæd is deprecrated, move all to subpœnaed, which can be verified by quotes such as this one. DonnanZ (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Teresa

Rfv-sense: a person who is completely unselfish to the point of being saintly. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 17:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Someone RfVed the proper noun sense. Have you challenged the other sense without putting a {{rfv-sense}} tag for a reason? DCDuring (talk) 17:38, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to me to be an expression in "widespread use". DCDuring (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously delete the proper noun. Doing "good work" doesn't make you lexical. Equinox ◑ 18:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closing as a clear RFV-pass. The RFD for the proper noun sense can be handled there. Theknightwho (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! This is not a clear pass at all! Equinox ◑ 18:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The noun sense is, which is what this was about. There are 8 cites. Theknightwho (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Proper noun section should be RfDed. The person is relevant to the etymology. DCDuring (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mother Theresa

Is this form attested as a common noun? If it be only proper noun, then it could be speedied. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 20:06, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to be a common misspelling for the common noun form as well from Google Books, but I don't want to spend the time actually doing the cites. Theknightwho (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-passed for this orthography too. This, that and the other (talk) 13:39, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

stylesheetery

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seeming nonce-word. Other than the citation given, this Web page is all I can find: [34]. Equinox ◑ 23:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantium

Tagged by @Numberguy6 but not listed. Binarystep (talk) 05:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

black widow

US law enforcement: A black-colored, unmarked police vehicle. Equinox ◑ 04:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

fritinancy

The chirping of insects. Equinox ◑ 12:37, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. This, that and the other (talk) 07:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-passed This, that and the other (talk) 10:38, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

farctate

Noun: "The state of having overeaten." I can see at least one Google Books result, one of those silly book of rare words, that misuses the adjective to refer to being stuffed after a meal (it's actually a botanical term), so the creating IP may have picked that up, and also mistakenly called it a noun... Equinox ◑ 12:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

charactonymous

Equinox ◑ 22:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ex testamento

I just created this one from a red link on ab intestato, and it appears in a couple of old law dictionaries (Blacks, Ballentines), but I am having trouble seeing any actual non-Latin usage. I would assume that if this was a legal term which was actually used it would not be hard to find since there is so much searchable legal text on the internet. - TheDaveRoss 12:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a struggle to find citations on this that aren't merely dealing with contemporary Roman law. However, I've so far found:

Commentaries on Roman-Dutch Law vol. 1 p. 411 from 1881, which clearly uses it in reference to Dutch inheritance in the 18th century.
Cavanagh's Principles and Precedents of Modern Conveyancing, 1882 p. 189, in the context of English law.

Theknightwho (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As nom I am satisfied, though it seems like rare and/or archaic tags might be merited. - TheDaveRoss 18:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

goode

The entry for the noun "goode" lists the Middle English definition only as 1. n. (Late Middle English) Alternative form of gode. [35]

The Century Dictionary, under the definition of "stead", lists the following quote from the York Plays, p. 127. Lorde God! that all goode has by-gonne, And all may ende both goode and euvll,... .[36],

Can the definition of "goode" be updated to reflect such usage? And are there additional possible meanings that might be included, such as that which is desirable or an object of desire? Or that which is a personal possession, or a ware? --Penman1963 (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hazarasp may be able to sort out this situation. This, that and the other (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

squirrel friend

A friend who is a drag queen. This seems to be a specific quip used by RuPaul. Can't find in GBooks. Equinox ◑ 22:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

naur

“(Internet slang) Pronunciation spelling of no, representing Australia English.” Tagged by Jberkel on 7 April, not listed. J3133 (talk) 09:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks more like Geordie to me. Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

human being

Rfv-sense "Another, extinct member of the genus Homo." It's a plausible way to use the term human being, but it would be best to have the three cites for this one because it is definitely not the mainstream meaning- human beings are homo sapiens as far as I have ever known and as far as I have ever used "human being" myself. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cited, although maybe the second sense should be "Any member of the genus Homo, including extinct species." because people who use it in this way don't mean to exclude Homo sapiens. The current definition is okay though.

There's also an {{&lit}} wordplay meaning of human being, as in Scatman's World: "I want to be a human being, not a human doing". I'm split on whether to include it since on the one hand it relies on the idiomatic meaning, but on the other hand, unlike the main meaning, it's using being as an adjectival participle rather than a noun. 70.172.194.25 22:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, I've changed the wording. That's an issue that's come up in a fair few entries, like how prostitute formerly had "male prostitute" as a sense; some people think that if a term means either "specifically X" or "either X or Y", they should just put "X" and "Y" as definitions, but...that's not how to do it... - -sche (discuss) 19:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

beme

Yet another word that fails to appear in the usual sources (i.e. the OED and EEBO). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 12:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added one mention from 2008. I've also added the "historical" label. I will have to check later for additional cites, but this might be a word like ceorl, fyrd, etc. Leasnam (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are 3 cites now. Leasnam (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The first of those seems to only be a mention. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 03:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it is. I'll look for another, but I'll keep this one too. It's informative. Leasnam (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added a third attestation-worthy cite. Now complete. Leasnam (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed it is. Cited. Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

beming

See Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/English#beme; this is suspect for fundamentally similar reasons (the OED only has one cite, which we'd classify as Scots) Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 12:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

wheche

This form clearly existed in Middle English, but even there I'm not sure whether it was specifically plural. (Someone who knows more could say.)

The citation on Citations:wheche is actually a usage example from Wiktionary itself. 70.172.194.25 18:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appears in the OED only as an obsolete spelling of which. (The two anagrams look very suspect.) — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the author used the Internet Anagram Server or an equivalent, and didn't realize that anagrams on Wiktionary are supposed to be single terms only, not combinations of terms. 70.172.194.25 18:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

abies

This is claimed to be the third-person singular of aby, but that entry gives abys as the correct form. It doesn't seem like the verb was used much in this form, so it could be hard to verify either way. (I can't think of any other English verbs in -VCy where the final -y is a stressed diphthong from which to make an analogy, but that might be more of a TR question.) This, that and the other (talk) 11:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Rhymes:English/aɪ/2 syllables for a few. Etymologically, they seem to be all from Old French- so they probably aren't good models for an Old English inheritance like this one. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

vajungle

Created by an indef blocked user. Could just about be speedied. This, that and the other (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

fy

Rfv-sense: to digest. This is apparently a clipping of a sense of defy which we lack. OED has only Middle English evidence for both terms, except for a single modern citation from 1540 at defy. This, that and the other (talk) 11:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A-erh-t'ai

A not obviously attestable synonym of Altai in some it Altai's senses. DCDuring (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few potentials: [37][38][39][40][41][42] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the dumbasses up at encyclopedia britannica "Altai Mountains, Russian Altay, Mongolian Altayn Nuruu, Chinese (Pinyin) Altai Shan," Unless they mean pinyin beyond Hanyu Pinyin bro [43] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"The A-erh-t'ai mountains are famous for the production of gold" 70.172.194.25 02:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

queefings

This, that and the other (talk) 08:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Curiously I don't see any real cites for it, but I would bet 100% that it gets used all the time: As they were f***ing, I heard several queefings come out of her vagina - or something similar. Leasnam (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or just watch some old Patrice O'Neil clips - I'm sure you're bound to hear the word eventually :p Leasnam (talk) 22:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon people would say queefs in that scenario. The pluralisation of abstract action nouns to -ings isn't exactly natural to English speakers. This, that and the other (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where do you get that from ? Yes it is. Compare rambles/ramblings and rumbles/rumblings, stumbles/stumblings, fumbles/fumblings...however, in the case of queefings, I would have to agree queefs beats out queefings, but not for the reason you state, but because 'queefings' hasn't caught on yet Leasnam (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IDF

Rfv-sense: "in danger of failing". This, that and the other (talk) 05:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems real, but uncommon: e.g. [44]. Equinox ◑ 17:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

nonacarbonate

No decent hits for this. Pious Eterino (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anicha

Given name. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 15:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

undinism

Sexual arousal from water (as opposed to urine). I think somebody may have been confused re "water sports"... Equinox ◑ 16:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

vest buster

This term is absolutely unattested; two of the three references are from the same source, a gun control advocacy organization, and the remaining reference is from the lone author who coined it. This term is nowhere near widespread—not even within the firearms community.

Oktayey (talk) 23:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW the Wikipedia article was deleted. This, that and the other (talk) 03:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NCP

Rfv-sense: novel coronavirus pneumonia

Apparently the official English name of COVID-19 in the People's Republic of China during part of February 2020. I don't know if this ever caught on. Cross-listing at CJK as well. Cnilep (talk) 06:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Google Scholar results. --H₂NCH₂COOH (Talk) 06:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

anteroposteriorness

Creator has also linked to it from many other entries, so if deleted, please check for incoming links. Equinox ◑ 08:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

jobber

Rfv-sense: One who works by the job (i.e. paid per individual piece of work) and recruits other people. An IP at WT:RFC#jobber was convinced this last part is a necessary condition, but I'm not so sure. This, that and the other (talk) 10:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did the IP offer any support? — This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talk • contribs) at 17:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Nope. However, the IP was presumably not the same user who added that wording to the entry in 2014 (how likely is it that someone without a watchlist would watch the page so closely over such a long period of time?), so it seems plausible for it to be accurate. This, that and the other (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I always consult other dictionaries using {{R:OneLook}} and {{R:Century 1911}}. I didn't see a definition that had the "recruiter" condition. DCDuring (talk) 04:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

superdupercentenarian

J3133 (talk) 07:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably inspired by supercentenarian and semisupercentenarian (a mouthful with two prefixes). DonnanZ (talk) 09:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

semisuperdupercentenarian

J3133 (talk) 07:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedied this piece of creative fun. Equinox ◑ 08:00, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds made up but I can’t say I’m a fan of speeding things this quickly, presumably the def was ‘someone between 100 and 120 years old’? Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:45, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There were two defs: "1. A person more than 60 years old. 2. Half of a person more than 120 years old." You think this kind of rubbish needs to waste our volunteered time at RFV? Equinox ◑ 08:53, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That reminds me of the time when Wonderfool made motorcycle ambulance for the lulz Notusbutthem (talk) 09:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patients would probably die of fright before they reached a hospital. DonnanZ (talk) 09:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No I don’t, it sounds like Damien Hirst’s ‘art’ installation. I’m a curious sort though and giving it half an hour doesn’t seem enough. I’m certainly not suggesting it should be ‘unspeedied’, if that’s the right word. Thanks for the response. Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the prior page contents by visiting the red link: it shows what was deleted. This would have been speedied if seen before RFVing, so doing it after is no worse, IMO. Equinox ◑ 09:11, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Overlordnat1 with this damning evidence there is no need to wait. This, that and the other (talk) 09:35, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

chiack

Challenging sense 2: "(British) to taunt maliciously" (as opposed to sense 1, Australian, to do so in jest). I've never come across this word in British English at all! Equinox ◑ 09:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it can be found in obsolete and/or dialect British English but it should be labelled as such, I’d never come across it until now either. There is this example in 1865 Devonian dialect of someone talking about chiacking a fox, though it seems odd that he would be merely taunting it instead of hunting it:- [45]. Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Created Citations:chiack. Overlordnat1 (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Purity of Virgins

Captain of Man's Salvation
Father of Heaven and Earth
Fortitude of the Martyrs
Glory of Heaven
Joy of Angels
King of Glory
King of Patriarchs
Light of the Prophets
Light of the World
Redeemer of the World
Sanctity of Confessors
Sun of Justice

Being an epithet of some (real or fictional) entity does not, in my opinion, by itself imply a term is entry-worthy. Satan has been called “the adversary of man”.^[46] To fully understand the significance of the epithet requires some background, in particular (1) that Hebrew שָׂטָן (śāṭān) as a common noun means “adversary”, (2) that in the common Christian conception “the devil” and “Satan” refer to the same supernatural being; and (3) that the author of First Peter warns us, human beings, “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.” It only becomes lexical when writers use the term adversary of man, while readers are supposed to understand, without being told so, that this term refers to Satan. Likewise, if we read “Jesus, Purity of Virgins”,^[47] this use does attest to this being one of many Christian epithets for Jesus Christ, but verification requires more: uses attesting to the epithet’s having become lexicalized. --Lambiam 18:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I agree mere use as a descriptor or epithet in a form like (e.g.) "Jesus, Captain of Man's Salvation" does not (itself) suggest that "Captain of Man's Salvation" lexically means "Jesus"; we need, at a minimum, more cites like the "when the Captain of Man's Salvation visibly ascended" one. (Even then, cf Talk:Prince of the Power of the Air...) - -sche (discuss) 23:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That quotation is lifted from a sermon on the Ascension of Jesus. In the context it will be clear to anyone who understands English, including people who have never before encountered the collocation Captain of Man’s Salvation and are also otherwise quite ignorant of the doctrines of Christology, that its referent is none other than Jesus Christ. Otherwise it would be like claiming that Stetsoned billionaire^[48] is a lexical term for Jeffrey Preston Bezos. --Lambiam 09:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. These don’t seem like set phrases. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. (Reminds me of what I raised with regard to "Prince of the Power of the Air", that "forty-third President of the United States" likewise always means one specific person, but . . . ) - -sche (discuss) 15:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, the meaning is understood because the term is a transparent sum of parts, like “the oldest son of Emperor Frederick III of Germany”. It is not particularly relevant that this means one specific person; the same issue applies to “the descendants of Emperor Frederick III of Germany”. Captain of Man’s Salvation is in contrast rather opaque and not a priori particularly meaningful; to assign it the idiomatic meaning of Jesus in our dictionary, we need to make sure the term is used by itself and meant to be understood as having that meaning. --Lambiam 18:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those are random descriptive phrases that have just happen to have been been used as epithets. King of Glory seems more like a set phrase, especially since (like Ancient of Days, which comes from Biblical Aramaic) it preserves something of the construct formation of the Hebrew original. I would note, however, that it originally referred to God- its application to Jesus is secondary and not deserving of an entry on its own. Light of the World feels like a set phrase to me as well. As a member of a church choir I've encountered it many times in prayers and anthems where the context implies a set phrase, though I'm not sure I can find them online. Also, it's used as part of organization names such as "Light of the World Ministries", which again implies a well known set phrase.

Looking at the google hits for "Oh, Light of the World" I also see some non-Christian usage where it refers to someone seen as the epitome of brightness. Perhaps it might be better to generalize it and make the Christian epithet a subsense. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If there are senses meeting our CFI, they can be added. This holds equally for any subsenses, but a subsense does not automatically become entry-worthy by dint of the worthiness of its supersense. This RfV is an {{rfv-sense}} specifically for the (non-gloss-definition) sense “an epithet for Jesus Christ”. --Lambiam 18:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[bulldoze#rfv-sense-notice-en-|bulldoze]]

Rfv-sense: To intimidate; to restrain or coerce by intimidation or violence - the referenced article no longer exists Xealfurl (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There’s a lot of evidence on GoogleBooks of the word being used this way, ever since the American elections of 1876 where former slaves where violently intimidated by splinter groups from the KKK, especially in parts of Louisiana where they were such organisations were apparently called white caps or white liners. The following links support the claim that bulldoze can mean intimidate, I’ve chosen them either as they’re the earliest quotes to be found or they’re early quotes that explicitly favour the theory that the word stems from the literal use of a bull whip to intimidate black voters into not voting or voting Democrat (though it soon came to mean using a whip to get them to sell houses and land cheaply to whites and just to intimidate more generally):-[49],[50],[51] and [52]. There is a rival theory that a ‘bull-dose’ was simply a strong dose of punishment in the same way that a ‘bull fence’ is a strong fence, however (see[53]) Overlordnat1 (talk) 01:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-passed - excellent cites, nicely done. This, that and the other (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

mood

RFV-sense "(obsolete, Northern England and Scotland) Courage, heart, valor; also vim and vigor."

Discussion moved from WT:RFM.

This currently exists in the usage notes of mood and a non-English quotation under its last sense-line. If this phrase is attested, it should have its own entry; if it's not attested three times, it's not worth a usage note IMO, we can just put any cites that do exist under that last sense-line. - -sche (discuss) 08:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@-sche Would it make sense to send this to RFV, then? - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 02:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll move it over now. - -sche (discuss) 03:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

excipientation

Only appears in dictionaries (and probably only Wiktionary and sites that copy our content) Pious Eterino (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two uses: [54], [55]. (The reported ghit in an article “Square-wave adsorptive stripping voltammetric [sic] behaviour ...” is a false positive.) --Lambiam 19:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PLM

Rfv-sense: “initialism of police lives matter”. Graham11 (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Found one use on Usenet. There might be more, but PLM isn't an easy term to search for. Binarystep (talk) 11:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

knob

Rfv-sense "A contemptible person".

I've never heard this in American English (but not impossible?), though it does seem like it could be British (following definition 8, "The penis." which is supposed to be "chiefly UK"- I believe I have heard this sense in the USA). I think this RFV could potentially show that the 'contemptible person' sense is chiefly UK too. Out of my range of experience. I'm trying to understand the (likely?) British origins of a new entry I created, knobbish. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is an EXTREMELY widely used term in the U.K., see the following results for ‘fucking knob’[56] and ‘fucking nob’[57]. There are also many results for ‘nob end’, ‘knob end’, nob head’, ‘knob head’, ‘nob-end’ and the like. Also see the following:- [58] (which discusses the alternative spellings), [59], [60], [61], [62] and [63] (which proves that the term is also used in Ireland, as it says ‘fecking nob’). You’re right to create ‘knobbish’ but ‘nobbish’, ‘knobby’ and ‘nobby’ are all also used sometimes with the same meaning. Overlordnat1 (talk) 19:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now fully cited (and without the alternate spelling ‘nob’ or compounds like ‘knob end’ and ‘knob jockey’). Overlordnat1 (talk) 01:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-passed This, that and the other (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

vegs

"3rd person singular present indicative of veg#Verb."

Attestable? How pronounced?

For that matter is the noun plural attestable?

The word "vegs" (alternative spelling of veges) is pronounced like /vɛdʒɪz/. 3rd person singular form would likely to be attestable, like the plural form. 176.88.85.16 15:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Citations:vegs. 70.172.194.25 15:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to act like an abbreviation: the actual pronunciation and morphology is for the expanded form, not what's actually written. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we be nice to our users and provide, in cases like this where the pronunciation isn't obvious to a learner, the pronunciation that we believe to be the one in use. Do we have a policy against providing pronunciation of inflected forms? DCDuring (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DCDuring: I don’t see why we shouldn’t provide the pronunciation where it is unexpected. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. In fact the same pronunciation /vɛdʒɪz/ should be given for vegs(verb) and vegs(noun). Overlordnat1 (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Targitai

Arpoksai

Kolaksai

Lipoksai

Not English, not Greek mythology and obviously created just to promote a (probably) unreliable etymology. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 20:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primary source is Histories (Herodotus). Main subject is Greek mythology. Main page is Targitaos. The text is overall English.--Anton Hougel (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not Greek Mythology, but Scythian Mythology via a Greek author, who tried to tie it into Greek Mythology. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then I confused two different mythologies. Feel free to overwrite the old stuff. That's all I could find on this.--Anton Hougel (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the example of "Targitai", it does appear in some English-language books: [64]. Some of these look like translations (from Russian?), which still counts. Some may be originally English. The more common English spelling appears to be Targitaos or Targitaus, assuming these refer to the same character. 70.172.194.25 20:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're too diplomatic- the etymology is utter nonsense. I speedied the "Targitai, Targitaus or Targitaüs is recognised by some as the Torgamah of the biblical annals" sense: it's not a definition, it's etymological speculation. Really, though, all four of the remaining "definitions" read like lines in an etymology. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The removed sense also seems to be "borrowed" verbatim from an earlier version of the Targitaos page on Wikipedia Chuck Entz (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Written by an editor with no contributions outside of that particular topic, as if the account was created solely for that purpose? Don't tell me... — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 21:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

incorrect

Rfv-sense "(rare) To make something that was right become wrong; to add error to." All I can find are scannos and cases of "incorrected" to mean "uncorrected" i.e. "not corrected". — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can find "someone who 'incorrects my English'", but this would be either archaic, obsolete, rare, or even nonstandard. 176.88.85.16 15:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did a search for "incorrected" on Usenet, bust most results are people mistakenly using the word in place of "incorrect". Binarystep (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Citations:incorrecting. 176.88.85.16 06:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That poor quality citation is probably the best we can do, the best I could find is the following [65] but this seems to be mistakenly using incorrected when it should say incorrect, rather than using it to mean made incorrect. I can’t see this passing. Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that your citation is mistake. However, the word "incorrected" in your citation means "added an error" rather than "not corrected". 176.88.85.16 13:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, it’s too poorly worded for me to be sure. The mathematics isn’t difficult, the author is saying that 24 terms should be summed instead of 25, but it’s weirdly worded. The citation for incorrecting makes even less sense semantically though and is an uncheckable snippet view containing the scanno ‘develoption’. We have at best found one citable use so far of a form of the alleged verb incorrect being used. Overlordnat1 (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The citation is an artifact from gluing incorrect in one column of text to another speaker’s -ing in another column of text. Incorrecting the decolumnization results in:

(Mr. ~~Davis~~ Casey speaking:)

As I understand the posi-

tion, the honorable gentleman is incorrect

in believing that Australia sought permission

for Royal Australian Air Force aircraft to land in Indonesian territory.

(Mr Davidson speaking:)

Therefore, the department is, in

common parlance, flat out in attempting to

get ahead of the demand that it sees develop-

ing in the various areas. I am satisfied that

the department is expending...

--Lambiam 14:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great analysis. You must’ve found this link:-[66] (on pages 315 and 316). Overlordnat1 (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Note: I blocked this user today for having created large numbers of rubbishy entries based on obvious scannos of this sort. I think they've used several IPs over many months.) Equinox ◑ 23:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

jas#English

Current etymology says it's "from an Afrikaans slang word for 'horny'." Which term is that, and is it used in an English context (as oppose to code-switching or similar? --217.229.67.107 21:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This word features a few times at w:List of South African slang words. Most significantly, under "List of Afrikanerisms" we have:

jux/juks/jags – Meaning "horny". For example, "Jinne meisie, jy maak my nou sommer lekker jags."

We have an entry for jags. Urban Dictionary (the November 2, 2009 entry) and this slightly NSFW tweet (noting the meaning of piel) suggest the spelling jas is in use in English, although finding durably archived cites may be a challenge. This, that and the other (talk) 10:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

desuete

tagged but not listed, and it looks cited as well. Kiwima (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

mayocide

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 14:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly common Internet usage. Not citable from the respectable sources. Equinox ◑ 17:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is used all the time online, but since it's not in any books, it's probably gonna be impossible to cite. The fact that our citation policy forces us to ignore common internet lingo is a problem that will only get worse with time. Binarystep (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The CFI policy has been modified to allow for web citations on a case-by-case basis. As for which cases we want to allow, I'm not aware of any guidelines. But see e.g. sniddy and dorcassing which were deleted after the CFI change despite the existence of ample Twitter usage, so I guess we want to hold words to a higher standard than that. And westaboo (listed above), which has been extensively cited using Tweets, whose fate remains to be seen. 70.172.194.25 23:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Have any terms actually been kept because of the CFI change? So far, it seems like no one wants to be the first person to invoke it. Binarystep (talk) 01:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fail at dorcassing was pretty unilateral by the closer, and cut off a discussion that was clearly reaching some kind of consensus towards keep, albeit with time being required to find additional acceptable online cites. I don't think it's a good example to use as a precedent of the standard. Theknightwho (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Filovirus

With capital F, in English? Why? It's not a genus. Equinox ◑ 19:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be a genus. See e.g. w:Ebolavirus#Classification. 70.172.194.25 00:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not finding very much at Google Scholar for either the genus (which should be capitalized and italicized) or for Filovirus as an alternative form of filovirus. What cites I have found are now at Filovirus#English, but the italicized ones are arguably for the taxonomic name, though they appear in seeming medical articles, not virology articles. I believe that the ICTV nomenclature rules were not widely accepted until the last years of the last millennium. DCDuring (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The modest volume of usage of the capitalized term, which use often seems erroneous in form or reference (eg, family Filovirus), makes me disinclined to search further for support for the English term. The cites that show italicized, capitalized usage should be in the Translingual section. DCDuring (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it used to be a genus, we should probably convert this to Translingual and define it as the historical genus, yes? (I see DCDuring has added a Translingual section. Thanks.) Equinox ◑ 18:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

snowshoe disease

Can't find this anywhere outside of one mention, in Dictionary of the American West (2008, Win Blevins). Equinox ◑ 21:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

abovedeck

Figurative sense: without artifice; above-board. Equinox ◑ 21:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

for all intrinsic purposes

AFAICT, none of the cites of Citations:for all intrinsic purposes are from durably archived sources and at least one has already disappeared. DCDuring (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The ones that were listed as "Google groups" are actually Usenet cites. As far as I can tell, the first three all remain available. This, that and the other (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Great. How can we be sure that they are Usenet groups? DCDuring (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few reasons: (a) the alt. and rec. hierarchies are Usenet hierarchies; (b) Google Groups didn't come into existence until 2001 and the first three posts predate it; (c) the groups all can be found in the Usenet Info Center: [67] for example. This, that and the other (talk) 02:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That leaves us with 4 potentially good cites, only one after 2001. I'll have to make Usenet Info Center a favorite on my browser. DCDuring (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I examined the "cites" a little further. Four of the six cites that were not durably archived were not available to me on clicking the links provided. One of the five Usenet cites was blocked because of spam by someone with the power to do so, namely Google. I could not contact the owners of the group or join the group through Google groups. Also the failure to provide message id makes verifying the claimed usenet cites tedious and probably makes verification using a gateway/archive other than Google impractical. All of this link rot occurred since August 2, 2007, ie, in less than 15 years. I think this demonstrates empirically why we need durably archived media for citations. DCDuring (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A very interesting experiment. How many of the non-durably-archived cites are available in the Wayback Machine? That would be an interesting test of that service's value for durable archiving, should we have to vote on it one day. This, that and the other (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I never adequately appreciated the value of message-id, which was part of {{quote-usenet}} (2010-2016) and is part of {{quote-newsgroup}} (as "id"). It offers freedom from what amounts for our purposes to book-burning by Google.

As long as it is funded the Wayback Machine seems adequate. A WMF-operated or -funded archive of citations with some extra context seems likely to be better. DCDuring (talk) 10:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added non-Usenet citations that might help with this entry. I am still not entirely familiar with {{quote-book}}, so please forgive any resulting errors in formatting or missing information. If needed, there are a few additional results from texts archived in the Wayback Machine. Amadeusine (talk) 03:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

crestfallen

Challenging sense 2: "depressed" (long-term? in general?), distinct from the everyday sense 1: "sad because of a recent disappointment". Equinox ◑ 18:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NATO

Rfv-sense

This sense was likely generated by a Russian trollbot and should probably be deleted outright? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, this isn't a troll. I've seen this before from Marxist-Leninists on Twitter and Reddit. Could be a good test of the recent CFI change. Binarystep (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

so any contribution that is different or unique is automatically the work of a Russian trollbot? 2602:306:CEC2:A3A0:1D6:3656:BF36:FEAF 03:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But is this an acronym of North American Terrorist Organization or North Atlantic Terrorist Organization?

May 2022

argyraspide

Not much evidence for this in English. Much more for argyraspid. DCDuring (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

nemesis

Rfv-sense "A righteous infliction of retribution manifested by an appropriate agent." Removed by (probably the same) IP twice out of process. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 17:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems similar to senses 3 and 4, and I'm not sure how well we could distinguish them in quotations. I think sense 3 is supposed to be uncountable, though, so that's a difference. I'm also not sure what the "manifested by an appropriate agent" part is adding. 70.172.194.25 17:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge senses 3, 4 and 6 into “(usually in the singular) Retribution.” --Lambiam 09:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The definitions (3, 4, 6) seem distinct, but have no citations. After merger we still need an RfV. I also wonder which of these definitions should be viewed as, at the very least, dated. MW 1913 and Century 1913 only have definitions for Nemesis, which fact might speed searches for citations for the definitions of the lower-case form. Google Books shows only ~2% of usage for N/nemesis to be for the lowercase form in 1900-1909. DCDuring (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for the (pleonastic) deserved nemesis finds some lower-case citations ([68], [69], [70]), as well as upper-cased uses of deserved Nemesis ([71], [72], [73]). --Lambiam 09:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those cites seem to fit defs. 4 and 6 equally well. Some other dictionaries combine the punishing act with the result thereof to make a single definition. DCDuring (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This sense duality, the act and the result, is shared by punishment and retribution. --Lambiam 08:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of words have defs. that cover both an act (etc.) and its consequence. DCDuring (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is meant by sense 3, “the principle of retributive justice”? Does that mean something different from retribution being viewed as a deserved punishment? --Lambiam 08:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It must be an abstraction from and depersonalization of Nemesis. DCDuring (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not having citations puts us in the position of relying on each of our idiolects or somehow amalgamating other dictionaries' definitions without violating copyright. To me that means we need citations. Shortening the definitions to their essentials should help. The chance of finding citations that simultaneously and unambiguously support even three aspects of a definition is nil. DCDuring (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sejms

Uses in English seem to be the capitalized form Sejms. -- Medmunds (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be several uses in books, eg at https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/A_Short_History_of_Lithuania_to_1569_Cen/qJBFEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=sejms&pg=PT240&printsec=frontcover A Short History of Lithuania to 1569: Centennial Edition (1921–2021) By Josef A. Katzel · 2021

https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Between_Rome_and_Byzantium/_ureDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=sejms&pg=PT212&printsec=frontcover Between Rome and Byzantium The Golden Age of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania’s Political Culture. Second Half of the Fifteenth Century to First Half of the Seventeenth Century By Jūratė Kiaupienė · 2020

https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/The_Polish_Lithuanian_Commonwealth_1733/g2cOEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=sejms&pg=PA22&printsec=frontcover page 29, 89 & more The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, 1733-1795 Light and Flame By Richard Butterwick · 2021

https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/The_Struggle_for_Constitutionalism_in_Po/aOggDAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=sejms&pg=PA32&printsec=frontcover The Struggle for Constitutionalism in Poland By M. Brzezinski · 1997

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

tankhood

The state or sphere of being in a tank, especially sea creatures.

This is apparently from Finding Nemo. Is this used anywhere else? Chuck Entz (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

fishandchipper

Can't find any quotation with the non-hyphenated form. The google books search omits hyphens in words but if you see the page of the book, you'll find the hyphenated form. —Svārtava (t/u) • 10:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Google books has quotations of both hyphenated AND non-hyphenated forms. Stop being a child. FishandChipper (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The previews in Google Books Search are notoriously inaccurate. When you view the actual pages themselves, it is clear that hyphens are present in all four cites that were added. I removed them. This, that and the other (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in IA. I can't even find anything on the wider web, which is usually a very bad sign. This, that and the other (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did raise eyebrows at the lack of spaces. I'm not surprised that the citatons give it hyphenated. @This, that and the other Do they fit fish-and-chipper? Theknightwho (talk) 10:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they do, although I doubt they would add any value beyond the three cites already at that entry. This, that and the other (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

gMail

At the risk of, if not arousing hate, then at least placing myself in receipt of scornful disdain, I'm challenging this alt form. I looked in a few places, notably Google Books results from 2004/5 when Gmail was in its infancy and people might have been confused about how to write it, but found nothing. The case-sensitive search at https://www.english-corpora.org/googlebooks/ may be useful if anyone has access to that (it wouldn't let me register). Any attempt to search Usenet is obviously hopeless unless a case-sensitive search mechanism can be found. (Presumably one could download an archive of Usenet posts and search it oneself, but I lack the time and the disk space to do it.) This, that and the other (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. eccl. phil.

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 13:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The few web sources I can find all pertain to the Jewish University of Colorado (arguably misleadingly named, as it is actually Messianic Jewish/Christian). Those web hits may not even be durably archived. 98.170.164.88 22:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ao-i-t'o-ko-la-k'o

Rare --Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Geographyinitiative: you created this entry. Did you try to find at least three qualifying quotations spanning more than a year before doing so? It doesn’t seem to be a productive use of other editors’ time for you to create entries that you aren’t even personally sure will pass RFV. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No I did not. You're saying I should just go for the speedy delete? Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Geographyinitiative: no, since this entry doesn’t seem like it obviously violates the CFI I think RFV is the correct place to challenge it. But rather than challenging your own entries, in future you should only create new entries after at least making a reasonable attempt to ensure that CFI is complied with. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very true, I agree and understand. My goal then was to just try and see what was out there. My goal now is to clean up the areas I have worked on and make them nice. Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

daddy's carrot

“(vulgar, Internet slang) a penis”. Tagged by Jberkel, not listed. J3133 (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly SOP if "carrot" by itself can be attested as a phallic euphemism. 98.170.164.88 21:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can find it used as such (“Put your carrot back in your pants”, “I ... wondered if I should snap my carrot like Toobin did”), but not in permanently recorded media. --Lambiam 08:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with penis euphemisms is that almost any object of that shape can probably be attested as being used that way. This is likely SoP though. Theknightwho (talk) 10:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

knee splitter

Maybe from the same torture tool-box as the infamous Spanish tickler. No IA hits before 2007. – Jberkel 22:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thrifty

Rfv-sense:

(obsolete) Secured by thrift; well husbanded.
Having a pleasant appearance; looking or being in good condition.

OED gives only a Shakespeare cite for the first one (what does that gloss even mean?) and lacks the second sense. Webster 1913 marks the second sense as "Obs." and gives a Chaucer quote, which is placed by OED under a sense "Respectable, decent, becoming, proper" that has only Middle English evidence. This, that and the other (talk) 04:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Revision as of 15:33, 5 May 2022 edit 91.65.111.131 (talk) No edit summary ← Go to previous edit		Revision as of 15:33, 5 May 2022 edit undo 91.65.111.131 (talk) →‎accurater, accuratest Go to next edit →
Line 1,162:		Line 1,162:

	== [[accurater#rfv-notice-en-\|accurater]], [[accuratest#rfv-notice-en-\|accuratest]] ==		== [[accurater#rfv-notice-en-\|accurater]], [[accuratest#rfv-notice-en-\|accuratest]] ==
	I cannot find native English web pages that use this comparative and superlative, ~~only~~ those that copy data from Wiktionary and one entry in Urban Dictionary. Technically, these word forms could exist but they don't.		I cannot find native English web pages that use this comparative and superlative, except for those that copy data from Wiktionary and one lone entry in Urban Dictionary. Technically, these word forms could exist but they don't.

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

Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English: difference between revisions