Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English

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

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

Newest 10 tagged RFVs

• menald
  Palpy
  motornapping
  motornap
  baby collar
  Juan time
  grotto
  civilian clothes
  center island
  via-satellite
  

Scope of this request page:

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

Templates:

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

Shortcut:

• WT:RFV

See also:

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

Overview: This page is for disputing the existence of terms or senses. It is for requests for attestation of a term or a sense, leading to deletion of the term or a sense unless an editor proves that the disputed term or sense meets the attestation criterion as specified in Criteria for inclusion, usually by providing citations from three durably archived sources. Requests for deletion based on the claim that the term or sense is nonidiomatic or “sum of parts” should be posted to Wiktionary:Requests for deletion. Requests to confirm that a certain etymology is correct should go in the Etymology scriptorium, and requests to confirm pronunciation is correct should go in the Tea Room.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oldest 100 tagged RFVs

• trema
  ↑
  ↓
  soothness
  superseminate
  sexatrigesimal
  goodgeon
  poiuytrewq
  pooptard
  Hawai`ian
  girl rented overnight
  easselgate
  easselward
  pilk
  vorny
  Hawai`i
  failscade
  failcascade
  don't fuck in the factory
  accordion
  abstorted
  pantaphobia
  -all
  special
  stintance
  herbert
  Hell-Realm
  atheist
  Satan
  chastity belt
  I'dn't
  nuke
  blag
  born
  flower
  uvic
  Ames
  pal up
  chromatotron
  bigfootologist
  nonkilling
  long
  royd
  parentism
  proliferation
  morning-after
  kang
  civic activity
  cliffdrop
  false bluetail emo skink
  jesust
  BeReal
  break the back of
  polymania
  MCCE
  boot
  knouting
  code vector
  loan
  spade
  slaveboy
  ithe
  spontaneous
  LGBTQ
  pash
  abarcy
  frouple
  abait
  mukt
  oversit
  gestalt
  Uber problem
  tergant
  compilation behaviour
  concordancing
  underfong
  three halfpennies
  dominus vobiscum
  nuces vomicae
  oes
  ponderosa
  lemon-lime
  ice
  kaparrang
  cunty
  cunt
  malasapsap
  Tomosteng
  virtually
  kreyk
  Dniprova
  atmotic
  aquan
  cyphonism
  structural
  twitter
  bedroom deal
  Martinshorn
  pyment
  VIPer
  

March 2022

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Vote on citations is here. Kiwima (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

As I was the only one to vote in favour of keeping this, I guess it fails. Kiwima (talk) 03:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@Kiwima the vote was never listed at WT:V, therefore no-one knew about it other than via the link you posted just above. I think the vote should be rerun. This, that and the other (talk) 04:04, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Those votes have every appearance of being a unilaterally-implemented punitive roadblock thrown up when you were called out for unilaterally closing multiple RfV nominations as delete despite their promise of being attestible through online sources. I'm not playing along with this pointless game. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 05:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

@WordyAndNerdy, AG202: It is time for us to finally start implementing Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2022-01/Handling of citations that do not meet our current definition of permanently archived. There is Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2022/February#Forming_a_standardized_process_for_discussions_about_online-only_sources_and_attestation but nothing has been done as a consequence of it. I am considering to create a formal vote covering:

• The creation of a separate voting venue where source websites and associated constraints can be proposed and voted on within a 2-week period. This includes negative proposals, i.e. votes to bar a website or a certain kind of website from being used as a cite in the future.
  • The additional constraints can include the weight of a cite from this source (durably archived sources have weight 1, i.e. they count as one each towards the three-citation rule), whether an RFV discussion is necessary to discuss whether the specific citations are permissible, which time frame the citations may be from, whether the content (in the case of social media networks) has to come from specific contributors (e.g. government institutions) etc.
• The creation of a list of these decisions, linked to at the end of "Other online-only sources may also contribute towards attestation requirements if editors come to a consensus through a discussion lasting at least two weeks." in WT:CFI (influenced by w:WP:RSPSS).

What do you think? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I would support this. We definitely need a separate venue for this type of issue. AG202 (talk) 17:07, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, except that I'd shy away from allowing certain websites to be completely banned from use for cites, and that I'd argue that cites for specific entries'll usually have to be handled individually, on a case-by-case basis. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 20:30, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I thought that the CFI update would lead to a big communal discussion on which online sources can be considered fit-for-purpose and that further discussions would be opened as needed. That never materialized. So any forward momentum on this is a positive in my book. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 03:16, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I also did not know about this vote; I've added my support now. AG202 (talk) 05:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

The vote has ended with no consensus. It's a disappointing outcome; the vote had some procedural issues, caused mainly by the fact that the cites are all in simile form (arguably we shouldn't have ever had sense 17.1 at all, because all words take on a generalised meaning in that way when used in a simile), plus there were a few opposers who had problems with the very idea of the vote.

I suppose there is no choice but to put RFV-failed here, but hopefully things can be ironed out on the procedural front so we don't get into this mess in future. This, that and the other (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

It is completely and utterly incomprehensible to me why, one, the sense "something that explodes ..." was created and, two, why all the citations along the lines of "like a creeper" were assigned to that sense. The distinction between similes and figurative uses is obviously lexicographically relevant. The fact that there is such a deep-running misunderstanding on this website about what lexical items even are and about what senses are (diff) really takes the joy out of it for me. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 13:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Me too. DCDuring (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Imho, with these kind of procedural issues and the fact that it ended in no consensus, the sense at 17 should be re-added, and a re-vote (not at the same venue!) should be in order. However, I'm not an admin, obviously, so I'm not going to implement that myself, but that's just how I feel. AG202 (talk) 14:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The sources are no good under current rules. Therefore, the entry should be deleted under current rules. If you want a different result for this kind of entry get the rules changed. If you can't get the rules changed, then operate within the rules. DCDuring (talk) 14:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The vote was supposed to be about the sources in question. However as @This, that and the other mentioned, the vote had multiple procedural issues, and so, in my opinion, it should be redone. This entry can definitely exist under the current rules, see: melanoheliophobia which passed. This would not require a change of the rules, either. AG202 (talk) 14:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a valid pass to me. DCDuring (talk) 16:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@DCDuring It's part of the changes that were voted upon in Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2022-01/Handling_of_citations_that_do_not_meet_our_current_definition_of_permanently_archived. So yes, we did get the rules changed, actually. AG202 (talk) 17:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

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)

April 2022

amogus

Equinox ◑ 03:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

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

I think the IP means "ECP salted". See [1]. This, that and the other (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

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)

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

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

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 [2] This, that and the other (talk) 10:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

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, ie, a half-life of ~9 years. DCDuring (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

There are ways around this, such as the Internet Archive. Theknightwho (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

westaboo

98.170.164.88 19:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

"...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)

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

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)

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)

vajungle

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

RFV-passed. Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Third cite is not durably archived? This, that and the other (talk) 23:39, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

There's a use on Usenet, but it's in the middle of some kind of poetic word salad: [3]. Page 100 of this thesis uses the word, but with a different meaning. There are some uses on Twitter (not durably archived either), but not an impressive number. 98.170.164.88 01:25, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I was perhaps a bit too hasty to pass this, due to the third cite issue but the earliest Twitter use is from 2008 [4] and the earliest that clearly conveys meaning is the following from2009 [5]. Then there’s this early blog post from 2010 [6], the Guns and Roses cover band Guns and Hoses singing ‘Welcome to the vajungle’ and apparently selling ‘Vajungle pants’ according to Twitter, ‘Vajungle’ being the name of a play about sexual abuse (though I don’t know if hairy axe wounds feature), the comedian Ralphie May saying it in the YouTube video called ‘These are glorious times’ (over 3 million hits) and some uses on TikTok. Can’t see anything technically durably archived that conveys a clear meaning other than the two cites already found though, or even any GoogleImage hits for Vajungle memes. Probably slightly less worth of inclusion than Dorcassing or FaCIAbook which have already failed, for better or worse. Overlordnat1 (talk) 02:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

I found and added two citations to the citations page, but have not yet found a third. Kiwima (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Purity of Virgins

Captain of Man's Salvation

Father of Heaven and Earth

Glory of Heaven

King of Glory

Joy of Angels

King of Patriarchs

Light of the World

Redeemer of the World

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”.^[7] 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”,^[8] 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)

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)

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^[9] is a lexical term for Jeffrey Preston Bezos.  --Lambiam 09:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

Whew! I have cited all of these epithets. The ones I could not cite, I moved to another heading where they have been marked failed. Whether these epithets are inclusion-worthy is more a question for RFD than RFV. Kiwima (talk) 05:05, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I am unfortunately inclined to say not cited (for the most part); while I appreciate the time and effort you've put into finding occurrences of these sequences of letters in texts, they (mostly) don't demonstrate that these phrases idiomatically mean what the entries claim they idiomatically mean, as other users have laid out above, and that has traditionally been an RFV issue, despite some efforts of late to insist such things should be offloaded to the Tea Room, RFC, and/or RFD. (This has been an occasional issue with other things being marked as passed because the sequence of letters occurred in a book, but not actually in the claimed meaning, e.g. at quenouille.) For example, citations of the form "He is the immaculate Lamb of God; He is the Purity of Virgins; He is the Lover of Chastity." don't seem to me (or apparently Lambiam or other users above) to support the idea that it means or is lexically an epithet for "Jesus" any more than "Biden is the President" would support a sense "Epithet for Joe Biden" at President. I can see how the border between this and an RFD issue is a bit grey and fuzzy, but in this case the discussion above suggests that enough people think this (issue that we need other citations, if they exist [which we have RFVed the entries because we doubt], not citations of the form provided) is an RFV issue that I think it's correctly listed here. I don't want to step on anyone's toes but I am tempted to remove the citations like that ("He is the Purity of Virgins; He is the Lover of Chastity") for that reason (they don't satisfy the RFV issue). - -sche (discuss) 19:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

PLM

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

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)

I put in a bunch of citations from various websites. In searching, I also saw a fair number of occurrences of "prison lives matter" and "Palestinian lives matter". Kiwima (talk) 23:49, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

RFV-failed I believe that there are cites out there, but we only have two. According to this, there should be something on soc.culture.jewish where this gained popularity in 1999, so if someone wants to put in a bit of effort, we may be able to resurrect this. Kiwima (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Kiwima: If you click on where it says "soc.culture.jewish" in that article, it leads you right to the referenced Usenet post: https://groups.google.com/g/soc.culture.jewish/c/rWqDtb_tz-0/m/lCkbj753z-4J — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 23:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

All right, in that case, let's put the citations that have been found to a vote. One is permanently archived, one is usenet, which has historically been accepted, and one is a blog by a journalist. Kiwima (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

May 2022

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)

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)

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

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)

Searching for the (pleonastic) deserved nemesis finds some lower-case citations ([10], [11], [12]), as well as upper-cased uses of deserved Nemesis ([13], [14], [15]).  --Lambiam 09:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

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)

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

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

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)

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

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)

Yes, it was the same IP, me. Sorry if "out of process", I don't know what process this refers to and I don't remember seeing any mentioned in the editing screen. I attempted to open it for discussion in the edit summary. The "definition" was almost certainly added by someone directly quoting Snatch. I believe the definition was deliberately made up for the script as a cool thing for the character to say and is unsuitable as a dictionary entry. If it actually describes a sense of the word, it should be phrased in a more appropriate way. --2003:C9:471A:3700:11B7:EDF0:4BA3:F179 20:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

sejms

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

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)

I reformatted this entry as "plural of sejm" so that the cites can go at the lemma. Can someone help by creating the entry sejm with a proper definition? It seems to be some kind of governing assembly or committee in Poland and surrounding areas. This, that and the other (talk) 05:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Is sejm an English noun (borrowed from Polish)? Or a Polish noun (that is referenced in English texts discussing Polish government)? Medmunds (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

It's pretty likely to be both. All three links found by Graeme also use "sejm" unitalicised in their running English text. And I don't know Polish, but it stands to reason that it would exist as a generic noun in that language as well. This, that and the other (talk) 05:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

RFV-passed, couldn't be bothered to format the cites for this non-lemma form entry. This, that and the other (talk) 04:07, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

tankhood

1. 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)

We have enough cites independent of Finding Nemo to pass WF:Fiction, but they are not permanently archived. Given the negative response we have gotten to putting the new voting scheme for citation acceptability on the main voting page, I am holding the vote for these cites below: Kiwima (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Why not just let it ride, pending a policy vote? DCDuring (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@DCDuring: I am not clear on what you are suggesting. Please explain. Kiwima (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Just wait until the relevant policy vote happens. No rush. 30 days is a minimum. There is no maximum. If this page gets crowded, move the undecided entries.definitions to a subpage. DCDuring (talk) 04:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Dr. eccl. phil.

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

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)

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

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

@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)

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

@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)

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)

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)

It seems exceedingly hard to find citations that definitively use one of these two sense. Senses 2 and 5 ('thriving' and 'having a pleasant appearance') can be hard to distinguish; likewise for senses 3 and 4 when applied to an animal ('well-husbanded' and 'growing rapidly'). In a surprising number of texts, a beautiful, thriving and frugal woman is called thrifty! Nevertheless I've found a quote for the first that may match the gloss given. It's been added to the page. I've found more success looking for thriftie and thrifty than the standard spelling.

The fifth sense seems to have been grandfathered into the OED directly from Johnson's dictionary, Shakespeare quote and all.

One quote that may match the second is from Johnson's Cynthia's Revels, III. iv:

Nor can my weak imperfect memory
Now render half the forms unto my tongue,
That were convolved within this thrifty room.

The OED lists this as the only quote for its even more obscure sense 4.c, marked obsolete and transferred.

Winthrop23 (talk) 11:29, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe I have cited the first of the two challenged senses (secured by thrift), and have added one for the second. Kiwima (talk) 11:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Can we have a better gloss for sense 4? I'm not totally sure I understand what this sense means. This, that and the other (talk) 05:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Naize'er Bage

A page which is seemingly uncitable. (I did not create it) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

ick

"(slang) Anything moaned about; a gripe." Needs to be cited distinct from the other two senses. If real, it suggests there may be a plural "icks", which doesn't seem easy to find. Equinox ◑ 11:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

radde

Rfv-sense: Chaucerian past participle of rede. The past participle of read is not really in doubt. This, that and the other (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Chaucer stuff tagged as Webster 1913 should just be converted to Middle English. W1913 did not distinguish between OE, ME and ModE. Equinox ◑ 10:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Still needs checking in EEBO to sift through all the pasts of read. This, that and the other (talk) 05:15, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

ming

Rfv-sense: "(intransitive) To speak; tell; talk; discourse. <!--obsolete? dialect? certainly not standard-->" OED has Middle English evidence only for this sense. This, that and the other (talk) 10:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

langure

Should be Middle English if anything? Webster's Chaucer source can't be found. Ultimateria (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ultimateria: Chaucer: “Now wol I speke of woful dauyan Þat langureþ for loue.” (MED) J3133 (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

@Ultimateria good catch; I should have moved the Chaucer bit to Middle English languren. There's nothing modern for this spelling in OED. In EEBO one finds a couple of noun uses and two post-1500 verb uses: one published from 1528 (not clear when it was written) and the other a 1670s modernisation of Julian of Norwich. This, that and the other (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

heterofascism

Can't find anything in Google Books -- at least unhyphenated. Equinox ◑ 20:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

[16] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:39, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 00:09, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 00:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Aangirasa

The forms "Āngirasa" and "Āṅgirasa" might be citable, if you want to count those as English words and not code-switching. "Aangirasa" has some uses as a name/epithet, but I could not find any using the calendar sense. 98.170.164.88 23:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

discrimination

Rfv-sense "That which discriminates; mark of distinction, a characteristic."

Seems plausible, but I don't know if it's real. As a user of Wiktionary rather than an editor, I want to see full-blown top-of-the-line cites there. Also for the other senses. You care so much about internet racist slang, but 'discrimination' literally has no cites but one I just added. When will 'discrimination' as an entry be ready to be considered as a word of the day? cf. Wiktionary_talk:English_entry_guidelines#Hyperfocus_on_Crudity --Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

It's not that editors don't care about ordinary terms like discrimination, but that there are some people who, for whatever reason, delight in including these offensive slang terms in the dictionary. The terms are then duly (and rightly) challenged, which then means the RFV procedure has to be applied. Personally, to discourage the inclusion of such entries, I would not object to a rule applying only to offensive terms that would require an editor to include three qualifying quotations satisfying CFI at the time when the entry is created, otherwise the entry may be speedily deleted. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

When I see several senses, including the one hard/rare sense I mention above specifically, getting bare-bones treatment for an important entry like this, it's FLABBERGASTING. You all and your processes and schemes and cites are NOTHING if discrimination gets no more treatment than what it has now. I leave it all to you. Enjoy Wiktionary's irrelevance if you don't ever work on the real words. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

There are millions of entries that are deserving of improvement. For my own sanity I’ve decided to focus on entries that have been nominated for WOTD. Frankly, it’s not particularly productive to rail at other editors and claim they are not doing enough. Feel free to take the initiative to improve entries you feel are important. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

It exists, but is old; see NED's entry, sense 2. This, that and the other (talk) 09:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

For the most common definitions of common words it should be much easier to add usage examples than to fully provide contemporary attestation. Usage examples would serve to help users and provide some focus for evaluating the adequacy of the definition exemplified. RfVs would follow if there is a problem that an individual contributor cannot solve. DCDuring (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Just like determination can mean “the act of determining, or the state of being determined”, I think discrimination can mean “the act of discriminating, or the state of being discriminated”. This is basically the current sense 1, but in the sense “an act” it is clearly countable. It can be seen heree used in the plural form. I tend to think that the citation from 1789 given at the sense to be verified actually also has this sense. A better definition for the sense in the NED is (IMO) “A distinctive characteristic; that by which a distinction or classification can be made” – which can be a mark, but also a colour, a shape, a sound, an odour, ..., or any combination of suchlike.  --Lambiam 15:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

I note that MWOnline has five definitions, but does not have the obsolete/rare definition, whereas we have four, including the obsolete/rare sense, which raises the possibility that we lack at least two definitions. DCDuring (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Lambiam OED lists the sense seen there separately; it is a countable US-specific sense relating to discrimination in trade. This, that and the other (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

beme

Etymology 2 somehow got excluded from the RFV of this word; if I recall correctly, I wasn't able to find any post-ME cites of it. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 05:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

@Kiwima, the cites you provided for this aren't any use, as they appear to be (Middle) Scots, not English. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 03:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

@Hazarasp They should be moved to Scots instead of being removed. J3133 (talk) 06:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but I currently lack the time and energy to create the appropriate Scots entry. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 07:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

coalstuff

This is taken from Uncleftish Beholding, a demonstration of what technical English might have been like if Latin had never existed- not conveying meaning. I have my doubts whether there's anything out there that isn't basically quoting or referring directly to this passage. I did see at least one use of another sense having to do with actual coal as a raw material in some industrial process. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

tits

Slang for a young female. "I saw a pretty tits on the bus"? Or is it meant to be a term of address: "come here, tits"? Both sound unlikely to me. Equinox ◑ 20:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

there's some usage in the film "Blue Velvet" (directed by David Lynch):

"Excuse us por favor! Hey. let tits see her kid."

"Hey. Tits. I'm taking your neighbor to the country. maybe something for you too." 2602:306:CEC2:A3A0:3DB6:12F4:36BA:EDF9 20:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Hmm. In those two examples it seems more like Tits is being used as a (proper noun) nickname for someone with tits, like "Hey, Glasses", "Hey, Board Shorts" (from Pretty Little Liars) or "hey, buzzcut!" (found on the web). (I think we've tended not to include that kind of transparent, productive use of words as nicknames.) Maybe there are other cites showing this to be a common noun (is it countable? "titses"?), but I wouldn't interpret those two that way. - -sche (discuss) 01:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

defecaloesiophobia

An old redirect. This form is out there, but in mentions only. It seems to come from everybody's favourite "list of phobias", the same one that gave rise to coulrophobia. All the uses I can find is the cite for this spelling already at defecalgesiophobia and a painfully crappy self-published volume in GBooks. This, that and the other (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Well it should be clear that it's a typo .... an o looks a lot like a g, and a lot of people just dont know Greco-Latin very well .... but on the other hand, both coulrophobia and koumpounophobia have made it to established usage despite deviating from the classic model. On the other hand, in this case we have a clearly established proper form alongside the misspelled one. —Soap— 09:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Clearly a typo, but it has escaped the Petri dish of typographical error and made it to the zoo of published mentions. Did it escape into the wild jungle of durably archived uses, though?

I was sitting there wondering whether the typo/scanno that substitutes an o for a g could unlock some kind of secret to the true origins of coulrophobia, but I'm not seeing it... This, that and the other (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

sweet home Alabama

WTF? Zumbacool (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

This definitely exists as an Internet meme, and would be citable using web sources. Finding offline durably archived citations is more difficult if not impossible. 98.170.164.88 19:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

grapple

Marketing term for a combination of grape and apple flavors. Tagged by @199.58.83.9 but not listed. Binarystep (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

trouser

Rfv-sense: To legally remove funds from an organization for personal use. --Shouldn't it be "illegally"? --Hekaheka (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

That was my first thought too but it can be used to refer to people immorally, but not illegally, removing or being paid money - especially if it’s an excessive amount. The wording of our current definition for this sense does seem rather off though. I can only find one hit on GoogleBooks from tabloid journalist Richard Littlejohn (‘Derry Irvine, Blair’s old boss, trousered a pension fund worth £2.3 million after just five years as Lord Chancellor - all courtesy of the taxpayer’)[17]. Overlordnat1 (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Created Citations:trouser, though it may be better to merge this sense with the previous one if not enough quotes can be found and the definition isn’t quite right. Overlordnat1 (talk) 15:19, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

TV Corpus has quotes similar to this too (from the TV series Midsomer Murders and Capital (for trousered) and MI5 (for trousering)). [18]. Overlordnat1 (talk) 02:45, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

This is similar from the Guardian [19], though it just means ‘earn easily’ here. Perhaps we should generalise it as ‘to gain money quickly and easily, especially if illegally gained or immorally earnt’. Also see [20],[21],[22] and [23]Overlordnat1 (talk) 03:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I’ve created a new sense at trouser based on pocket and added various uses found on Google News as citations. Perhaps the challenged sense can now be safely removed now? I think both the sense I’ve created at trouser and the related sense at pocket could both be improved a bit though by redefining them as ‘To earn, gain or win something (especially money that has been acquired easily, illegally or immorally)’. Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

cordate (2)

Rfv-sense. This was RFV'd recently, but, as Soap pointed out in a recent edit, it is questionable whether the first citation is using the word to refer to an animal with a heart as opposed to just a typo for chordate. So, I am opening this RfV as a technicality, as suggested by Equinox in a reverting edit summary, even though I think the word clearly passes based on the citations from Loptson, Mulligan, and Akiba.

• The Douarin quote is almost certainly using it to mean "chordate", both because it just makes sense (vertebrates are a clade that evolved from the larger clade of chordates), and because they are referencing a particular work by Gans and Northcutt (1983) which explicitly uses "chordates".
• Quine is using it to refer to animals with hearts: [24]. But you can't tell this from the quotation we give in the entry. Might be worth adding some context, with {{...}} as needed. (Can anyone find the 2009 edition text?)
• McCarthy is unclear: see the page. He's a philosopher of language partially drawing on the work of Quine, just like all the other valid usage examples are (note that they are all using it as basically an example word for the purpose of discussing logic; the word does not seem to be used in biology). But nothing in the quotation or its immediate context suggests a connection with hearts. He doesn't mention 'renates', like Quine did, and in the context either one would work. (Since both 'chordates' and 'cordates' are supersets of 'tigers'). I'm open to removing it (as Soap wanted) or keeping it (if we want to give the benefit of the doubt).

Btw, maybe we should add a sense that explains it can be a misspelling of chordate, using the Douarin quote, [25], [26], etc. 98.170.164.88 22:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

For the adjectival sense, the use of “cordate” in the quotation from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia is definitely a mistranslation or misspelled translation of хордовых (“chordate”).^[27]  --Lambiam 10:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

There are currently five cites for the "animal with a heart" sense, to which I applied the label (philosophy). The Douarin cite has been taken away to the citations page (this seems like a rare misspelling not worth including). The Loptson, Mulligan and Akiba cites are unambiguous uses. The Quine cite is actually from 1970, and I added some more context as requested. Any reason not to call this cited? This, that and the other (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

The Great Soviet Encyclopedia should be removed too. I would argue that since at least two of the citations Wiktionarians tried to gather for the "heart" senses ended up being misspellings of "chordate", this empirically shows that there is potential for confusion, so including the misspelling sense is justified. 98.170.164.88 08:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Noun sense RFV-passed; the adjective sense is also being challenged, but currently only has one cite. This, that and the other (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

economic need

Was added as Economic Needs, I applied standard formatting and moved it. Seems pretty poorly written tbh but I decided to bring it here to see what people say and whether they think it's SoP or not. User: The Ice Mage ^{talk to meh} 15:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure we could find economic need being used in many ways, including even in accordance with the dreadful definition given. But I strongly suspect that those uses will be SoP, reflecting various definitions of the component terms. DCDuring (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I don’t see any sense of economic that would make this SOP.  --Lambiam 14:14, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe there is a sense (or multiple senses) missing. I can think of other phrases that use the word economic to refer to one's personal resource situation and not that of the whole economy. Btw, I think the definition on economic need is confus(ed|ing). For example, it seems like quite a stretch to put "loving relationship" as an example, but I could be missing something. 98.170.164.88 16:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

In any event, we need citations that unambiguously support this definition or a reworded one in the same spirit. DCDuring (talk) 22:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Economics is an intellectually imperialistic field. Utility theory could apply to anything that humans want including "friendship,loving relationship, community services and workplace relations". If anything "economic need" is a pleonasm: all needs are subject to economic laws and reasoning. DCDuring (talk) 22:56, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

kinderfeindlichkeit

Tagged but not listed by an IP with the message “is this term actually used in English?”. Old Man Consequences (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Most uses I found were capitalized. Some were italicized but some weren't. 98.170.164.88 04:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Howe & Strauss use this word (albeit with a capital K) in their books (Generations, The Fourth Turning, etc.) when talking about the Gen-X childhood. I've used it myself. 2601:644:102:C610:C0EF:E040:37E0:F2F8 09:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

This is not a legal term that I have ever encountered in English law, and comes up with 0 results on Practical Law and Westlaw. It's total rubbish, so sense 1 should be speedied. Theknightwho (talk) 11:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

stank

Rfv-sense: sigh. Not in OED. If kept, Swedish word should possibly be changed to stånka Zumbacool (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

It's in the EDD ({{R:EDD|stank|v.4 and sb.4|730|noformat=1}}) with a couple example sentences, but I'm not sure if those are taken from published works. If you look up "stanked" on Google Books, you can find some hits related to cows, and EDD also has examples related to cows. The EDD explains that the term is used for cows sighing in pain, but it seems like "stank" is being used differently in the cattle-related quotations I found. Not clear if it can be cited outside of that particular context, but it would be good if possible. 98.170.164.88 04:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

lightning

Rfv-sense: The act of making bright, or the state of being made bright; enlightenment; brightening, as of the mental powers. Zumbacool (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

That seems to me to be four distinct definitions, which would require three citations each. Maybe a better definition is that it is a verb form, an alternative form of lightening. DCDuring (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, looks like a variant of lightening. — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

mabby

Liquor from Barbados, anyone? Zumbacool (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Found some hits for mobby being used in the Barbadian potato drink sense (not using apples or peaches as the current definition states, but that sense also exists). 98.170.164.88 04:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

eagerness

Rfv-sense: Tartness; sourness — This unsigned comment was added by Zumbacool (talk • contribs) at 21:43, 18 May 2022‎.

Do these two look valid? [28], [29] / [30] (same text). 98.170.164.88 23:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Obviously corresponding to the obsolete literal sense 4 of the adjective eager.  --Lambiam 12:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

NED has three cites. Nothing before 1736 in modern OED. This, that and the other (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

crowned

Rfv-sense: great, excessive, supreme. Chaucer quote is wanted, but he's Middle English (enm), not English (en) Zumbacool (talk) 21:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Chaucer used the phrase "crowned malice", but I'm not sure this is what is being sought. 98.170.164.88 23:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The 1934 translation by John Urban Nicolson has “supreme malice”,^[31] which may have contributed to the notion that this is a sense of crowned. The American Dictionary and Cyclopedia of 1896 even has “consummate, consummated, perfect”,^[32] using Chaucer as a quotation. Methinks they are over-interpreting Chaucer’s intention. Earlier this was glossed as “sovereign malice”,^[33] which in the context seems a better fit to me, with sovereign in the sense of “not subject to a higher power”. Anyway, Chaucer’s ME use appears to be the origin of the disputed E sense, which may be dictionary-only.  --Lambiam 13:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

This is OED sense 2 of crowned, adj:

2. Unfailingly effective, perfect, total; (also) completed, consummated. Now rare.

It gives the Chaucer quote but also (verified except where noted):

• Robert Burton in The Anatomy of Melancholy [translating (quoting?) "Ælianus Montaltus"]: "a crowned medicine"
• Robert Barret in A Companion for Midwives: "the crown'd Act of Conception"
• Samuel Richardson in his mammoth novel Clarissa: "the crowned act"
• Emmeline Stuart-Wortley in the third canto of her poem Visionary, published separately and which I have been unable to locate online (or in any library near me): "Their crowned truths"
• Ellen Maria Huntington Gates in The Treasures of Kurium: "That the crownèd truth advances."

Also, searching for "a crowned success" gives quite a few hits on google. This seems like a collocution but since it seems so much more common than other uses of crowned in this manner perhaps it is something more? In any case, Chaucer quote, the verifiable cites above, and one book use of "crowned success" have been added to the citations page. Is this enough? Winthrop23 (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

amma

Rfv-sense: An abbess or spiritual mother. We already have a mother sense, but merging them seems dodgy... Zumbacool (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Maybe some of these are usable: [34], [35], [36]. 98.170.164.88 23:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Here are lots of recent ecclesiastical history books that use the term: [37]; I'm sure some of these could be cited too. 98.170.164.88 23:21, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

lovered

Rfv-sense: "affection, kindness, love" (Etymology 1). According to the OED, this fails to survive beyond Late Middle English except as Middle Scots luferent; it is similarly absent from EEBO and the EDD; Google Books uses appear to solely be Etymology 2. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 04:17, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

cloudberry

Rfv of the verb. I was able to find one sure hit for "cloudberrying" as a gerund, none for 'cloudberried' though. Are there sufficient attestations for a verb header ? Leasnam (talk) 09:12, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Indic

Senses:

• A branch of the Indo-European family of languages comprising Sanskrit and its modern descendants such as Bengali, Hindi, Urdu, and Punjabi.
• Relating to other languages of India, which use Brahmic scripts.
• Pertaining to India or its people, culture and languages; Indian.

Tagged by @Kwamikagami but not listed. Binarystep (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I can't confirm use as a noun (first sense). I'm curious how the 2nd is used, assuming it exists at all. For the 3rd, it would be good to have examples, at least what kind of nouns are modified by "Indic".

Also, "Indo-Aryan" as a synonym for the first. That does exists as a noun (for people), but AFAICT not in the sense here. kwami (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

It's possible to find works that call Tamil and Telugu Indic languages, but maybe they're just mistakes: [38], [39], [40]. 98.170.164.88 00:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiktionary is descriptive; we go by uses. It is entirely possible that some use the term in a broader sense than others.  --Lambiam 17:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I take such works as lying. --RichardW57 (talk) 02:07, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

In an article entitled “A Dataset for Indic Handwritten Text Recognition”,^[41] the authors write in the abstract that they introduce “a large-scale handwritten dataset for Indic scripts ... written ... in 8 widely-used scripts”.^[42] These scripts are identified on the next page as being “Bengali, Gujarati, Gurumkhi, Kannada, Odia, Malayalam, Tamil, and Urdu scripts“.^[43] However we define the adjective, there should be a sense in which, applied to a script, it means, “a script used to write an Indian language”. (Note that the script used for Urdu is not an abugida, so, as used by these authors, “Indic script” is not synonymous with “Brahmic script”.)  --Lambiam 17:42, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I think this is covered by what is currently the third sense, "Pertaining to India or its people, culture and languages; Indian." Even more strikingly, the authors' usage doesn't include the Burmese script, let alone Thai. --RichardW57 (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep the first sense, the noun sense. I've just added three quotations.

I don't understand the second sense. Is it, 2a) "Relating to other languages of India" or 2b) "Relating to other languages of India which use Brahmic scripts". Once we've found the vaguely supporting quotations, do we spin it off to a request for clarification? To me, this pertains to an indigenist claim that Indic and Dravidian are related. I don't know whether this concept brainfart includes Munda, isolates like Kusunda and Burushaski, or the Sino-Tibetan languages of Assam, or even Tai languages like Ahom. At the very least, we need to change "Relating to other" to "Relating also to some other" or "Relating to any". --RichardW57 (talk) 03:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Keep the third sense. I've just added three quotations. --RichardW57m (talk) 13:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Indo-Aryan

Sense:

• A branch of Indo-Iranian and thus Indo-European language family, with a total number of native speakers of more than 900 million, chiefly in South Asia.

Tagged by @Kwamikagami but not listed. Binarystep (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

As an adj, the Indo-Aryan languages, or branch of the family, sure, but AFAICT not as a noun with this sense. kwami (talk) 23:34, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Trivially easy to cite as a (proper) noun: here, here, here and here, to start with. I notice your qualifier "with this sense", so perhaps you're making some finer distinction- in which case you should explain what you mean. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Oxbridge

Proper noun sense 2:

A region of England, United Kingdom. The region between Oxford and Cambridge, inclusive; a partial-belt arc around London.

Not heard this in use at all. Would include places like Milton Keynes and Bedford, which feels implausible. Theknightwho (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like nonsense to me, someone’s probably just confused Oxbridge and Uxbridge. Overlordnat1 (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I’ve heard this being used in Singapore as a portmanteau for Oxford University and Cambridge University collectively. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

That's sense 1 Chuck Entz (talk) 05:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: ah, right. — Sgconlaw (talk) 09:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Given that the IP who added this sense geolocates to Montreal and tends to add huge volumes of terms in an implausibly wide variety of disciplines, I can't help thinking they may have derived it by extraction from a certain nether orifice... Chuck Entz (talk) 05:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

The only reasonable explanation I can think of is in the context of East West Rail, sometimes called the Varsity line or the Oxbridge line, which is an ongoing project to reopen various stretches of railway to create a line linking Oxford to Cambridge (via Bedford and Milton Keynes etc). That wouldn't justify this definition, but it might explain why someone added it. Theknightwho (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Bangaliyana

Tagged by Jberkel, not listed. J3133 (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

It's a proper noun, but sense 1 is defined like an adjective ("Relating to..."). 98.170.164.88 18:48, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the meanings are wrong. The most promising example I found was, "This Bengali subject or theme, which represents the essence of Bengal so much, we Bengalis love to refer as "Bangaliyana"". This backs a single definition, "pertaining to Bengal or its dominant people". There seems to be nothing adjectival or expatriate about the word. Can we enter it is 'a common name for Bengali restaurants'? I suspect not. --RichardW57m (talk)

RFV failed – Jberkel 14:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jberkel: I've deleted the entry but created Citations:Bangaliyana based on some cites I was quickly able to find. Not sure about code-switching and the exact meaning though. Having an entry for the source word বাঙালিয়ানা (baṅaliẏana) would be helpful. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 15:34, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

algospeak

Tagged by Jberkel, not listed. J3133 (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

The Washington Post article is the only citable source I've found. Perhaps it could be a hotword, but it still needs 3 cites, right? – Jberkel 21:40, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I've added a durably archived cite, though it just paraphrases Lorenz' TWP article judging by the trailing citation. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 01:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

spratchet

"New entry. Definition found from various web sites, e.g. Urban Dictionary"

Aside from a surname, this only seems to be represented on GBooks by unviewable hits for books in the Sniglets series. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

This poem, which uses the word in the sense given, looks durably archived: [44].

I'm not sure whether Sniglets should count as a use, since it's basically a dictionary of coinages. I couldn't access the book either, but an associated video clip is on YouTube [45], where the term is spelled "spratchetts".

I think this book is using it as a placeholder like doohickey: [46]. This Usenet post seems to use it to refer to an automobile-related object, but it may be a joke given that the other objects mentioned in the thread don't seem to exist either ("ufadufa valve", "double sided noggin washer"): [47]. Here it is being used as treknobabble: [48]. Looks like gibberish/placeholder here too: [49]. 98.170.164.88 20:56, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

nigdar

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 19:43, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

For better or worse, it's on Usenet (add "the" or other English words to the search query to filter out the Serbo-Croatian hits), but most of the uses are from one person. 98.170.164.88 20:39, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

That feels like a failed attempt at coinage. The three cites have to be independent, don't they? Theknightwho (talk) 22:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes. There's only one usable cite on Usenet. Note however that Urban Dictionary has this definition since 2006 whereas the JeSSe person on Usenet only started using it in 2018. Google also yields more results, some on non-durably archived fora. Seems to me like it is at least somewhat of a legitimate word and not just made up by one person on Usenet. However, it appears to be beyond the realm of the citable for now. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 01:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Deleted pursuant to WT:DEROGATORY. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

crotaphion

Deleted from WP, suggesting it's perhaps an archaic term. – Jberkel 11:39, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

For convenience i'll link here to κρόταφος, which has a redlink to κροτάφιος, which is in Perseus/Tufts at [50]. I dont know what "Gal." stands for .... presumably not Galatians, though, ...I think it is an ancient medical text and that the English word may come directly from the ancient Greek text. Possibly a very rare word even in Greek. —Soap— 12:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Probably Galen. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:18, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

This is correct. Specifically, it is referencing volume 14, page 720 of Kühn's Claudii Galeni opera omnia, which is here, which has a digitized copy here. It appears to be in a pseudo-Galenic work called "Εἰσαγωγὴ ἢ ἰατρός". 98.170.164.88 16:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Internet Archive just returns a bunch of medical dictionaries, no real uses. – Jberkel 12:57, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

RFV failed – Jberkel 15:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@Jberkel: This may merit a second look. [51], [52]^{(not independent)} [53], [54] and [55] use it to label points on a picture, [56] uses it within a table, [57] uses "crotaphion bone", [58] uses "crotaphion-squamous", [59] is more or less a definition but within running text. It looks a bit too wide-spread to just be a dictionary-only ghost word. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 15:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

neafs

Plural of neaf. I imagine neaves as a potential plural too. Pious Eterino (talk) 16:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Evidence for neaves: [60], [61], [62]. This looks like evidence for neafs, assuming the meaning is correct: [63]. This looked promising in OCR, but unfortunately it seems to actually have "neaſs", i.e., "knees": [64]. 70.172.194.25 00:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't have access to the British Newspaper Archive, but here are a couple OCR search results that look like they might be using "neafs" in the requested sense. Archived in case they change. "NORTH SHIELDS POLICE COURT", "TRUTH PUZZLE No. 104" (the latter is a mention). 70.172.194.25 01:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

It seems odd that your RFV-ing words that haven’t yet been created. It seems that you’ve justified creating neaves, so why not do so? I would suggest adding another definition to it, namely the plural form of neave which we have defined as an alternative form of neve, a rare and possibly obsolete word for nephew. neafs seems like a real word too but you could create it and add a couple of cites anyway and if anyone then wants to challenge it on RFV they could (I wouldn’t personally bother). Overlordnat1 (talk) 07:28, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not the one who added the RfV tag or started this section. 70.172.194.25 16:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I have added the quotation of neafs (“NORTH SHIELDS POLICE COURT”) 70.172.194.25 found to neaf. J3133 (talk) 07:46, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Good decision. I’ve now made things interesting and created neaves and neafs. Do we have to find 3 quotes for every alternative spelling and plural form though? Surely we could just add all the quotes we find to neaf and declare this to be RFV-resolved? Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

marinate

Rfv-sense: "When a bad person stays close to, protects and is nice to a person in order to gain their trust". I had previously added one durably archived quotation to Citations:marinate, but was holding back on adding the word. Would be citable with web sources, but print ones will be hard to find. 70.172.194.25 04:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

niggership

Cites, less slurs in definitions. I think it might be worth blocking people who use slurs in the definitions of words, that is USE not MENTION, which is a problem. - TheDaveRoss 13:14, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

This is probably a conversation for the Tea Room, but I'm in two minds about how we should handle definitions like this because it is an accurate gloss when you take into account what the suffix -ship means (and is consistent with other definitions of this format), and therefore essentially amounts to a mention. However, we should probably think of a better way of handling it so that it doesn't look like we're okay with casually dropping racial slurs into Wiktionary voice. Theknightwho (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Have either of you seen niggerhood ? It was created USING the same. BLOCK us all in that case (smh) Leasnam (talk) 15:36, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Just clarifying: my charged (and shocked) response was to the first opinion. I am fine and have no issue with the second, which sounds reasonable. Leasnam (talk) 15:58, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it's another example of what I was talking about above. All X-hood entries could be defined as "The state or period of being X". Theknightwho (talk) 16:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Noted. For the record, I have no issue with niggerhood. I was just using it to make a statement. I'm glad reason still exists. Leasnam (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@WordyAndNerdy: Regarding diff, is this correct? I was under the impression that ethnic slurs are words that one could derogatorily say to a member of an ethnic group, not just any word that is disparaging about an ethnic group. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 16:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Category:English ethnic slurs has a lot of entries that are used directly towards that specific ethnic group. As a side note, though, uhhhh do we really need all of these words??? The rate at which some of them are being defended is a bit concerning, and I'm really iffy on whether or not we should be giving currency to some of these niche and extremely offensive terms just because they get some cites in the most vile places on Usenet. I agree with @Theknightwho & @TheDaveRoss that these terms at the very least should avoid repeating the ethnic slur in the definition, even if it's done for other non-ethnic slur terms. AG202 (talk) 17:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

It is all somewhat difficult. I don’t know what those many words questionably labelled typically claim—trying to subsume under the definitions of slur or ethnic slur. Is niggerball perhaps only about the sports while the speakers, only in the contexts where they use this word, do not say anything particularly – in comparison to their usual talk – disparaging about the ethnic group? To an outsider it seems like the word’s usages also make derogatory claims about the ethnic group, but contextualized maybe there should be something particular in addition to containing the ethnic slur, since its users have a general rejective stance towards the ethnic group.

@AG202: Pursuant to my below reasoning that I wrote while you wrote, we can presume that the relevant terms are those which refer to members of an ethnic group, at least collectively. One cannot, as the definition of this category claims, “offend certain ethnic groups”, because they don’t exist, only individuals feel and are offended (possibly in some collective way, but the offension mechanism is about someone being presumed something because of belonging to that group, and the rest should be under some supercategory). In an analogous newer category we do not make this mistake: religious slurs—you may also look at the fuller Arabic category for what there is; the definition is by Chuck Entz 2015. Leasnam also seems to think like me as I read his answer about niggerness. So well I have given grounds why you can just change the definition given in the category—the definition of a category by a dictionary is a reason, too, why people misuse it, beside people’s wont of collective thinking and vain symbolism due to idpol, motivating them to differentiate themselves by vague labels slapped upon themselves and each other. Fay Freak (talk) 17:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses the definition "insinuations or allegations about members of a given ethnicity or racial group or to refer to them in a derogatory, pejorative, or otherwise insulting manner."

I suggest we use that. Theknightwho (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I have mentioned it. Whether that definition covers these words is not immediately clear. I.e., is the use of niggership an “insinuation or allegation about members of a given ethnicity or racial group”? How oblique may the “insinuation” be? I don’t speak Wikipedia, often their content is senseless. Fay Freak (talk) 20:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Note the second half: "or to refer to them in a derogatory, pejorative, or otherwise insulting manner". There is no question that the definition as a whole covers all of those words. Theknightwho (talk) 21:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

No, these words do not refer to them. niggerball refers to basketball and not Afro-Americans. Fay Freak (talk) 21:46, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

refer: "To allude to, make a reference or allusion to."

allude: "To refer to something indirectly or by suggestion."

Can you please drop this infantile line of argument? It is a disservice to Wiktionary. Theknightwho (talk) 23:38, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Or should the word be presumed to be used to denigrate a specific person even rather than expressing a stance about an ethnic group, to be an ethnic slur? Such as to be the kind of insult we call Formalbeleidigung? Cuz if man watches, as formulated humorously, Talmudvision or the electric Jew, whether man is a Jew or not, this is—though risky—not even an insult towards the person, how can it be an ethnic slur? If it were called electric nigger WordyAndNerdy would add the label “ethnic slur”? So we see the fallacy in “inheriting” the ethnic slur property of a word from the parts it is composed from. Fay Freak (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The description of Category:English ethnic slurs is "English terms that are intended to offend certain ethnic groups." The category contains more than just direct insults for members of a specific ethnicity. E.g. plenty of racially-derogatory place names like Japland. This is an old precedent. It's been this way as long as I've been here.

For better or worse, "all words in all languages" includes racist language, although I'm of the mind that such terms should possibly be held to a stricter standard. For example, we could require they be cited within a week of creation, which might help moderate the creation of such entries. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 18:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

What do you know about what those racists intend? Many terms are mostly employed in obscure in-group fora and may be for creativeness, their particular form of virtue signalling in the form of inventing new terminology, or to vent one’s anger. From the particular fact of someone’s utter identity being racist I must assume for any instance of racist wording that it is just following a pattern rather than intent and there is no evidence that he is specifically intending to offend the group right now. Still, if nigger is used to specifically offend a member of an ethnic group it does not follow for every derivation made by racists. Fay Freak (talk) 23:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

From a quick look at Google Books, it seems like this was also used as a (mocking?) term of address, comparable to the British usage of "Your Worship", but I only found two examples: [65], [66]. If it's being used to refer to a specific person in this way I'd say it's an ethnic slur. 70.172.194.25 22:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Internet Archive: [67][68][69][70][71] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Seemingly cited for one sense (see Citations:niggership). Hellish work. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

There's a use in the Canadian House of Commons Debates, 16th Parliament, 1st Session : Vol. 2: page 1676, first paragraph. I guess this is the "state of being" sense, but I don't fully understand what it means. 70.172.194.25 01:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm stumped as well. Seems completely out of place. Theknightwho (talk) 06:32, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

As explained above at niggerdom (god, this project is really going to shit, isn't it?), I think using the slur in the definition is probably reasonable in this case. Equinox ◑ 13:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

level 99

There are lots of arbitrary levels, is 99 one of significance? - TheDaveRoss 13:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Could be related to how levels/stats/scores/etc in video games tend to max out at numbers consisting of all 9s. Binarystep (talk) 04:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

I've never heard this myself. The entry seems to be poor quality anyway. Is this really an adverb? If so, why is the definition like a noun? Equinox ◑ 13:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Ninety-nine is frequently the maximum level that characters can reach in video games. This probably harkens back to the NES/SNES era when battery save states made the extra bits required for recording three- or four-digit levels more difficult to justify. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 18:29, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I've only been able to dig out one cite and there it is used as an adjective, not as an adverb. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 19:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I've dug up another cite. This one might be a bit questionable though. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 01:06, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

choose

Rfv-sense: "scope for choice". This exact gloss is in OED, with one cite from 1486. This, that and the other (talk) 10:32, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Also while we're at it, I'd like to RFV the "dialectal" label on Etymology 2. I can't find evidence of dialectal usage in OED or EDD. This, that and the other (talk) 10:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Re: dialectal - not sure if this is also Northern English, but it was used this way in Scotland up to the late 17th century. Leasnam (talk) 22:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

According to the Scots Dictionary, there is an Early Modern English choose (noun) corresponding to their entry here [[72]]. Leasnam (talk) 23:01, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I don't doubt that an obsolete/Northern noun choose exists (existed); OED confirms that the other senses are (were) in use in ModE. But this sense in particular was copied straight out of NED or OED even though the only cite was from 1486. This, that and the other (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

(Wow, ignore my comment here - I see you were responding to my second point about the "dialectal" label, which I had apparently forgotten about when I wrote the reply. Sorry!) This, that and the other (talk) 02:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

teleocracy

Is this term used in English at all in the sense of “the use of television to influence public opinion”? The quotation is from a book that is written in French (Mais, pas plus que la «  télécratie », la « radiocratie » ne peut exister dans un régime de pluralisme, ...^[73]).  --Lambiam 10:51, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

faradopalpation

Only appearing in dictionaries Pious Eterino (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

someone cited. 2600:387:9:5:0:0:0:64 19:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Only one quotation though. Three are needed. 70.172.194.25 19:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Gujanbagh

Rare. Kind of like the Gezlik/Citations:Gezlik situation.. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

limaille

limaille is a well-attested Middle English word with meaning 'metal filings.' It is also a Modern French and Anglo-Norman word with the same meaning, the latter being the root of Modern English lemel, again with the same meaning. In Modern English texts, limaille is attested in some 19th century dentistry texts, with the same meaning (as best I can tell) as the French word. To me this seems like conscious use of French in an otherwise English text. In any case, I cannot verify the metallurgical sense given, especially in light of lemel, and I am not convinced by the odontological cites. Winthrop23 (talk) 13:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@Equinox where did you get this sense from? The gloss for the metallurgy sense is awfully specific. This, that and the other (talk) 02:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder whether Winthrop23 has won a prize... This, that and the other (talk) 02:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I may have made a mistake. It's in George-Floyd Baronet Duckett's Technological Military Dictionary (page 116), under Gaarschaum; however, limaille is given as the French word there, not the English... Equinox ◑ 02:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

OED has it as a variant of lemel; however, there is only one late-19th-century quotation using that spelling. The other post-1500 quotations spell it variously as limall, limmell, and lummle. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

punchy

"Tending to overreact to routine events. I was so sleep-deprived I was starting to get punchy." Equinox ◑ 16:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

The phrasing seems a bit too specific. I've definitely heard it used this way, but in a broader sense meaning "irritable". Binarystep (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

What's the etymology? Does it mean "inclined to punch somebody"? Equinox ◑ 02:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The usage example would work for the "punch-drunk" sense. DCDuring (talk) 18:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

vocably

"In a vocable manner." Seen in word lists, but I can't seem to find this anywhere. Mostly it's scannos for irrevocably. Equinox ◑ 01:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

[74], [75], [76]. A few uses on Usenet, e.g., [77]. 70.172.194.25 02:07, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

YUL

Meaning Greater Montreal, apparently derived from the IATA code for the airport (which is under Translingual). Theknightwho (talk) 19:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

chinky chonk

Chinese restaurant. Equinox ◑ 22:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Apparently real in Ireland at least, but I can't find a single unambiguous use where it refers to restaurants. The closest I came was this blog post. This, that and the other (talk) 03:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

All the uses I found on Google Books as well as Usenet seemed to be using it as an adjective meaning "Chinese" or a noun meaning "Chinese person" (or East Asians in general; I doubt people who use this term care about specificity). Nothing about restaurants.

Although it should be noted that Chinky claims that the first part on its own can refer to dining establishments, so it's not too implausible some uses could be out there. 70.172.194.25 07:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The Irish link above refers to an unnamed BBC publication that claims Chinky chonk is offensive, so it supports it being a British term more than an Irish one (though it could easily be both and technically it’s a mention not a use of the word anyway). The American link is indeed ambiguous. There are a couple of uses of chinky on GoogleBooks as a name for pet Chinese breed dogs (one is a Pekingese) which makes me wonder if ‘chinky’ is ever used to as a generic term for such pets rather than just as the name of a particular pet. I can’t say I know the term chinky chonk but chinky is very familiar to me, especially when referring to Chinese food/restaurants (chink is normally the preferred term when referring to the people). I found one British use of chinky to mean Chinese restaurant here [78]. Overlordnat1 (talk) 23:35, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

RFV-failed This, that and the other (talk) 03:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

OAK

Abbreviation of Oakland, California. Not the IATA airport code under Translingual (which is what this is presumably derived from, if real). Theknightwho (talk) 22:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

June 2022

SR

Initialism of Saudi riyal. The currency code is SAR. Theknightwho (talk) 02:22, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Searching Google Books for ["SRs" saudi] or the singular yields some usable results. 70.172.194.25 07:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

second yellow card

Are there uses in which the term is used unequivocally as meaning “dismissal” – as opposed to referring to the second caution, which, although automatically triggering a player’s being sent off, is not the sending-off itself? (See also the discussion at WT:RFDE#second yellow card.)  --Lambiam 14:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a misconstructed request, because it is impossible to differentiate between the issuing of a second warning and the dismissal that that results in. All this needs are citations that show that second yellow card does not refer to the physical card. Theknightwho (talk) 22:25, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

As I also made clear before, I think the definition is off and should not say that it is the dismissal. If it is your position that this request is “misconstructed”, why for heaven’s sake did you advise me to “send it to RFV”?  --Lambiam 11:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

It is not hard to find instances where “second yellow card” quite clearly does not mean “dismissal”:

• Joy soon turned to despair for Darko Vucic when he celebrated his wonderful overhead kick by removing his shirt only to pick up a second yellow card resulting in his dismissal.^[79]
• Clearly a bit shocked, Myazin pushed him back and received a second yellow card, resulting in his dismissal.^[80]
• The goal seemed to rock the visitors, and in the 33rd minute, Rob Holding was shown a second yellow card in just seven minutes following a coming together with Son, leaving the referee with no option to flash the red as the Gunners’ disciplinary issues under Mikel Arteta reared its head once more.^[81]
• But with Birmingham unable to seriously threaten Chris Wilder's men, the points were secured for the Teessiders as Folarin Balogun curled home impressively in the 62nd minute before Pedersen was shown a second yellow card resulting in his dismissal late on.^[82]

What is shown to the players is a card, and not a dismissal, which is signalled to them by the referee flashing the red – the usual omission of the latter in a report on a match simply stems from the fact that the writer assumes their readers are knowledgeable on this aspect of the laws of the game. It is really weird to say that a dismissal results in a dismissal, as would result from applying the substitutivity test. Decapitation inevitably results in the death of the decapitee, but a dictionary should not define decapitate as “to kill someone by severing their head from the body”.  --Lambiam 12:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Lambiam I've added three cites which use it to refer to the dismissal. Theknightwho (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I do not see how these uses mean anything else than a “second caution”, where “caution” is the term for a warning issued by the referee that a player has committed a ”cautionable offence”. Since 3 March 2017, the Laws of the Game recognizes two systems for dealing with punishments, called “System A” and “System B”.^[83] Under System A all cautions are punished by a temporary dismissal. Under System B, not all cautions are punished by a temporary dismissal, but a second caution is punished by the player being sent off (as signaled with a red card); moreover, they may not be replaced by a substitute. It is up to the competition to decide which system to use, but as far as I'm aware all major-league competitions use System B.
     It is easy to find uses of to escape the noose, meaning, “to avoid the death penalty, to be executed by hanging”.^[84][85][86] I submit that it would not be appropriate to define a sense of noose as “the death penalty, to be executed by hanging”. Then we should also add this to gallows, since knaves have also been said to escape the gallows^[87]; next we have those who managed to escape the guillotine,^[88] and so on. The instrument for executing a death penalty should not be glossed as the resulting death itself, and the reason for the sending-off (only under System B) should not be glossed as the sending-off itself.  --Lambiam 11:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• It's irrelevant that second yellow cards can be issued in systems that don't automatically issue red cards. That doesn't change that the term can be used to mean dismissal, and is being used that way in these examples. I have already explained this to you.
• It's also irrelevant that you can't use an idiom to define part of it. That's just the concept of not being the sum of its parts. There is no evidence that "second yellow card" is restricted to a particular phrase or some variation thereof, as applies to "escape the noose" and its variations. What matters to your examples is that they're restricted to a particular lexical construction, but you are trying to apply that logic to the topical context. Topic labels and and usage notes can easily suffice to deal with any of that.

The fact is that in these instances, the term is being used as a substitute for dismissal in the context of association football:

1. "He will miss the Joburg game after collecting a stupid second yellow card."
   That doesn't apply to the fact he received a caution - it applies to the fact he received a dismissal.
2. "If McCall had been incensed about Varga escaping a second yellow card in the first half, he was much quieter when Billy Dodds got involved in an off-the-ball incident with Henrik Larsson early in the second half."
   Why was he incensed, exactly? Are we supposed to assume that the narrowly-escaped dismissal is just a secondary aspect of the message being conveyed there? No. It's a straightforward example of metonymy.
3. "Some managers may instruct players to ‘earn’ a second yellow card and miss a relatively unimportant group game rather than risk missing important semi-finals or finals."
   This quite literally doesn't make sense if it doesn't mean dismissal.

Theknightwho (talk) 17:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The problem is that, when something is a known consequence of something else, we often use the action to refer to the consequence. Does this mean that every action which has an obvious and well-known consequence also has the meaning of that consequence? Sometimes I am sure it does, but in this case I don't think so. Other sports terms which are similar; "he left the batters box after a called third strike", in which a called third strike implies that the batter is out, but doesn't mean "being out"; "she was sulking on the bench after her fifth foul", a fifth foul implies an ejection but doesn't mean an ejection. None of the quotes provided clearly indicate that this is more than second + yellow card with the assumption that the reader will understand the consequences of such a yellow card.

I'll also note that in your final example there, it doesn't refer to a dismissal, it refers to a suspension from a subsequent game. Yellow card accumulation in some leagues (second yellow card across games) results not in a dismissal but instead in suspension from a later game. - TheDaveRoss 12:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

You make a fair point, but that assumption that readers will know what they’re referring to is precisely why we use topic labels, and is also the basis for metonymy. In other words, that assumption is precisely why it isn’t SOP, because it can only be made about the whole, and does not come from either of the two parts. It’s just how terms like this get used, to be honest. It does feel a bit like second yellow card is being held to a higher standard by virtue of looking obviously sum of parts on the face of it, combined with it only being used this way some of the time (in durably archived sources, at least, which is a problem because they tend to be more formal and therefore spell out the fact a red is given as well).

You are right about the 2021 cite, by the way, though I’ve also added a new 1996 cite which is subtly different: “the suspension of Garre after receiving a second yellow card”. Unlike 2021, it can’t be glossed as “suspension”, but I will need to verify that the dismissal is the operative point here, rather than the accumulation of yellow cards. Theknightwho (talk)

It is actually quite common that an SoP term has a context-specific use; for example, risk tolerance is used in economics as meaning, more or less, “the willingness of an investor to accept financial risks in exchange for the possibility of a high return on investment”.^[89] Someone who does not understand the concept of investing and its inherent risks may not get this just from the two parts. But that is not in itself an argument to include such an encyclopedic context-specific definition for what is, essentially, a sum of parts that can be applied equally to other contexts involving risk taking.^[90]  --Lambiam 21:11, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

A collocation like risk tolerance does not appear in any general-use OneLook dictionary, but it does appear in two financial glossaries (with another six links being spurious, dead, or to paywalled pages). The entries are paragraphs: long, encyclopedic or nearly so. DCDuring (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

That's an argument to have an entry at risk tolerance, not an argument to exclude second yellow card. There is no policy against including terms that have meanings in specific contexts, and I'm not sure why you would imply that. Theknightwho (talk) 14:04, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Whom are you addressing? DCDuring (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Lambiam. Theknightwho (talk) 04:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@DCDuring @Lambiam - it seems that WT:PRIORKNOWLEDGE would explicitly allow the example of risk tolerance. Theknightwho (talk) 15:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Whether the term risk tolerance has a specific technical meaning in the field of investing is a judgement call. IMO its meaning in that field is the general sense of the term, but, obviously, applied to risks that are relevant in that context. These are not the risks of walking a tightrope while blindfolded (other than figuratively).  --Lambiam 16:58, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

You're conflating etymology with meaning. risk tolerance in that context refers only to the willingness of an investor to tolerate variability in returns, and while that obviously derives from the conventional meaning, it is necessary to refer to that definition to understand sentences such as "Those with gilt portfolios achieved low yet highly consistent returns on investment, while those with the greatest degree of risk tolerance tended to achieve the highest and lowest rates of return."

It's very easy to work backwards from a definition to its etymology and conclude that it is obvious, but that is only because you have the necessary context to make sense of it. To anyone who doesn't, it might not be obvious at all - which is precisely why financial risk tolerance is something that any investment manager will explain to new clients. Theknightwho (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

But if the context required is the context required to understand risk and tolerance, then what is the point of the entry risk tolerance except to avoid forcing the user to actually use the dictionary? Furthermore financial risk is definitely not the only kind of risk to be tolerated: sky-diving/vaccination/infection/traffic/natural hazards/career risk come to mind. DCDuring (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Because the context we would give is the label (finance), and even then it's not at all obvious that risk tolerance actually manifests in that way without explanation. That's why the concept has to be explained in the first place. As for the rest, isn't that just what {{&lit}} is for? Theknightwho (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

howitzer

Rfv-sense: "Normally a cannon with a tube length of 20 to 30 calibers; however, the tube length can exceed 30 calibers and still be considered a howitzer when the high angle fire zoning solution permits range overlap between charges"

Doesn't seem to define using what are essential characteristics. Either def. 1 or def. 1 reworded seems adequate. DCDuring (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I really don't think there are two different types of ordnances known under howitzer. This should just be one sense. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 00:49, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

At best there are two different ways of trying to characterize the ordnance, but the second definition may include or exclude some specific examples, eg, old siege howitzers. DCDuring (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

gaslight

New sense 2: "To deny reality when speaking with someone, with the misplaced good intention of a white lie to spare their feelings or cheer them up, but with the unintended consequence that they feel misled by, and lose trust in, the speaker." Equinox ◑ 05:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

One can be google:"inadvertently gaslighting" someone, which is google:"inadvertent gaslighting", so I'd suggest changing definition 1's "for malevolent reasons" to "usually..." or "typically for malevolent reasons", but I'm sceptical that there are uses where it means this, specifically / that we need a separate definition like this. - -sche (discuss) 13:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Trying to capture such subtle differences in meaning can in some cases lead down a rabbit hole. I think we should be careful about having, for an entry like best, a sense like "somewhat less than the best". — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Why not simply leave out “, for malevolent reasons”? A similar case is the verb malign, something that is usually not done with the best of motives, but there may be cases of someone “unintentionally maligning”.^[91] The definition of malign is not burdened with suppositions of the intentions of the maligner.  --Lambiam 12:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I remember many of us discussing a similar issue wrt ‘accidentally committing suicide’ a while ago. Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

GR

Meaning Georgius Rex in English. Easily citable in Latin. Theknightwho (talk) 03:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

There are a few examples of GR appearing on postboxes here:- [92], [93], [94], [95], [96] and [97]. We have equally valid entries for ER (the Queens Elizabeth and Kings Edward) and VR (Queen Victoria). E.R and G.R also often appear in cryptic crosswords for ‘king’ or ‘queen’. Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely - but is it English? Seems very much like the use of Latin for the occasion to me, which is congruent with how I've seen the written-out form used. Theknightwho (talk) 11:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Searching on OneLook, the Free Dictionary gives E.R as meaning King/Queen Edward/Elizabeth according to Collins [98], the lemming principle doesn’t quite apply I suppose but G.R is similar enough to deserve an entry, in my mind, as when people see G.R on a post box they know what it means even if they don’t know Latin. It’s borderline though, as I don’t think anyone would ever say something like ‘G.R ascended to the throne’ in an actual sentence. It’s also worth noting senses 3 and 7 of R (where it is short for ‘Rex’ or ‘Regina’). Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The only context I can think of where it might crop up are the Journals of the House of Commons, as they're essentially the formal minutes of the House of Commons (as opposed to Hansard, which is a transcript). It'll still be difficult to find if there, and I doubt that it'll be in this non-punctuated form, too. Theknightwho (talk) 12:57, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Above and beyond the basic RFV question, isn't there an issue about whether GR standing for "Georgius Rex" could even theoretically be English? How would we cite this? If someone finds a citation where GR stands for "Georgius Rex" then we would still presumably say "yeah but that isn't English". Equinox ◑ 07:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

It easily passes RFV due to its appearance on post/pillar boxes alone, the real issue is whether it should it be subject to an RFD due to it being Latin but surely it’s just as valid as q.v., etc. and RSVP? Also GR could just be listed as an alternative form of G.R. if G.R. Was to become the main entry (q.v. qv and etc). Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

If we saw GR being used in an English sentence with the meaning of "King George", then that's definitely English (and the derivation can go in the etymology), but for it to be an initialism of "Georgius Rex" in English, I think you'd also have to show that "Georgius Rex" is English. Not very likely, but theoretically possible. Theknightwho (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Humm, I dunno, e.g. is very much English but exemplī grātiā (which I suspect fewer than 10% of e.g. users could explain to you) is probably not English by anyone's standards. Equinox ◑ 16:53, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

True, but we don't define it as "initialism of exemplī grātiā", whereas GR is defined that way. Theknightwho (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

The claim at the entry is not that GR means Georgius Rex ”in English”, but that it is an initialism of Georgius Rex, which is true. The meaning is given in a {{non-gloss definition}} as “The royal cypher for George V and his son George VI, kings of Great Britain”. This sense is not hard to verify (image of a GR letterbox); the question may remain whether appearances on letterboxes count as uses.  --Lambiam 08:56, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

It's a learned borrowing of the Latin initialism Georgius Rex. There are plenty of other borrowings like that in English, but the place to put that is the etymology section. Currently, the template links to the English sections of Georgius and Rex, which in the case of the former does not exist. In any event, the royal cypher is a symbol and not a proper noun, so it's not correct in that sense either. Theknightwho (talk) 17:21, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the definition and etymology could be improved but once we’ve done so, let’s call this RFD-resolved. It reminds me of the definition I added for in, where I claim that it can mean ‘burning’. The fact that people say ‘keep the fire in’ to mean ‘keep the fire burning’ but they don’t say ‘the building’s in’ to mean ‘the building’s burning’ doesn’t change the fact that ‘in’ can mean ‘burning’ in the right context. Similarly, ‘G.R’ means ‘King George’ only in the context of letterboxes/postboxes/pillar boxes and perhaps the odd coin or stamp but within that context the two terms are interchangeable. It would be wrong to claim that it’s an invalid definition due to it not appearing in books as it does appear in them, albeit only in the context of discussing postboxes that bear these letters. I’m not sure whether we could even class it as Latin, as would a supporter of the divine right of Kings, write or say in Latin “GR (or G.R) est divinus” instead of “Georgius Rex est divinus” if they were trying to say “King George is divine”? (not that the situation would arise outside of the Vatican). Overlordnat1 (talk) 18:17, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I suppose the reason I brought it here is that I was genuinely curious whether it was used in English, which is just about plausible for extremely formal texts from the 18th century - even though I can't find any. I think the solution is probably to move the relevant bits to the etymology and to change the part of speech to Symbol, while keeping it in the English section. It being defined as a royal cypher is probably sufficient to cover usage, but a usage note about it appearing on post boxes wouldn't hurt. Theknightwho (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

rudden

Google Books only yields scannos for redden, the OED lacks any post-Early ME attestations, and the EDD only has ruddnin (“red hematite for reddening”). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 03:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

This quote looked promising, but the original had "reddened". 70.172.194.25 04:16, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

rud

Rfv-sense: "to rub, to polish"; the EDD mentions this sense without providing any evidence for it, and the only post-ME evidence provided by the OED is the EDD's mention. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 04:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

climenole

Appears to be a nonce word that has not been used outside the one quoted source (where it is arguably a mention, not a use). — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 15:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

[99], [100] (Congressional Record!), [101]. Probably more could be found. I think the first one at least definitely counts as out-of-universe use in the desired sense. 70.172.194.25 18:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

All of these seem to be in the context of the original work and not independent usage. - TheDaveRoss 19:54, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The first one mentions the original work but then uses it in an out-of-universe context. 70.172.194.25 01:18, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

If I say, for instance, "My dog Soba is a devious dog, my neighbors dog is just like Soba. There are Sobas the world over eating pies off of windowsills." The later "uses" of Soba are not independent of the original, they rely on the context for understanding. If I bring up Gulliver's Travels, and then talk about climenoles in that work, and then use them as an analogy for something more broad, that doesn't mean that the term has become independent. It actually is evidence that it isn't independent, since the writer felt the need to provide the context before using the term. Compare Romeo, which does not need the context of Shakespeare or Juliet to be understood to mean a "young male lover, possibly star-crossed". All of these passages refer to Swift and/or Gulliver. - TheDaveRoss 12:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

choose up

Rfv-sense: "(idiomatic, transitive) To select; pick, especially, to make a decision on a selection or option"

I don't find this in OneLook dictionaries. OED? In any event we need cites. DCDuring (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems to be an AAVE expression. @Leasnam added the usex She chose up, are you mad?; the phrase "she chose up" turns up in various rap lyrics, and could probably be cited just from that. This, that and the other (talk) 08:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

However, that's intransitive, which disagrees with the entry. Equinox ◑ 19:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Not anymore. Leasnam (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Song lyrics, like (other?) poetry are often not a good source of unambiguous attestion of meaning. DCDuring (talk) 20:42, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

There aren't a whole lot of things choose up can mean outside of "make a final decision, etc.". So what is ambiguous about it? Leasnam (talk) 22:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to see unambiguous, durably archived evidence in the entry per WT:ATTEST. The usage example is utterly worthless as an illustration of meaning. DCDuring (talk) 04:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I had more of a look. The sense here is a bit elusive, but certainly narrower than currently defined. The highest-rated Urban Dictionary entry doesn't actually define the term, simply saying "Often used when refering to a pimp or hoe".

There are some uses in self-published books in GBooks:

• [102] "I thought […] I would've at least helped her, but not even a week later, she chose up with another pimp."
• [103] A girl is apparently into her boyfriend's friend (I'm not sure whether they had sex); the friend says "Don't get mad at me cuz she chose up".
• [104] "Field was definitely a playa […] He chose up on me a while back and I almost said yes until I went to the restroom that night and saw him bumping and grinding on some freak near the Men's room. That was the end of that."

Perhaps the gloss is "(intransitive) to pick out an individual one intends to have sex with"? This, that and the other (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Dingsidang

Nothing in Internet Archive, Goofle Books, or Goggle Scholar. In light of FaCIAbook and similar, I think that Dingsidang with its poor cites on Citations:Dingsidang may very well survive rfv or a vote. If anyone (including you wonderful IPs) can find another use or mention, please add it to the Citations:Dingsidang page. If it doesn't survive, that's fine with me- either result is okay. May be a good "test case" for the outermost limits of the new two week policy. I would say "keep" if Wiktionary is keeping FaCIAbook and similar. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The "TEFL & TESOL" quotation is automatically generated from a template, and therefore shouldn't count as attestation. Go here, choose any prefecture, and then select any town, and you'll get the same boilerplate text with the location changed. All it proves is that the pinyin is in a database somewhere. Fortunately, there are still three citations without that one. I do think the discussion comes down to how much credence we lend to online sources. 70.172.194.25 04:25, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

angzarr

This is the name of a dingbat (⍼) listed in HTML and ISO standards from the 1990s. Over the past six weeks or so, people have apparently been talking about it, possibly following the blog post I added to the entry. But I can find almost no use of angzarr as a word. Plenty of mention, sure, but almost no use. @Fish bowl added an rfv tag, but apparently thought better of it and changed to hotword. I don't think it can be a hotword, though, as it has been mentioned for decades. Cnilep (talk) 01:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

An HTML entity name qua HTML entity name is translingual, if anything. I don't think anyone would claim SHCHcy, rdldhar, or laemptyv are English. It's only an English word if it is actually used as such.

I think one could argue for hotword status in this case, since there were no actual English uses until recently, when it was popularized by this April 2022 blog post, which rose to the top of Hacker News and inspired an xkcd comic four days later. I doubt there are durably archived quotations out there, but it could be supported with online ones. There aren't even many websites using the word, though. FWIW, I don't even think the usage/mention in the blog post in April should count, but some real uses include [105], [106], etc. 70.172.194.25 03:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed: one of the most commonly seen is the ampersand & but that doesn't mean that "amp" is an English word for ampersand. Equinox ◑ 16:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Æscleah

Discussion moved to Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English § Æscleah.

yantra

Sense 3: an equipment, instrument, machine or device.

I assume this comes from the etymology, as it's borrowed from Sanskrit यन्त्र (yantra) - see sense 3. However, this sense feels far too broad for general English (and at the very least needs some kind of label). Added as someone's first edit back in 2020, so it could just be someone not understanding the difference between meaning and derivation, but I'm happy to be proven wrong. Theknightwho (talk) 11:32, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

leefkyn

I don't see any use. Pious Eterino (talk) 16:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

OED has a single use ("leefekyn"), but it is post-1500, so this entry can't even be converted to ME. This, that and the other (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

1500 is a fairly arbitrary line; I’d say that if there are only a handful of post-1500 uses and nothing thereafter, that shouldn’t stop the entry from being relabelled as ME. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

It's true that the single use in OED is from 1540, which is close to 1500, but with no pre-1500 uses I would struggle to see this as belonging to ME, especially as the word arises in translation of a Dutch writer and it is a transparent Dutch borrowing (although the text being translated was apparently in Latin). This, that and the other (talk) 10:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah. Seems like a plausible construction from lef + -kin, -kinne, but the term doesn’t seem to appear in the MED. Well, if there’s only one quotation it fails CFI and we transfer it to the “Citations:” namespace. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:31, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

leaman

Not seeing this either Pious Eterino (talk) 16:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

[107], [108], [109] (in a dictionary gloss). 70.172.194.25 18:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Seest the leaman with thine hart, not thine eyen... er, I added three quotations. Cnilep (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

kineyerd

Another obsolete term of uncertain use Pious Eterino (talk) 15:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

OED has nothing after 1350. This, that and the other (talk) 00:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

RFV-failed. Not in EEBO at all fwiw. This, that and the other (talk) 03:53, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

underget

RFV two senses:

1. "(transitive, obsolete) To understand; perceive."
2. "(transitive) To receive; undertake; get at; find out." There are two current citations but they both look unambiguously like NNES error, and the 1998 one does not even seem to match the definition.

Note the OED only has hyphenated under-get, defined as "(transitive) To catch up with, overtake" and having a single citation from 1390. Equinox ◑ 16:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I've split the entry into 2, 1 for Middle English undergeten, and another for Modern English underget. I did not add the senses above. If they are verified we can add them at that time I suppose. Leasnam (talk) 13:28, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand: where did the previous revisions of the page go? I only see your latest changed revision in the history. Nothing shown for page deletion either. Equinox ◑ 14:50, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

It was moved to undergeten, then recreated at the original spelling. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Leasnam (talk) 18:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

datum

Rfv-sense: "A measurement of something on a scale understood by both the recorder (a person or device) and the reader (another person or device). The scale is arbitrarily defined, such as from 1 to 10 by ones, 1 to 100 by 0.1, or simply true or false, on or off, yes, no, or maybe, etc." This is extraordinarily specific and I believe it may be supplanted by the much more general definition "Singular of data; a single recorded observation" which I just added. Is there evidence to support such a specific definition, perhaps in a certain field of endeavour? This, that and the other (talk) 03:16, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The two non-philosophy definitions are arguably subsenses of a better-worded definition. MWOnline has "something used as a basis for calculating or measuring". The "arbitrary scale" part is silly, as are the specific examples of scales. DCDuring (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Norgay

Porntugal

— SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 05:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Cited Norgay. Binarystep (talk) 09:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Are you sure none of those are referring to Norway's homosexual population? None of them are typos? This shouldn't be in Wiktionary. - TheDaveRoss 12:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

We waste so much time at RFD and RFV on such dross. The (usually anonymous) editors creating such entries essentially expect other people to do the verification work for them. I am seriously considering proposing that entries which are offensive to individuals or groups of persons should have three qualifying quotations added to them within two weeks (one week?) of creation, otherwise they may be speedily deleted (without prejudice to re-creation if that rule is satisfied). Should I raise this at the Beer Parlour first, or go straight for a vote? — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, and I would question whether words like this are even lexical. They’re just nonce words that have been used multiple times by virtue of being obvious, and (dare I say it) close to being sum of parts: it’s always just X blended with an offensive/rude/demeaning term meaning X (but in a derogatory way). Totally formulaic. Theknightwho (talk) 12:55, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I think perhaps it's better to raise this at the Beer Parlour first, so editors can help to refine the proposed new policy. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Surjection, TheDaveRoss, Theknightwho: OK, created a discussion at "Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2022/June#Stricter attestation criteria for offensive entries". — Sgconlaw (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@TheDaveRoss: To review the cites:

• 1999 August 12: Patently not a typo (capitalized GAY; homophobic attack right after) and very likely talking about the country, not a specific subpopulation of it.
• 2000 July 18: Patently not a typo (talks about Varg right before who is gay) but the author could perhaps have also meant "the Norway gay black metal scene", though I personally find that a lot less likely.
• 2001 May 17: Patently not a typo (talks about homosexuals in the same sentence) and patently about the country of Norway.
• 2001 July 7: Patently not a typo (talks about gay men in the same sentence) and patently about the country of Norway (countries have prison populations, not some subpopulations).
• 2003 March 20: The person replied to somebody asking about dating services in Norway, so the person unmistakably addressed the country of Norway with their utterance; whether it was a typo or not: the facts that 'w' and 'g' are not adjacent on a QWERT[YZ] keyboard combined with the conversation being about dating makes this very likely deliberate. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 16:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

1999 is clearly a nonce word, which is why it's been spelled "NorGAY" for emphasis, and so are both 2001 cites which pair it with the word "homosexual". Only 2000 and 2003 are potential candidates for it genuinely being part of the lexicon, and even then I'm doubtful. Theknightwho (talk) 17:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Theknightwho: Why is them being or not being nonces of any relevance to their inclusion? WT:CFI makes no distinction between nonce and lexicalized items as it shouldn't; independent usage conveying meaning is all that matters. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 17:21, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Because they haven't lexicalised. They're arbitrary substitutions that are dependent on their immediate context to spell-out what they mean, and there is no context in which you can drop Norgay into a conversation that isn't itself already about Norway, or without drawing special attention to the substitution (like with NorGAY). In other words, there is no group of people for whom "Norgay" actually means "Norway" on an ongoing basis, whether in general or as part of a field/group/subculture/whatever. The fact I could start exclusively using Noryay from this point forward and you would immediately know what I mean would not make any of those uses genuine evidence that it's part of the lexicon, because they effectively amount to mentions, and its meaning would evaporate once this conversation is over. The same applies to Norgay with most of these cites.

There are plenty of horrible words which this doesn't apply to, like reparations collector: it's obviously a racist dogwhistle, and could be used by racists without any conversational context being necessary (which is, after all, the point of a dogwhistle). There are still others like Amerifat or Europoor that have developed into genuine words that convey meaning regardless of context (to the right people, at least). As absurd and crass as they are, they stand on their own merits as words because of widespread use, and the substitution of fat or poor no longer need any surrounding context for the words to make sense.

None of that applies to any of the words listed above. They were simply coined for the occasion by a few different people, and that's it.

Theknightwho (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fytcha I wasn't saying they were all typos, I was saying some may be typos and some may be referring to something else (the gay scene in Norway). I understand the appeal of blogs and UseNet for cites, they are much more likely to have slang and they are searchable. But they also have a tremendous amount of noise, and the CFI does not adequately filter noise from such sources. It is on the editors to apply some form of filter when citing from non-refereed sources, to try and determine if usage is pervasive enough to really show that it has become a term in the language instead of a nonce or misspelling or typo.

If a word appears three times in the New York Times over a few years one can assume that it has been thoroughly considered by multiple writers and editors and determined to be valid English, the CFI is built around such a situation. Three UseNet posts just don't mean the same thing as three uses in an edited periodical or (not self-published) book. I don't know why some folks are so eager to include the most marginal "words", I am not sure who that is helping. - TheDaveRoss 19:07, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Similar principle to treating one complaint as equivalent to 50 unhappy customers. It's representative.

It's frustrating to waste time with entries like this, while we struggle to meet attestation requirements for words which are all over Twitter etc. Theknightwho (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The solution is to expand our coverage, not reduce it. Binarystep (talk) 09:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Cited Buttswana. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 15:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The fourth cite you provided is clearly an intentional use of the term, I am not convinced that the other ones are not typos, or spelling mistakes. This is the problem with blogs and UseNet as primary or exclusive evidence of terms, there are billions of strings of characters which have been typed, even unintentional noise may have been repeated often enough for us to declare that it is a part of the language, rather than a mistake which happened to arise three times. Also should not be on Wiktionary. If I coin a dumb word now for dumb words, how about calling them donces (for dumb nonces), well I bet that there are a few ambiguous typos for "dunce" out there which could validate my new word as a long-lasting and important English language word. - TheDaveRoss 16:05, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Donce is exquisitely autological.  --Lambiam 22:01, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

This is an excellent point. I also find that there's a tendency with these kinds of words to just let someone spend the time citing them, and then they just get ignored because nobody else wants to spend the time on them. That means that issues like this can very easily sneak through. Theknightwho (talk) 16:51, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

For context: I believe we have an unusual situation with this flood of low-quality new entries. I kept wondering why the Minecraft-themed accounts of a newby editor kept getting blocked as socks of a vandal. I think what we have here is two adolescent-or-younger people who live in the same area of Melbourne and know each other- perhaps even brothers. The sincere newby started creating Australia-related entries at Wikipedia and then here. The other got wind of it, and decided to embarass and humiliate their rival by adding lots of trashy content, though there also may be an element of competition: "I can do that, too". Since they live so close together, it's hard to tell them apart, and the "good" editor keeps getting blamed for the "bad" editor's vandalism. The result is lots of deliberately bad Australia-centric content that's hard to block without collateral damage. That's not to say that the "good" editor isn't capable of an occasional "bad" edit, and some of the "bad" edits may be worth keeping, but you get the idea. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that these are actually two separate people. It seems more like a "good hand" and "bad hand" situation to me. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 16:13, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Surjection yes, that's possible, since these all look very similar on the back end. But take a look at Kajin Majel's talk page. Aside from a Sidney IP, all the reverted edits are by accounts that are identical on the back end and very similar, but not quite identical, to Kajin Majel's earlier edits. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:40, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

This doesn't seem simple at all. I interacted with them once, and they spoke nicely that I thought, well, maybe they aren't the real vandal. But what they wrote was quite complicated and had a good possibility of being just made-up, or as Surjection says, indicative of the "good hand" vs "bad hand" situation: The main reason I created this account was to report a false global block with Enderman123456789, who is a mate of mine. He is not a sockpuppet, his brother has repeatedly made accounts such as Te Reo Ahitereiria to vandalise, but Enderman just wants to edit. He is says he is offended that his pages were deleted on enwiki and asked me to seek an unblock request. I am currently visiting his house now, which is why my IP says it's the same, but I am not a sock either. —Svārtava (t/u) • 17:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Nicely spoken indeed, but nevertheless very similar to the evasive banter I’m used to seeing on Wikipedia from users trying to not get blocked for sockpuppetry.  --Lambiam 21:20, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ Porntugal and West Undies deleted pursuant to WT:DEROGATORY. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

whatshumacallit

Tagged by @Paul G but not listed. Binarystep (talk) 10:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Can be found in two Usenet posts: [110]. At least one more source is needed. 70.172.194.25 21:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

katalepsis

Tagged by @217.229.86.215 but not listed. Binarystep (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The given sense is definitely one of the meanings of Ancient Greek κατάληψις (katálēpsis),^[111] used by Stoic philosophers and possibly coined in this specific sense by Zeno, so it is not difficult to find occurrences in English texts discussing Greek philosophy.^{[112][113][114]} However, those I saw were unmistakably instances of code-switching, and therefore do not count for attestation purposes.  --Lambiam 21:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

ailuromorphic

The quote on the page appears to be the only one that can be found. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 08:59, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

One more: [115].  --Lambiam 14:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Chengfei

This may need to be shifted to another title like "Cheng Fei jump" or similar (if an entry is warranted for any variant). --Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Cheng

Variant for Chengfei above; seems rare. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

sog

Rfv-sense "(Internet Humor) A dog, especially one with a long snout." — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 18:46, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

This does appear to exist in a very tenuous manner as an Internet meme. For instance, KnowYourMeme: Long Face Dog / Borzoi mentions the word "sog" twice (one of which is in a tag), and it occurs as a caption in this image. None of this is remotely durably archived or even in running text. 98.170.164.88 13:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

fundiloon

Original author stated "this just barely meets CFI". I doubt any of the potential cites are valid Pious Eterino (talk) 09:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

gainclap

Obsolete term. There's possibly a variant spelling of this somewhere. gayn-clappe or something? Pious Eterino (talk) 09:44, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Basically almost everything Leasnam ever created should be wiped. I cringe every time I see these made-up Anglo-Saxonisms, without the least hint that they might be possibly obsolete, rare, or non-standard. And it never ends, I've been dealing with Leasnamisms since I arrived in 2008. Oh yes, and he likes to add citations that are either obvious typos or errors, or don't match the definition at all. Since I'm not a psychologist I can't explain why FOREXPLIKEN. Equinox ◑ 13:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

gainrace

Obsolete term, of which I see nothing Pious Eterino (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

gainshire

Just appears in dialectal dictionaries. Pious Eterino (talk) 09:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

OED finds a few mentions, including one of a past participle gainshired, but no actual uses. The label given is "Sheffield Cutlery" and a suggestion is made that this is the same word as Middle English gainchare. This, that and the other (talk) 03:36, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

gainturn

Another gain- word that doesn't seem attestable in English. Pious Eterino (talk) 09:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

One post-1500 cite in OED, spelt "gane turne" (what fun). This, that and the other (talk) 03:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

crowly

Adverb. The less said the better. (Leasnam.) Equinox ◑ 13:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Heh, the House & Garden citation actually says "closely", [116]. That makes more sense. 98.170.164.88 13:26, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, I know Leasnam will be like "oh he's out to get my scalp", I'm not, I just think that a pattern of words nobody has used since the 1600s if ever is pretty PROBLEMATIQUE. And RFVing them one by one by fucking one "is it in the OED?" is this really more of a waste of our time than all the n-word stuff. The quasi-academic nonsense is still nonsense. Equinox ◑ 13:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Quit living in 2012! Leasnam added a good bit of Anglish-esque garbage back then (don't get me started about obsolete words in definitions...), but hasn't done that in years. People change. You should, too. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll get over it when I stop seeing the entries... I'm glad if he is better now but we, every day, still suffer and must pay the consequences for every piece of shit he made. He didn't delete them all when he got better. Equinox ◑ 13:56, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

And you created a gazillion "-id" stubs that Someone had to make into actual entries. Not to mention abominations like "xyz family of plants". I'm sure I have a number of annoying affectations, myself. The point is that this is a community made up of imperfect human beings who each have strengths and weaknesses. If we only allow perfect people to edit here, it's going to get real boring, real fast. It's okay to bring up a pattern of bad edits in order to get someone to change, but you're fixating on things that have already been fixed. Stop it! Chuck Entz (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Haha. All right. Point taken. Someone took a shit, let's flush. Sorry Leasnam. Equinox ◑ 14:25, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

-00s

I can't recall seeing anyone refer to the 2000s as the -00s with a dash. Usually it would be '00s or 00's with an apostrophe, or just 00s. The usage for a century seems even more unlikely, since -00s doesn't even tell you which century is being referred to. You would need the leading digits for that. I realize this is hard to search for; sorry.

In the case that this was intended as a suffix entry and not a noun entry, that makes more sense but I'm still not sure it's valid. See my comment on Talk:-00s. 98.170.164.88 15:06, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

waffle stomp

While showering, to step on feces to push it down a drain. Theknightwho (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

On [twitter.com/search?q=waffle%20stomp%20shower&src=typed_query&f=top Twitter] and reddit.

P.S. Having "twitter.com/search" on the spam blacklist is extremely annoying for RFV, if Twitter is now considered an admissible source. 98.170.164.88 01:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Weirdly enough, this doesn't appear to be citable off of Usenet. I was however able to create waffle-stomp instead. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 02:30, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Much to my surprise, this does seem to be in genuine use. I'll do some Twitter cites at some point. Theknightwho (talk) 12:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I have been annoyed at the impossibility of linking to the Twitter search page myself, so: Wiktionary:Grease pit/2022/June#Whitelist_the_Twitter_search_page. - -sche (discuss) 04:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

gainchare

Middle English only. This, that and the other (talk) 03:37, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Shitgibbon

This might be an issue for RfD. My main question is whether this is actually a proper noun referring to Trump specifically. If you were to call Trump "the Idiot in the White House", that doesn't necessarily make "Idiot" a proper noun meaning "Donald Trump". It comes down to how it's used, so I think an RfV can help resolve this. 98.170.164.88 04:52, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I think RFV is the right venue. These are notoriously hard to cite, see #piss drinker. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 11:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

It's potentially of etymological value, in that this particular epithet is the reason for the coinage of shitgibbon as a word for the linguistic phenomenon. That being said, it wasn't used in a capitalised sense, and I don't think providing even several cites justifies it being defined as "Donald Trump" any more than it would justify using that definition at "Donald". It's not limited to him (unlike e.g. Cheeto Mussolini, or Shillary to Hillary Clinton). Theknightwho (talk) 12:05, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

If this gets deleted, we could include that information elsewhere, such as in a usage note on shitgibbon. 98.170.164.88 18:09, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I've expanded the etymology of shitgibbon to include the relevant info, but it doesn't involve Shitgibbon directly. From what I've read, it gained traction as a name for Trump for a short while on Scottish Twitter after the 2016 tweet - might be worth seeing if we can dig some things up from around then. Theknightwho (talk) 20:49, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Don't seem to be durably archived, but these out these results: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22voted+for+shitgibbon%22&source=hp&ei=BS-yYp6UC4DB0PEPjs-O2AE&iflsig=AJiK0e8AAAAAYrI9FelAq5Ul62GTDBxlQVYqshIBfUCh&ved=0ahUKEwjequPvtb_4AhWAIDQIHY6nAxsQ4dUDCAk&uact=5&oq=%22voted+for+shitgibbon%22&gs_lcp=Cgdnd3Mtd2l6EANQnwJYnwJg9wZoAXAAeACAAQCIAQCSAQCYAQCgAQKgAQGwAQA&sclient=gws-wiz 2601:644:100:9F20:543B:C5CC:CDB1:2058 20:53, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Good finds; they seem to fit the capitalized proper noun sense. Do people think this is sufficient attestation? 98.170.164.88 18:14, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm a bit reluctant when it comes to derogatory nicknames for real people - even if I agree with them - but in this case I can also find articles like this one, which suggests a bit more staying power. Theknightwho (talk) 18:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I’m surprised this hasn’t appeared in Trailer Park Boys given their penchant for saying things like shitbird/shithawk. Overlordnat1 (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

cockpleaser

A woman who can easily be convinced to engage in sexual activities with a man. Theknightwho (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I've added one but I don't think the others on Usenet fit. It looks a lot more citable with a space, i.e. cock pleaser, if one is willing to rummage through the SOP uses. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 20:58, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I imagine this was coined as a rhyming antonym of cockteaser. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

komku

Not citable except possibly using web sources, and even that is not clear. On Twitter, this is all I found: [117]. There's an Urban Dictionary entry and a Wikia site, and the term is used in a Wikipedia article. But it's not in widespread use as far as I can tell. 98.170.164.88 23:42, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

cunt-buster

A man who is adept at vigorous sexual penetration and seduction of women. Possibly citable, but the only cite I see from a very brief search clearly uses it to mean "erect penis". Theknightwho (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Can't find that sense but I was able to create cunt buster instead. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 01:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

dump ass

To defecate. Theknightwho (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

down

Rfv-sense - the Adjective sense 15 I've never heard this to mean "loyal" - to be 'down' is to be "accepted/respected in the (thug) community", to be "with it" (i.e. down with the brown), to be "cool (with us)"... (?) Leasnam (talk) 02:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I think I may have resolved this with a little rewording of the definition. Leasnam (talk) 15:29, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

aardvark

Rfv-sense: "(slang, particularly in the southeast US) A silly or credulous person who is prone to mistakes or blunders." This sounds plausible but I wasn't able to find much. The closest I got was "Scott is such an aardvark", but I don't even know if this is the right sense. 98.170.164.88 04:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

apistia

May be a similar situation to katalepsis above: it seems to appear (italicized) in code-switching contexts. 98.170.164.88 06:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

kimberline

A very specific derogatory term for an outsider on the Isle of Portland! The few semi-decent citations I saw were for uppercase Kimberline, in any case. If kept, I'd strongly suggest tagging the terms as rare or archaic. Pious Eterino (talk) 10:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems much easier to cite kimberlin without the trailing e. 98.170.164.88 17:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

lickle

Rfv-sense "(slang, US) to lick something quickly and daintily". A lot of scannos, typos, etc., but finding legitimate uses is much harder. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 14:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

West Frisian

Rfv-sense Proper noun sense 1 says "one of the three West Frisian languages" - are there really 3 West Frisian languages, or should this read simply "Frisian languages" ? Leasnam (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Wow, this error has been in the entry for a long time, introduced here. - -sche (discuss) 19:17, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Ok thank you ! Now fixed. Leasnam (talk) 23:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Glottolog says there are four West Frisian languages, though Wikipedia groups them into three. --RichardW57m (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh, okay Thank you ! But wouldn't we call those dialects rather than languages? Leasnam (talk) 15:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

We could probably just say "one of the Frisian languages" in all these entries, that way we sidestep questions of how many there are, which seems to be of only marginal importance to the definition. - -sche (discuss) 22:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

sadge

Originally marked as speedy deletion for x-wiki abuse, but I see real usage in twitch and youtube. Would like some further input. OriginReboot (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

This is real and pretty widespread but I can't find durably archived uses. Here are three durably archived mentions:

https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.08411

https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/honorscollege_theses/360/

https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1638118 — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 10:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I added three cites from Google News and one from a newspaper. J3133 (talk) 11:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Patel

Rfv-sense "(slang, derogatory, intransitive) To stiff a waiter or bartender at a restaurant." — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 05:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

snassy

Rfv-sense: "Acting both snarky and sassy at the same time, rude". This book seems to give it as as blend of snotty and sassy, but I can't find it anywhere else. This, that and the other (talk) 08:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

aloisiite

Occurs in chemical lists/dictionaries, but not so much in running text. I added the best citation I could find. A lot of the results on Google Books are just references to the title of the paper that introduced it, Colomba (1908), but the original article is in Italian; dunno if we want to count those references.

Another potential citation is [118], but it's sort of mentiony since it's talking about the terminology. If we count this, at least one more good quotation is needed. 98.170.164.88 05:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

COPYVIO, I'm afraid. At the very least, it should be reworded. DCDuring (talk) 13:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

dright

Rfv-sense: Ety 1. Middle English only. This, that and the other (talk) 04:32, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Is this a use? [119] I can't tell if this is an English dialect or Scots. Obviously the passage is more English-seeming as a whole, but "some weel" almost exclusively pulls up Scots results on Google. 98.170.164.88 08:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

The story is set in Ainsworth, Greater Manchester in northern England, which explains the resemblance to Scots. I'm sure the dialect is thrown in for local color, though the magazine the story appeared in was published in Manchester. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

This quote isn't visible to me. Could you put it on Citations:dright? This, that and the other (talk) 03:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@This, that and the other Done, but on closer inspection of the entry I'm less certain it fits. The entry makes it sound as though the term is used for a group of people, not, as in the quotation, a quantity of ale. 98.170.164.88 07:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Indeed; the quotes in OED seem to be talking about armies of men. Perhaps the quote is talking about a draught of ale? The absence of dright from EDD makes me doubt even further. This, that and the other (talk) 07:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, dright here is a northern Scottish form of draught. Leasnam (talk) 04:27, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I've added one cite from 2003 (original 1962 or possibly 1948) - I've also changed the label to historical. I'll look in the am for more possible cites. Leasnam (talk) 04:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm seeing a few uses in translation of early poetry, I think translated by Kemp Malone in The Middle Ages: The Old English Period (to 1100). Not sure if A Literary History of England: Vol 1: The Middle Ages (to 1500) is a separate work containing some of Malone's earlier work (?). I'm unable to see more than snippet views. Does anyone have more info on this ? If they are independent of each other, or if parts of one are independent of the other, then the line stripped of glee; the dright all fell, by the wall the proud sought shield can be added as a cite, as I am not able to find that in the later work (A Literary History of England: Vol 1: The Middle Ages (to 1500)); only in the first one. Leasnam (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

@Leasnam does this assist? This, that and the other (talk) 07:45, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

keggy

Supposedly meaning a bump on the head in Teesside English. The terms certainly exists, but the most common use for this is in the world of beer, perhaps a small keg. Also, the plural is probably keggies and not keggys Pious Eterino (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

trailer nigger

Poorly-educated white person Pious Eterino (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Was only able to find one: Citations:trailer nigger. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 00:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

There's one on Usenet in the correct sense: [120]. Also on Twitter [121], but it appears that the referent is black, which doesn't support the definition. 98.170.164.88 15:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

If this one doesn't pass RFV, but all the others that target Black folks do, I would not be surprised, but it continues to show that certain demographics are truly more prevalent on Usenet. AG202 (talk) 14:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Speedily deleted pursuant to WT:DEROGATORY – not verified despite more than two weeks having passed since the term was nominated for RFV. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:05, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

MO

Rfv-sense "moderate intellectual disability". I did a quick GB check, but 2 letter abbreviations are tricky. Added from blocked IP range. – Jberkel 17:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not finding a whole lot of useful stuff but at least in this work they use MO/ID for it, which makes a lot more sense; why would you ever abbreviate moderate intellectual disability as MO? — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 18:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

That sounds odd. I wonder if someone misheard MR? I dont work in this field, but Ive had contact with people who do and I have only ever heard MR. Your link doesnt load for me .... but the longer term MOID does seem to exist, not always with a slash. Still, the sites Im seeing using MOID look like copypasted content, and only one of them is a school. —Soap— 21:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I've created MoID. This capitalization seems more common in the literature. I've also deliberately left the link red; moderate seems to have a precise technical definition in this context, so it's either a lightbulb or a fried egg. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 22:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

mogus

— Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 20:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Note that we also have the entry amogus, which is more common. If this exists it can almost certainly only be cited from online sources and not from books. 98.170.164.88 20:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

container-deposit

Tagged by @Paul G but not listed. I suspect this is another hyphenated attributive form that never got deleted. Binarystep (talk) 08:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Delete for the above reason. (This should be listed at RFD, not RFV.) — Sgconlaw (talk) 10:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

If there is use as a noun other than attributively, then it should be kept. Ergo, valid RfV. DCDuring (talk) 15:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

This is obviously an RFV issue. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 15:21, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

That said, I couldn't find it (sing. or pl.) at Google N-Grams, iWeb, or NOW, only attributive use. DCDuring (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

direct current

Rfv-sense (physics) An electric circuit in which voltage and current do not vary with time. "I built a direct current today."? Surely not. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 21:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

While we’re at it, shouldn’t the first two sense be merged into “An electric current that flows in one direction only”? After all, there is no such thing as a constant current that can alternate in direction, so sense 2 is subsumed by sense 1.  --Lambiam 09:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@Lambiam: Mathematically, the functions that fit 2 are a subset of the functions that fit 1. Hence, 2 is a subsense of 1. I support keeping them separate, if for nothing else, because of the translations but I'm not opposed to making 2 a subsense. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 10:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

IMO nothing is lost by ditching the other translation tables. Inasmuch as they differ from the first, these are not current (sorry) terms, with the exception of Russian постоянный ток (postojannyj tok), which can be moved to the first table. As the term direct current is normally used, it implies the voltage is kept reasonably stable (Merriam–Webster: “an electric current flowing in one direction only and substantially constant in value”; Collins: “a continuous electric current that flows in one direction only, without substantial variation in magnitude”; Penguin Random House/HarperCollins: “an electric current of constant direction, having a magnitude that does not vary or varies only slightly”). This is (IMO) more a pragmatic than a definitional issue; as we define table as “An item of furniture with a flat top surface raised above the ground, usually on one or more legs”, we also do not specify that these legs have more or less the same length, with another sense for tables with legs of different lengths, such as exist.^[122]  --Lambiam 11:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

This is an RfV. Are there citations that support def 3 as distinct from def 1? (For that matter, are there any that support def 3 as distinct from def 1?) Also, a potentiometer-controlled circuit that leads to varying voltages is still usually called a DC circuit, isn't it? DCDuring (talk) 14:36, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

ka le

No results for "kale DOTA" on Google Books. --沈澄心✉ 00:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Here is a blogpost on the term – only as a mention, and probably not permanently recorded either. If only used in online chats, it may be hard to find permanently recorded uses.

Here is a (debatable) use: “the day went by without too many 'ka le' moments”.^[123]  --Lambiam 11:20, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

It was probably by Chinese players using pinyin without tones, because they could not type Chinese characters. 落花有意12138 (talk) 13:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

mendinant

The requested Chaucer quotation is variously:

    Quotations

1387–1400, [Geoffrey] Chaucer, “The Somnours Tale”, in The Tales of Caunt́bury (Hengwrt Chaucer; Peniarth Manuscript 392D), Aberystwyth, Ceredigion: National Library of Wales, published c. 1400–1410], →OCLC, folio 82, recto: Ther fore / we mendynantz / we sely freres / Been wedded / to pouerte and continence (please add an English translation of this quotation) Ellesmere (no template for this ATM): page 223 / f. 83r Therfore / we mendynantz / we sely freres / Been wedded / to pouerte and continence 1387–1400, Geoffrey Chaucer, “The Sompners Tale”, in The Canterbury Tales, [Westminster: William Caxton, published 1478], →OCLC; republished in [William Thynne], editor, The Workes of Geffray Chaucer Newlye Printed, […], [London]: […] [Richard Grafton for] Iohn Reynes […], 1542, →OCLC, folio xlvi, recto, column 2: Therfore we mendicantes, we sely freres / Ben wedded to pouerte and continence (please add an English translation of this quotation) 1387–1400, Geoffrey Chaucer, “The Sompnour’s Tale”, in The Canterbury Tales, [Westminster: William Caxton, published 1478], →OCLC; Charles Cowden Clarke, editor, The Canterbury Tales of Chaucer. […], 2nd edition, volume II, Edinburgh: James Nichol; London: James Nisbet & Co.; Dublin: W. Robertson, 1860, →OCLC, page 60, lines 7488–7489: Therefore we mendicants, we sely5 freres, / Be wedded to povert' and continence (please add an English translation of this quotation)

But Chaucer wrote in Middle English anyway. 98.170.164.88 01:10, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

kamchulia

Not seeing much on Google or Twitter. 98.170.164.88 04:00, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

For now I've replaced the headword template with a basic invocation of {{head}}, since it was emitting errors and it's not clear to me what the conjugated forms would even be. If this is kept, that should be fixed. 98.170.164.88 07:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

There are various alternative spellings: gamchulia and gamtrulia.

1. https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr17-18/english/counmtg/hansard/cm20180517-translate-e.pdf (kamchulia)
2. http://xiaoshousha.blogspot.com/2015/07/blog-post.html (gamchulia)
3. https://plainfaceangel.blogspot.com/2017/05/blog-post.html (gamchulia)
4. http://ngtingmae.blogspot.com/2012/02/art-of-gamtrulia.html (gamtrulia)

Only #1 is used in a purely English environment, and it also fits better with the w:Hong Kong Government Cantonese Romanisation, which is why I used this spelling. Wpi31 (talk) 07:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Also spelt kamtrulia [124] Wpi31 (talk) 08:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Also spelt variously as camchulia, camtrulia. --Wpi31 (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

crapitalist

Sense 2: "A person or company who gains market advantage through crony relations with politicians and government agencies. A rent-seeker." Not sense 1, which is a sort of crappy capitalist. This one, if it exists, seems to come from crony, not crap. Equinox ◑ 04:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

cunny

Internet slang: both cute and funny. Equinox ◑ 18:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

It comes from this. I am highly sceptical that anyone actually uses it this way. Theknightwho (talk) 21:31, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

While this internet meaning is being investigated, you all might want to look into the "mass noun women" sense that Lexico has that apparently dates to the 16th century. I can't imagine how the 'women' sense or this rfv'd sense would be used. The vulva sense is easily citable on Internet Archive; I had initially thought that it would only date back to the 20th century but given what Lexico is saying about the women sense, that may be an old old sense for this word too. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

OED mentions the mass noun usage ("a woman, or women collectively, as a source of sexual gratification") and illustrates it by metonymic uses like "He desir'd some Coney" (a. 1696). There is also a countable version: "The Conyes vse to feed most i'th night Sir, yet I cannot see my young mistris" (1631). As with many of the early uses, this may be a pun on coney. This, that and the other (talk) 00:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

covering space

Rfv-sense (mathematics) A map from a topological space onto another by local homeomorphisms of disjoint preimages. Surely not. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 18:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Sense 1 appears to be the definition of a different technical term, covering map.^[125] If $p:{\tilde {X}}\to X$ is a covering map, then its codomain ${\tilde {X}}$ is a covering space (for $X$ – it is a relative concept), which is loosely given as a secondary sense. 12:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC) — This unsigned comment was added by Lambiam (talk • contribs).

Yes, these are commonly called just coverings but not spaces. A mapping doesn't have a space-like structure. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

aaron

Cuckoopint (a plant). I've heard of plants with this name in the name, e.g. Aaron's rod, but not alone, and not lower-cased. Equinox ◑ 21:13, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not as improbable as it looks, because cuckoopint is an arum, and Latin arum came from Ancient Greek ἄρον (áron). No explanation, though, as to why there should be an English term based on a nonstandard (why "aa"?) transliteration from Ancient Greek. In "Aaron's rod", Aaron is from the name of Moses' brother in the Bible and is completely unrelated. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I found the probable source (the Century Dictionary). It looks like folk etymology has changed Ancient Greek ἄρον (áron) into the Biblical name, with the usual lame explanations that make their way into 19th-century nature writing (I find it amusing how they go into great detail about some of the silliest things, but are completely silent about the origin of cuckoopint). At any rate, I can find uses in uppercase, like this and this, and uppercase mentions that show that it can appear without "root" like this, this and this, but I have yet to find lowercase usage. This is probably explained by the folk etymology. At any rate, I haven't found enough to pass this even in uppercase, but I'm sure it's out there. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

antimirror

"A type of mirror that renders objects to appear as only one using a particular kind of lens." I don't understand the definition. Also, is it a real thing, or an imaginary thing in physics like the antitelephone? Equinox ◑ 03:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

It’s referring to this, I think. The definition currently reads like the writer doesn’t really understand what it is. Theknightwho (talk) 03:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I perfectly understand what it means. Please do not demean or disrespect me. It means "that a certain lens can be used to make multiple objects appear like one." 2602:306:CEC2:A3A0:582B:953F:8E6A:436A 04:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Which doesn’t explain anything, because it’s not at all clear what that entails. Theknightwho (talk) 11:34, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

That's probably just because physics is hard. This paper tries to explain it. This, that and the other (talk) 13:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

By the way, the linked paper only has hyphenated anti-mirror, not this form antimirror. Equinox ◑ 16:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

thing a ma hoochie

I can't find any valid citations of this exact spelling being used. Pious Eterino (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 08:37, 27 June 2022

I think it's supposed to be a single word, like thingamabob and thingamajig. Found a handful of uses in that form, but not an overwhelming amount: [126], [127], [128], [129]. 98.170.164.88 18:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

bugle

"Anything shaped like a bugle, round or conical and having a bell on one end." Er, like what? Equinox ◑ 21:56, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Like one crisp of the brand named after the plural. It appears to me that it is actually multiple brands naming their crisps this way. Fay Freak (talk) 22:30–33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

This feels a bit like having a definition saying "anything rabbit-shaped" at rabbit and so on. Not very helpful. Theknightwho (talk) 09:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't count the crisps if that is always a capitalised brand name. Equinox ◑ 10:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

plyglet

1. (US, Mormonism, polygamy, slang) A child of a polygamous family

Seems to have been made up for a TV series. Absolutely nothing on Google Books. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

There's a mention here, item #29: [130]. 98.170.164.88 14:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

highland

Is there any reason to believe that this is truly used as an adjective apart from attributive use? DCDuring (talk) 15:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

soninlaw

"Son-in-law" when you're in a real hurry? Google Books results seem to be scannos. Equinox ◑ 23:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Cited. 70.172.194.25 17:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

born on the Fourth of July

born on the 4th of July

Did a Google Books search for "was born on the fourth of July" and "was born on the 4th of July" and did not see any idiomatic uses. — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree it is hard to find idiomatic usage of this phrase.

This passed RfV once before, back in 2007. I improved the formatting of the two citations on Citations:born on the Fourth of July. Together with the citation present on the main entry, that brings the count to three. However, Ron Kovic literally was born on July 4, so I don't think that citation demonstrates clearly idiomatic use, even if he is using that happenstance as a way to brand himself as being a patriot.

I can find some stuff like this poem/song, but maybe we're supposed to interpret that as a fictional character who was literally born on July 4. I'd be most convinced by a citation that unambiguously referred to someone who was not literally born on the date but was a patriotic American. That might be too much to ask for, though. 70.172.194.25 17:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the Kovic quotation has to be discarded; he was, as you point out, actually born on 4 July. The 2006 quotation you added to the citations page seems fine, and while I'm doubtful about the 1977 song I suppose it can be given the benefit of the doubt. We still need at least one more unambiguous quotation. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems silly to throw out the Kovic quote, if he was born on literally any other date it wouldn't have made any sense in the quote. "I have a right to be here, I fought for that right and I was born on August 9th." It doesn't matter, because there is plenty of other usage, including the titles of movies, books, etc. which are what make it hard to find other usage. - TheDaveRoss 13:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

@TheDaveRoss: none of the usages in titles, etc., including the title of Kovic's book, clearly show the alleged meaning "Demonstratively patriotic about the United States". — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I would argue that they all do, which is the only reason they were chosen. Again, no other comparable phrase makes sense. You don't make a movie about a paralyzed veteran who has to defend his patriotism while opposing a war "Born on March 22nd". They are not in the form "I was born on the Fourth of July, by which I mean I am demonstratively patriotic about the USA", but thankfully most things people write are not that awful. - TheDaveRoss 13:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

denial of services

Supposedly meaning a denial-of-service attack. Seems like a misconstruction by a non-native speaker to me. Theknightwho (talk) 22:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Widespread use, along with denials of service and denials of services. Probably bothall have to be defined relative to denial of service attack. Also, abundantly attestable at Google Books. Of course denial of service(s) also has an SoP meaning. Denial of service(s) also may have one or more definitions in law, especially administrative law, eg, US healthcare regulation. DCDuring (talk) 00:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, but is it used as a plural of denial of service? One denial of service, two denial of services? That's what we have to show for this to pass RfV. 70.172.194.25 01:07, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Here's a likely non-durably-archived use, a possible use (compare the heading, which uses the singular generically) and an ambiguous use. This, that and the other (talk) 02:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The question remains: is this really the plural of "denial of service"? I mean, "colour of apples" is probably attestable but it is not the plural of "colour of apple". Equinox ◑ 04:40, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The interview with Christopher Reichert certainly uses it as the plural: he says "Here's how many denial of services we rejected", which can only be interpreted as "Here's how many denial of service attacks we rejected". Same in the Hewlett Packard documentation: "...to create multiple Denial of Services". And I think the academic paper is using "distributed denial of services" to mean "distributed denial of service attacks". But it is certainly a rare usage, and time-consuming to search for. This, that and the other (talk) 10:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

We need to keep semantics, morphology, and syntax distinct. Denial of services is not a plural of denial of service attacks. It might conceivably be a misconstructed plural of denial of service (defined as "denial of service attack"), but it just looks like an error to me as such. We are not much helping anyone decode what they read or hear by having this occasional and predictable error documented. DCDuring (talk) 12:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I think you're on the money when you say it could be a misconstructed plural of denial of service [attack]. Whether or not it's an error shouldn't concern us. Having said that, I'm not convinced it can be attested, unless someone does a real deep-dive search. This, that and the other (talk) 05:48, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I now recall that we do have DOSes and DDOSes (plurals of initialisms), though of course you don't have the opportunity to put the plural -(e)s in the middle of an initialism. Equinox ◑ 22:59, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

July 2022

tate

"Of video games, a vertical mode." Equinox ◑ 04:39, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

sherilla

Another derogatory term without quotations. —Mahāgaja · talk 20:05, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Speedily deleted pursuant to WT:DEROGATORY – term remains unverified more than two weeks after nomination for RFV. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

dash cherry

"The red rotating light put on a police car's dashboard to indicate an emergency." I can't find anything on this. (If it's real, does it mean the light is lifted up and placed on the dashboard, or that it is always fixed there and is merely lit up in emergencies?) Equinox ◑ 21:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Two books by the same author: [131], [132]. I couldn't find anything else. 98.170.164.88 07:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Reddit: [133]. 98.170.164.88 07:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

pyrenophore

Rfv-sense: Any fungus of the genus Pyrenophora DTLHS (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

adumber

To overshadow or obscure. Can't find it. There is, however, adumbrate. Equinox ◑ 22:58, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Here it is:

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/adumber

linked entry was originally included on this page:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/adumbration#Related_terms 2602:306:CEC2:A3A0:E5C5:3DAE:2CED:455A 23:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

OED has 4 cites (adumbrit, adumbred, adumber, adumbered). This, that and the other (talk) 09:52, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

hecatologue

Nonce word Zumbacool (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Ruscism

Previously failed RFV, was recreated without cites, was RFDed (Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English#Ruscism_needs_a_restore?), and has been given a changing set of poor definitions. It's currently defined as a proper noun meaning "Russia under Putin", but I think this is wrong, and (like WP says) it refers to ~"the ideology of Putin, Russian fascism". Citations would clarify, presumably, and are needed anyway since this previously failed RFV. - -sche (discuss) 19:02, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

You can define “Russia as envisioned by Aleksandr Dugin”, or {{synonym of|en|Duginism}}, this would be correcter. I think you may also just take it as granted that it has the same meaning as the Russian and Ukrainian term and this may be one of the words that even if attested by use cannot be understood by the whole corpus of the language but needs references from other languages. There are more trivial examples, like American English using palo santo while in the contexts the species are not clear so I refer to the Spanish. Fay Freak (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

I added some quotations going back to 2015.[134] —Michael Z. 2022-07-15 18:30 z 18:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

South County

Rfv-sense: "A region of Worcester County, Massachusetts." I've never actually heard this used, but Wikipedia has an article on it. I can find a few websites that use the term ([135], [136]), but nothing durably archived. It could be out there, e.g. in local magazines or something. 98.170.164.88 00:30, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Never mind, cited. 98.170.164.88 18:24, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

homowhore

Nonce word Zumbacool (talk) 01:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

This is definitely going to get cited, unfortunately, albeit I bet for another meaning. AG202 (talk) 02:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Cited under a modified definition. There's plenty of uses on Twitter too. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 04:47, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

fly couch

Google Books turns up nothing relevant; I suspect that the author meant to write fly coach (and the latter wouldn't meet CFI either, since it's a SOP of fly ("travel by air") + coach ("economy class"/"economy-class section of an airplane or train")). Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty ⚧️ Averted crashes} 16:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

fully

Synonym of nip slip.

This has failed RFV before back in 2017, but might pass on the new CFI criteria. Theknightwho (talk) 19:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I can find a cite for a different sense, but not this.

• 2012, Dimitri A. Bogazianos, 5 Grams: Crack Cocaine, Rap Music, and the War on Drugs, NYU Press, →ISBN, page 91:

  [The] nature of new-era violence can be encapsulated in the notion of the “fullie spray”—the lethal potential of fully automatic weapons. [E]verybody got fullies, so one ride usually is enough now to drop several bodies at once.

- -sche (discuss) 00:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Charlie

A short, pointed beard, like that of King Charles I.

Not particularly easy to search for, but plausible I suppose. If real, almost certainly needs some qualifiers. Theknightwho (talk) 19:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

It's mentioned in 2013, Julian Franklyn, A Dictionary of Rhyming Slang: "In mid-19 C. a Charlie was a small pointed beard." Equinox ◑ 17:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

charlie

Alternative letter-case form of Charlie.

In which senses? Feels like we need citations on this one to work out when it's actually an alt-case form. Theknightwho (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

thembo

There are loads of BGC results, but for a homonymous Bantu (sur)name. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:56, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Looks citable from Twitter, assuming that's allowed. 98.170.164.88 17:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Cited from magazines on Issuu. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 04:06, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

rockfish

Rfv-sense "(derogatory, slang, ethnic slur, US) Of a black person, to drown in a body of water, as a result of not knowing how to swim." Another case of a3a0's made up words only used on websites that make up offensive nonce words on a daily basis. — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 07:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Makes one wonder about the wisdom of relaxing our standards for attestation. DCDuring (talk) 14:30, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Speedily deleted pursuant to WT:DEROGATORY – not verified despite two weeks having elapsed since nomination for RFV. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

big up

"British, slang, transitive: To increase one's muscle mass through exercise. He works out every day to big up himself." (Shouldn't it be "big himself up"?) Anyway, can't find much on this. Equinox ◑ 17:19, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I would think that there would be intransitive usage, too. DCDuring (talk) 20:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

But I haven't found any, either transitive or intransitive in this sense. DCDuring (talk) 20:21, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

undersignalman

98.170.164.88 22:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

dog doctor

Rfv-sense I did a preliminary search yesterday and had difficulty finding this sense. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Reverted the removal because the sense demonstrably exists. This might technically be &lit or SOP, but that's a separate question from attestability. (I don't think it's obvious from the individual parts that this sense would exist. If anything it's more surprising than the definition "veterinarian". But I also admit that it's not really a lexical term.) 98.170.164.88 18:55, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

A dog who is also a doctor. Quality content. Can't find anything on GBooks, though. Theknightwho (talk) 23:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Here's one: [137] (images confirm the interpretation). I'm also finding plenty of uses on Twitter (just a sample): [138], [139], [140]. Is that enough to attest it? 98.170.164.88 18:35, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Amazing. I love it. Theknightwho (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Another usage in a book: [141]. If you read the story, he's a dog who acts as a doctor for other dogs, so the interpretation could go either way, but I'd lean toward it being a special sense rather than plain old "veterinarian". 98.170.164.88 18:42, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

From Google Books: [142], "In elderly living facilities, having a dog doctor or cat nurse making the rounds makes the residents happier and creates better interactions between them." The cover image is a dog with a stethoscope. 98.170.164.88 18:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

This whole discussion is extremely silly but this sense is clearly SOP. I don't know however if that means it should be removed, as the "veterinarian" sense is less clearly SOP. Benwing2 (talk) 19:47, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that one has to be SOP, too, since it fits the endlessly productive pattern of nose doctor (doctor treating nose issues), throat doctor, eye doctor, etc. (And the other sense fits the endlessly productive pattern of Armenian doctor, Buddhist doctor, lazy doctor, etc.) Move to RFD since cites have been provided above? - -sche (discuss) 00:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

@-sche: Do you think the fact that sense 1 translates to Hundearzt whereas sense 2 translates to Arzthund has any bearing on whether we want to retain the entry? WT:THUB doesn't say a whole lot about such multi-sense SOPs. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 00:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Personally, I don't, since those are also formed by summing parts in predictable ways; any other animal term could be plugged in in the same way (Pferd, etc) and in both English and German the medical element could also be changed from doctor to nurse, etc, although not all combinations would be common enough to be attestable. The predictable way English forms "doctor who treats animal X" happens to be the same as the predictable way it forms "doctor who is an animal X", whereas the predictable ways some languages form one vs the other differ, but I would consider the relevant factor to be that they're predictable and, in the case of English, SOP. I don't think having multiple senses stops something from being SOP; compare the RFD discussion of royal assassin, or, say, a green business leader (inexperienced, environmentalist, nauseous, envious...). - -sche (discuss) 20:10, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• Err, the "a dog who is a doctor" was Wonderfool being stupid. Let's move on Dunderdool (talk) 20:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  Cited. Please do not remove the sense as it clearly exists. While more than likely SOP, that is an issue for RFD, not here. AG202 (talk) 21:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  Not Cited.
  (1) Still waiting for cites.
  (2) If no cites, then the discussion is over.
  (3) If cites, then the SOP discussion can begin.
  (4) You all like to use the SOP method to delete words, but this method is equally valid with similar and equally authoritative results. The logic to this method is: (A) Is there a lingusitic phenomenon (this sense of this term)? then (B) Is it within the scope of Wiktionary?
  --Geographyinitiative (talk) 23:43, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

  Cited. J3133 (talk) 00:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  I had taken the cites provided here as cites, but didn’t realize that they were not added the page, so my bad on that one. However, SOP discussions do not belong here on this forum per the rules that govern RFV. RFV is meant to show that words and senses exist, not to decide whether or not they’re SOP. That belongs in RFD. I’m also not sure whom you’re referring to with “you all” as I’ve been ruling on the place that this discussion should take place, not the merits of deletion. CC: @Fytcha AG202 (talk) 02:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, it is cited now and should not be removed. Please use {{rfd}}/{{rfd-sense}} if you think it should not be included. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 10:32, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for the clarification! AG202 (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

This could probably be moved to RFD. Although it's an unusual combination of words, it's no less SOP than French botanist or alien scientist. Binarystep (talk) 02:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

• RFV-passed and immediately deleted the sense as SOP. I kept the citations if anyone cares. Dunderdool (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Sense restored. Take it to RFD. You know this already. CC: @Fytcha again (apologies) AG202 (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

It's gonna fail RFD, we all know this already. Fine, I'll add &lit Dunderdool (talk) 08:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

glom

Rfv-senses

1. A cluster of heterogeneous things.
2. (transitive) To combine together into a larger mass.

These need labels, but it also needs to be demonstrated that these would be distinct from 1.3 "to attach". — SURJECTION ^{/ T / C / L /} 10:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Surely it’s etymology 1 verb sense 3 that should be removed with the quotes transferred to the sense at etymology 2. It seems more likely that the etymology for glom = attach is from ‘conglomerate’ than the Scottish ‘glaum’. glom on and glom onto could be deleted and their quotes transferred too. Overlordnat1 (talk) 11:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

smoothrunning

Per the result at Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English § smoothrunning. AG202 (talk) 23:17, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I’ve only found one book where the author uses the form smoothrunning (and twice, so clearly unintentional) [143]. The number of clear uses on Twitter goes well into double figures, even ignoring invalid hits like #smoothrunning, as it does on the wider internet as can be seen by doing an advanced Google search but most of these instances are probably typos. We could perhaps get away with listing it as a misspelling &/or non-standard form of smooth running or smooth-running but they all seem SOP to me (though that’s no longer technically relevant now, I suppose). Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

More hits from archive.org: [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152]. 98.170.164.88 00:55, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Good find. I think we can call this cited. Whether anyone wants to create separate entries for smooth running and smooth-running or do the opposite and RFD this after passing the verification process is another matter. Overlordnat1 (talk) 17:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

fleme

Ety 1. Middle English only. OED doesn't manage anything after 1300; MED has some cites into the 1400s, but this seems not to have clung onto life like the verb did. This, that and the other (talk) 10:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

outfleme

ME only. This, that and the other (talk) 10:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Ernesto

Rfv-sense A 2006 storm, first hurricane of the season. Does this have three idiomatic uses along the lines "brace for another Ernesto"? Uses of the bare name outside contexts where it is immediately obvious that it talks about hurricanes have also been suggested to be sufficient. See WT:RFDE#Ernesto,_Katrina,_names_of_hurricanes. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

blanc

Rfv-sense A white cosmetic. Wasn't able to find anything apart from code switching and expressions with more French words after blanc (blanc-fixe, blanc d'herbe, blanc de fard etc.). Added here. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 18:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

This came from one of the old dictionaries (probably Chambers 1908). 2020, Amelia Rauser, The Age of Undress (page 127) quotes "one commentator in 1804" (unfortunately not named) as having written: "Rouge is no longer used; pallor is more interesting. The ladies only use the blanc, and leave the rouge to the men." Other books mention longer French terms like blanc de fard. Equinox ◑ 20:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

There are now 3 citations. Equinox ◑ 23:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

paedolect

A language variety unique to a child or to a youth. 2602:306:CEC2:A3A0:E85C:831E:6673:ED1A 06:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

All I found: [153]. The form pedolect looks more promising: [154], [155], [156]. 98.170.164.88 04:02, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

colonizer

Rfv-sense: "(US, slang, derogatory) A white person." It seems tricky to me to verify usage where this is the specific intended meaning rather than it being used with the intention of its other listed definition ("One who colonizes"), or at least intending to refer to the act of colonizing rather than just to someone being white, but certain people interpreting it to have supposed derogatory meaning. AKiwiDeerPin (talk) 06:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

This seems to have appeared in online usage in the last year or so. Here's one apparent use on Facebook. Some likely uses on Twitter: [157] [158] Probably can find some on TikTok too if anyone is that brave. This, that and the other (talk) 10:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

bodysful

Plural of bodyful—I could not find it on Usenet, Google (all results, including Google Books) or even Twitter. The regular form would be bodiesful: compare belliesful, citiesful, galleriesful, librariesful, lorriesful, skiesful (all attested in books). Created by @Kiwima. J3133 (talk) 07:37, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Based on Google results, Usenet, and Google Books, it doesn't seem like bodysful or bodiesful has ever been used. Binarystep (talk) 11:26, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Binarystep: I did also look for bodiesful: I know that it is not attested. J3133 (talk) 11:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

bodiesful: [159], [160]. 96.70.226.121 13:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

(@Binarystep) I have added a quotation of the book at bodyful and created bodiesful. J3133 (talk) 13:51, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

@55

Per Talk:@55 & Talk:@$$, this should've been sent here ages ago. AG202 (talk) 11:40, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

It's found plenty on the internet^[161] but searching it in Google Groups^[162] is a pain because for some reason it doesn't really recognize the @ in the search query. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:45, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Here are some uses of @55: [163], [164], [165], [166]. @$$ is harder to search for, but I found [167], [168], [169].  --Lambiam 19:55, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

cast

"A broadcast." (Radio, TV, online stream?) I have seen it only in derived terms like "vodcast". Equinox ◑ 20:22, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I assume it means stuff like this. I was expecting a fairly common nominalisation of cast verb sense 16 (the def of which I just edited to be more specific), but I am really surprised how difficult it is to find. This, that and the other (talk) 07:46, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

cast (2)

Rfv-sense: horse unable to rise without assistance (noun). I can only find participial uses: "cast horse", "horse is cast", etc. We probably need a better verb sense to cater for this usage. This, that and the other (talk) 08:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

artificial

Sense 3: unnatural. This needs to be distinct from sense 1 ("man-made; of artifice" e.g. artificial flowers) and from sense 2 ("false, misleading, fake", e.g. a person speaking with an artificial manner). I hardly see what can be left! Equinox ◑ 19:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Natural is definitely an antonym of artificial, so it is not unnatural to see unnatural being considered a synonym. It is furthermore not uncommon to see a distinction being called “artificial”, for example the distinction between alcohol and other drugs,^[170] or the distinction between a practical and a theoretical project.^[171] This is a judgemental label, unlike the neutral sense 1, but it is not nearly as strong as sense 2 and more similar to the judgemental use of the label unnatural. Indeed, a distinction may likewise be labelled unnatural, like the distinction between regular warfare and irregular war.^[172] The label can be replaced by artificial without substantive change of meaning.  --Lambiam 22:44, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Right. I think the wording of the senses needs to be improved to convey the distinction more clearer, but I agree there seems to be a distinction between these. (Conversely, if anyone wants to propose a wording that would allow the RFVed sense to be merged into sense 2, I'm open to the idea that that might be possible with the right wording.) - -sche (discuss) 22:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

reset

Noun: "Something that is reset." (But not typographical matter, since that's a separate noun sense already.) Equinox ◑ 01:30, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Fake common names for moth genera

There are literally thousands of moth genera that only entomologists and insect collectors have ever heard of. Why anyone would choose these particular ones to make up common names for is beyond me.

hellinsian

1. Any moth in the genus Hellinsia.

Only two hits on all of Google- both are us.Chuck Entz (talk) 07:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

hemijanan

1. Any eupterotid moth in the genus Hemijana.

Nothing on Google Books or Scholar, and only 6 ghits total- which all seem to be from us. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

lecithoceran

1. Any species of long-horned moth of the genus Lecithocera.

Again: only two hits on all of Google- both us.Chuck Entz (talk) 07:50, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I would speedy anything with Google search results that look like this. This, that and the other (talk) 08:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

All were created by @StuckInLagToad, who I have noticed has been creating entries for common names without verifying if they are used. J3133 (talk) 08:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

siege (a workman’s bench)

As was mentioned in the Tea Room, there’s no proper citation for this sense of the word siege and the alleged source, the American Mechanical Dictionary, doesn’t seem to list this meaning of the word anywhere. I couldn’t find any evidence of the word being used in this way in GoogleBooks either. Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:36, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, the American Mechanical Dictionary does mention this meaning. It's in volume III (1876/7), page 2175. 98.170.164.88 00:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

plebvision

Plausibly an Internet-only protologism. There are multiple uses on Usenet, but I opened several of them and was amazed to see that all in my sample were either by 'Peter Brooks' or in response to him. There are also a few hits on Twitter, but most of them are by one Twitter account, whose profile info links to the Amazon page of Peter Brooks.

It's possible enough unassociated uses exist if anyone wants to go sifting, but this isn't the type of usage distribution I'd expect from a broadly diffused word. 98.170.164.88 03:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

The quote by Samson is from a thread that Brooks also participated in. So I guess it's technically not him, but maybe his friend or something. 98.170.164.88 15:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Based on WT:CFI, that should count as an independent usage. It also seems speculative to assume that Samson actually knows Brooks, and didn't just pick up the term from reading the latter's posts. Binarystep (talk) 19:52, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

communifake

Seems to have been invented by media. Unable to find legitimate use outside of 2008, or indeed any use not referring back to said news articles. Zombiewizard45 (talk) 13:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

equivalent-teeth shrew mole

This common name was evidently coined by the Chinese authors of the original 2013 description of the species, and was used as the title of the Wikipedia page. Everything else I can find on Google seems to be repackaged Wikipedia. This is an insignificant, geographically remote cryptic species that required DNA analysis to distinguish from its sister species, and the name is awkwardly sesquipedalian. As a consequence, I have my doubts as to whether this name has caught on, or ever will catch on in actual usage (as opposed to regurgitation of someone else's free content). Chuck Entz (talk) 03:32, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

anti-contact

Opposed to sexual activity between adults and minors.

pro-contact

Supportive of sexual activity between adults and minors.

These show up in a Google search, but I’m not seeing much in anything durably archived (though there is a bit). I think these need particular attention, as I’m unsure how loaded these terms are. Theknightwho (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

shitgibbon

Rfv-sense: A type of antibacchic compound word used as an insult, consisting of a single-syllable expletive, followed by an absurd or innocuous two-syllable noun as a trochee.

Could be, but it needs cites, especially if used as part of Wiktionary text, categories etc. We particularly need to make sure that the academic-sounding definition is the sense that people actually mean as opposed to a definition like "any word that reminds one of shitgibbon". DCDuring (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The blog post by Jones (2017) is cited as coining the term, so naturally it does use it (albeit only once, in the heading "how to make a shitgibbon in two easy steps"). The piece by Tessier & Becker (2018) is durably archived and uses the term many times. So we need at least one more use, I guess. Should be easy to find if we admit web sources; probably impossible at present otherwise. 98.170.164.88 04:31, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

For our credibility, we need them visible in the entry. And we still don't have a policy that citations that are not durably attested satisfy WT:ATTEST, do we? DCDuring (talk) 12:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

They're already visible in the entry, in the references section and referred to in the etymology. Plus there's the academic article Vowel but not consonant identity and the very informal English lexicon. Plus WT:ATTEST was changed a few months ago, which is something that's already been flagged to you. Theknightwho (talk) 13:04, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

That's not where we put attestation cites. BTW attestation is supposed to show uses, not mentions. Arguably coinage cites that define the term are mentions. DCDuring (talk) 13:09, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

It isn't, but they're particularly relevant to the etymology given that it's a coinage. Nevertheless, the term clearly has gained traction given its use elsewhere. It's trivial to find more online uses in this sense. Theknightwho (talk) 13:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Find them and insert them where they belong for the sake of our credibility as a dictionary. DCDuring (talk) 13:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Cites do not have to be featured in-entry to count toward attestation. There's a reason we have a whole namespace dedicated to filing citations. That said the ridiculous circular etymology in this entry does hurt our credibility. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Drop the stick. I’ve already explained how it’s not circular in detail, which you simply ignored. Theknightwho (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

You ignored my explanation of how a self-referencing etymology is unhelpful and went ahead with edit-warring it back into the entry. At a certain point one realizes one has a greater chance of extracting blood from a turnip than budging the inexplicably entrenched. Doesn't mean the etymology isn't a blemish on an otherwise informative entry. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 08:23, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

It’s clearly unhelpful to define shitgibbon as ‘shitgibbon of shit and gibbon’, we should simply write ‘From shit + gibbon’ in the etymology (like we do for knobjockey). Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

balios wasp

This species was described in 2014, this 2017 article coined the common name, and everything else is either directly or indirectly Wikipedia or us. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

iCON

"A fan of the Nigerian rapper, singer, and songwriter Laycon." Can someone (a) provide sources, (b) verify whether the spelling used is correct? Searches for "icon laycon" yield the spelling "Icon", and I can't verify the meaning. Benwing2 (talk) 05:26, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

shitgibbon

Rfv-sense: "A music bootlegger" At most two of the cites support this definition and neither of them are unambiguous. Arguably All of the cites are just the generic use of the term directed at music bootleggers. Obviously derogatory. DCDuring (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

ready-pole

I'm just seeing this in old dictionaries and this old book also giving the names randle, rendle; rannelbalk, gay-pole (lolz), clovel, cotteril, back-bar. Dunderdool (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

South Americunt

(derogatory) A South American. DCDuring (talk) 19:10, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

North Americunt

Same idea. 98.170.164.88 19:33, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

gibsmedat

Pursuant to WT:DEROGATORY, this entry may be speedily deleted if not verified two weeks after the date of this nomination. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

n-word derivatives

I suspect many of these can be cited, but the new rule WT:DEROGATORY applies. 98.170.164.88 22:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

You know they will (almost) always be cited when they reference Black folks. Hence why I voted the way I did on the derogatory terms vote. Very little will fundamentally change on that front. CC: @TheDaveRoss since you also talked about this. At this rate, I'd just avoid sending them to RFV if they're found on Usenet, so that they don't gain more traction and attention. AG202 (talk) 16:38, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with racist terms being included in Wiktionary, I think it is actually important that they are included if only to ensure that people who use them intentionally cannot do so without everyone knowing what they are saying, and so that those who might use them benignly (not likely in the case of this list) will know that the terms are loaded. I do have a problem with including terms which have no currency in the language, which are nonces which have popped up a few times in UseNet. Having now read far too many of the types of UseNet posts that support these terms, it appears that the idiots who use such language love to come up with as many puns and nonces as they can. I don't know why a few Wiktionary editors are so keen to include as many of these exceedingly rare terms as they can, I have no idea why anyone would think it was important for a dictionary to include terms which have only ever been used a couple of times. But everyone has their kinks I suppose. - TheDaveRoss 10:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

curry nigger

[173] — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 01:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Indian nigger

[174] — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 01:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

niggerdick

[175] — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 01:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

nigger knocker

[176] — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 01:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

niggerfuck

[177] — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 01:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Niggerian

[178] — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 01:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

niggerlips

[179] — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 01:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

nigger lotto

[180] (only 2 independent) — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 01:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

teenigger

[181] — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 01:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

swamp nigger

[182] — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 01:05, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

By the way, {{derogatory|rfv=1}} can now be used to generate boilerplate when nominating terms. — Sgconlaw (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Dominicoon

This is exactly the kind of entry WT:DEROGATORY was made for. 98.170.164.88 22:18, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Americoon

[183], [184], [185] — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 01:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

And here we go. It hasn't even been 3 days since the vote has passed and the first trivially citable derogatory term has already been speedied. — Fytcha〈 T | L | C 〉 12:31, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@Fytcha: @Mahagaja deleted it; because two weeks have not passed since the RFV, I have undeleted it. J3133 (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

@J3133: More than two weeks had passed since its creation, so it was deletable under WT:DEROGATORY even without an RFV. —Mahāgaja · talk 13:19, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

are

Rfv-sense: Etymology 4: "(UK, humorous, derogatory) Deliberate misspelling of our."

Deliberate? DCDuring (talk) 02:40, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

boot boy

Rfv-sense: "(informal, derogatory) A bootlicker, a supporter of authoritarianism seen as sycophantic."

These seemed like two different definitions to me, but I guess the intent is something like "A bootlicking, sycophantic supporter of authoritarianism". DCDuring (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

stunning and brave

Rfv-sense: "(Internet slang, derogatory, ironic) Expecting praise for something that is too insignificant or ridiculous."

Could be, based on South Park episode. Any uptake? DCDuring (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Definition is too broad. I've only ever seen this phrase used to insult trans people, which matches the context of the original South Park ep. (I've also seen it used to refer to people who weren't expecting praise, but I'm not sure if that's an actual shift in meaning or if it's just another example of how insults naturally become more encompassing over time.) Binarystep (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

The definition is too narrow, it's basically the usual senses + sarcasm, probably originally insulting trans people but now often anyone; the choice of words is ?idiomatic? or at least memetic, but since they occur in either order and with interpolations, I'm not sure this entry is idiomatic. Here is one person and another referring to AOC being arrested, and Theresa May refusing to clap, Biden burning fuel to visit Saudis to fight climate change, and the BBC hiring/airing Black people, as "stunning and brave"; some could be saying the act is actually "too insignificant or ridiculous", but e.g., the person saying the BBC is "stunning and brave" for hiring "20% Black in a country that's 3% Black" clearly thinks it is not insignificant; some of these might be claiming/imputing that the person expects praise, but it's not a requirement that the person actually expect praise, since it's also used of minorities simply existing. Australian gamer Modest Pelican refers to bad moves he makes (in several videos, although I can't find one offhand) as e.g. "I make a stunning, and also brave, decision to [do some inadvisable thing]" or "brave, and also stunning", and here's someone referring to Australian vegans getting vasectomies as "stunning and also brave"; in the reverse order, here is someone dismissing a ban on swastikas as "brave, and also stunning". The reverse order, "brave and stunning", comes closest to be restricted to insulting trans people, though even there you see some examples dismissing other things. If kept, we need to think about how to define it, maybe resorting to {{n-g}}. Obviously, non-sarcastic, sincere use also exists, and seems to be the main use in books. - -sche (discuss) 20:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand "expecting" as even potentially part of the definition. It seems that it is a group that believes the person or action deserves to be called stunning and brave, but that the speaker and his ilk do not. The individual or action called stunning and brave and the person's expectations need never be involved. DCDuring (talk) 22:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

negrophiliac

Rfv-sense: "(slang, derogatory, humorous) An individual with a morbid or unhealthy obsession with black people."

No cites, of course. DCDuring (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

negrophilia

Rfv-sense: "(dated, offensive) An affection for, or interest in things related to, the black race."

No cites, of course. DCDuring (talk) 02:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Trumpster diving

"(US, politics, informal, humorous) The act of scraping the bottom of the barrel to find a candidate." Graham11 (talk) 05:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Even if the term exists, the definition itself is hardly of neutral style. brittletheories (talk) 08:08, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Not seeing a neutrality issue with the wording at all, to be honest. Theknightwho (talk) 03:46, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I suspect this term was in vogue in the runup to the 2016 election when Trump was seen as an unviable candidate. Note that the National Review is conservative, but specifically labeled itself as anti-Trump in 2016. But I suspect once Trump became president, even his enemies within the GOP would have had a difficult time using a term like Trumpster diving and getting the intended meaning across. —Soap— 10:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Happy to stand corrected, but it really seems like there are some puerile editors casting around for terms they can find a derogatory or obscene rhyme for, and then creating portmanteaus of them as entries (like Bangcock and Buttswana). Can’t roll my eyes high enough. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:15, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

How exactly is a scrappy bit of wordplay questioning a U.S. president's fitness for office equivalent to a bunch of racial slurs? 🙄 WordyAndNerdy (talk) 02:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree its not equivalent, but as I understand it the wording of the new CFI policy provides no exclusions and so a comparatively mild term is still subject to the same strict verification process. I expect this term to fail attestation because it was coined by an anti-Trump faction of the Republican party who within months fell apart as they saw Trump win the nomination and then the election. As such the term quickly lost all relevance as an insult and I wouldn't expect to see its use span more than a year. —Soap— 08:54, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Bangcock

Need I say more? Nominating this pursuant to WT:DEROGATORY. — Sgconlaw (talk) 05:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Gringoland

Most citable ghits seem to be non-English. May be speedied if not cited in two weeks. See WT:DEROGATORY. brittletheories (talk) 08:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Trivially easy to cite, though I broadened the definition a little as one cite explicitly identifies it as Europe and some others seem to use it to refer to other areas (even in Mexico?) with many gringos. Actually, although this was defined as "Gringolandia", that term seems less common. - -sche (discuss) 20:50, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Gringolandia

brittletheories (talk) 08:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Move any attested translations to Gringoland if this fails (or even if it doesn't, that term seems more common than this one). - -sche (discuss) 20:51, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

red nigger

Rfv-sense - (ethnic slur) An African American of mixed European descent
The one citation provided for this sense (2001 on citations page) is certainly a mention, though from a scholarly work which makes it somewhat better. Also, is the definition accurate? It could be clarified I am sure. I'm also guessing it is dated. - TheDaveRoss 12:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Banderastan

WT:DEROGATORY likely applies. 98.170.164.88 22:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

child of the Prohibition

(slang, humorous) A person who completely abstains from alcoholic beverages. I guess this is plausible, but it was added by a sketchy contributor and smells funny. For one it isn't "the Prohibition" it is just "Prohibition", and when I searched there was lots of which was SOP or not related to the Prohibition era. - TheDaveRoss 10:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)