Wiktionary:Requests for verification

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, search

Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for verification

Wiktionary Request pages (edit) see also: discussions
Requests for cleanup
add new | history | archives

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

Requests for verification
add new | history | archives | old index

Requests for verification in the form of durably-archived attestations conveying the meaning of the term in question.

Requests for deletion
add new | history | archives

Requests for deletion of pages in the main namespace due to policy violations; also for undeletion requests.

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

Requests for deletion 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.

{{rfc-case}} - {{rfc-trans}} - {{rfdate}} - {{rfd-redundant}} - {{rfdef}} - {{rfe}} - {{rfex}} - {{rfap}} - {{rfp}} - {{rfphoto}} -

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

Scope of this request page:

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



See also:

Overview: Requests for verification is a page for requests for attestation of a term or a sense, leading to deletion of the term or a sense unless an editor proves that the disputed term or sense meets the attestation criterion as specified in Criteria for inclusion, usually by providing 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, indicating what action was taken. 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).

Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request may be archived to the entry's talk-page. This consists of removing the discussion from this page, and copying it to the entry's talk-page (using {{archive-top|rfv}} + {{archive-bottom}}). Historically, it could also include simply commenting on the talk page with a link to the diff of the edit that removed the discussion from this page. Examples of discussions archived at talk pages: Talk:non-lemma, Talk:accident-blackspot.

Oldest tagged RFVs


January 2015[edit]


Fear of flashes of light. Only in word lists. Equinox 21:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I've found two meanings, which I suspect may be the case for a few -phobias: there's the "fear of..." sense, which is what you'll find in the word lists, and there's also a biological "intolerance of..." sense. So selaphobia might be the fear of flashes, or, in ophthalmology, an intolerance to them. chlorophobia might be a fear of Chlorine (or of Chloroform, or simply of the colour green), or a botanic intolerance to Chlorine compounds.
More to the point, there is an issue which came up on my talk page in conversation with Equinox on this matter, and that's what would count for an attestation. I submit that these phobias come as a packet of concepts: the condition, the condition as an adjective, and the thing suffering the condition (-phobia, -phobic, -phobe). (And adverb -phobically?) Many of these terms are very specialised, and may turn up in scientific papers relatively rarely, such that we might have an insufficient number of attestations for any given form, and thus be forced to delete all three forms and with them the entire concept.
It's not quite the same as using examples of the genitive or plural to attest the lemma, but I don't think it's that far off. So I submit that for this sort of "package" of forms, it should be possible to use, eg., "selaphobic" and "selaphobe" to attest "selaphobia", and vice-versa. That is, any of the forms of the package work as attestation of the package. This could be the basis of a "See also" template for such things listing the various forms (so: autism/autistic/autist/autistically, or schizophrenia/schizophrenic/schizophrenic/schizophrenically, although that would be for cross-reference more than the need to aggregate attestations to make critical mass.)
--Catsidhe (verba, facta) 05:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
This does seem close to what we do with verbs (where I've noted a strong consensus to create the -s, -ing, -ed forms even if not all of them are attestable). I don't like the idea, though, since I prefer to treat each word/spelling as a separate item. Equinox 17:32, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't really consider inflections (plural forms and verb tenses) to be individual words, and thus I don't think they need to be independently cited, unless they're irregular in some way. But nouns, verbs, adjectives, or any other POS should be considered separate words, and thus I think they need to be independently cited. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:55, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
  • My position is that "selaphobic" does not attest "selaphobia"; even if "selaphobic" is attested, "selaphobia" can fail RFV and be deleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:28, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
    • My fear is that neither form will make critical mass on its own (I've moved the cites you deleted to selaphobic, by the way), both will independently fail CFI, and thus the term in its entirety will be deleted. Even if they are aggregated it will be close, unless someone else has better luck finding another cite for each sense. But still, I see a situation where a word can clearly exist, if rarely, but be deleted through the technicality that one citation used person-first language or some such perfectly regular and predictable variation. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 12:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Not sure what you mean by "person-first language"; one of the forms is a noun, the other is an adjective. They are different words, not just different inflected forms. Three quotations is already a very low threshold; I find it unwise to lower it by pooling morphologically related forms (like "carry", "carrier", and "carriage" or those mentioned by you above: autism/autistic/autist/autistically, schizophrenia/schizophrenic/schizophrenic/schizophrenically). In similar way, each -ness form should be attested on its own, rather than entered when the adjective from which the -ness form is formed is attested. Ditto for agent nouns: they should be attested on their own rather than created automatically when the verb is attested. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
        Person-first language is a fashion in disability circles to avoid using the word meaning "person-with-condition" ("autist", "paraplegic"), but instead explicitly saying "person with autism", "person with paraplegia", etc. (The idea is to explicitly state the person as most semantically important, not defining them by the condition.) Many autists, for example, find this ridiculous and faintly patronising, and see person-first language, for our condition at least, akin to saying "person with maleness". In this case you might find that a rare but real condition, with a real, if rare, word would fail attestation because the votes were split between the condition and the person-with-condition, even though they're all referring to the same thing. Which is why I split off the cites for selaphobic, rather than let them vanish completely. Surely someone has better access to ophthalmology papers? Or Epilepsy studies? --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 21:52, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
I agree that citations of selaphobic (adjective) don't help selaphobia (noun) meet CFI. The only citations I can find of selaphobic are the two on the citations page; I've added one more (very mentiony) citation to selaphobia. If it is adequate, I suggest combining the senses to "fear of or intolerance to flashes of light". - -sche (discuss) 09:50, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


Google Books doesn't seem to have enough citations for any single sense. There is the biological "barophobic" (not adapted to high pressures). Equinox 21:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Found a third cite for the fear sense. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
What about fear of bars? Renard Migrant (talk) 23:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
Did you hear the one about a man who didn't walk into a bar? -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
I've deleted the biology sense (RFV-failed). The other sense has two good citations, but the "afraid of gravity (barophobia)" is mention-y, IMO. Should it still count? Can any more citations be found? - -sche (discuss) 06:17, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Made of or with wood

Just attributive use of the noun? — Ungoliant (falai) 20:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to tell the difference between an uncountable noun and an incomparable adjective. None of the tests at Wiktionary:English adjectives seem to be capable of distinguishing between these two. So what kind of citation would (hypothetically) be able to demonstrate that "wood" is indeed an incomparable adjective as well as a noun? —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 20:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Predicative use, i.e. you can say “this toy is wooden”, but can you say “this toy is wood”? — Ungoliant (falai) 20:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd still say that's use of the uncountable noun. Talk:woodland might provide a way forward; very wood and quite wood can't be interpreted as nominal uses, unless I'm missing something. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
That's true, but I wouldn't expect to find uses of an incomparable adjective with "quite" and "very". —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 21:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, you can. [1] [2] [3] [4] But it's not completely obvious to me whether these are predicative uses of an adjective or an uncountable noun. But if you think they're good enough, I'll add them to the entry. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 20:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Dubious IMO. It feels like "this music is (genre)": more of a noun usage. Equinox 21:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
@Mr. Granger: I'd apply Occam's razor. If we have a noun entry for a word then there should be some unambiguous evidence for its adjectivity to support an Adjective PoS section. I can find three cites (1, 3 & 4) ["be|am|is|are|be|being|was|were more wood than" -"there is|was more wood than" here] at Google Books for the following collocation: "[be] more wood (than)". If upheld, that would let us keep the Adjective section. DCDuring TALK 22:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Saying "it's more wood than metal" doesn't make it an adjective, though. —CodeCat 22:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I tend to see "this table is wood" as an adjectival usage. Dictionaries having this adjectival sense at "wood" include AHD[5] and Merriam-Webster (entry 3)[6]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
For the record, now as before, I consider this use of RFV less than fortunate, since for English there are no conclusive purely evidence-based criteria for adjectivity. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The OED has only the obsolete adjective (our etymology 2) meaning mad. Are we being wooden about this? We do have steel as an adjective, and the OED doesn't, but why don't we have soap and cardboard as adjectives? (Later note: we do now for cardboard, with good cites. Thanks, Mr. Granger.) Dbfirs 17:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky: In most cases the evidence is extremely clear. Evidence is to be preferred to gum-flapping wherever possible. We can reduce the gum-flapping to evaluation and weighing of evidence, in this case, that of the judgment of lexicographers and the corpus data. It is very hard for me to take as meaningful an individual vote which often represents nothing more than an idiolect or a completely uninformed opinion. And articulate arguments based on agreed-to principles have become scarcer over time. DCDuring TALK 17:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd rather go by Merriam-Webster than OED. Merriam-Webster does have an adjective sense for "steel"[7]. We could have an adjective sense in cardboard, just like Merriam-Webster[8]; however, they may have the adjective sense to accompany the figurative adjective sense that they have. Again, since adjectivity is hard to detect based only on evidence, I discourage and oppose this use of RFV. Yes, there are cases where the evidence clearly supports adjectivity, but absence of such evidence requires judgment and discussion to determine the adjectivity, as per the existence of incomparable adjectives. Under the assumption that we take this RFV seriously, occurrences of "this table is wood" should count toward attestation as adjective, IMHO. This RFV should be closed as out-of-scope (my preferable closure), or as passed. We have no evidence to tell us whether "this table is wood" is an adjectival use, so we do have to use judgment or linguistic sense; hence the propriety of RFD for these kind of cases. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
RFV can be useful and appropriate in such cases, since the POS is part of the sense, and it seems perfectly acceptable to challenge whether there's usage for the sense as an adjective. The problem comes when the evidence is inconclusive: the presumption with rfd is for keeping unless the case is made for deletion, while with rfv it's for deletion unless the case (in the form of citations) is made for keeping. I have no problem with using rfv- unless someone tries to close it as failed when citations have been provided, but they're ambiguous.Chuck Entz (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
You ignored the incomparable adjectives objection, it seems. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
As I understand it, the issue is that there are no circumstances in which an incomparable adjective could be expected to appear that a noun could not also appear. (For example, one doesn't find "wooder", "woodest", "very wood", "quite wood", etc, but one wouldn't expect to find "birchen-er", "birchenest", "very birchen", etc, either.)
What do other dictionaries think? Of the comprehensive dictionaries, Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com have an adjective section, while Century does not; of the less comprehensive dictionaries, Cambridge, MacMillan, Oxford Dictionaries and Collins do not have a relevant adjective section (some do cover the adjective "wode", but that's not what we're discussing).
We would not lose any information by lacking an adjective section — the noun section covers all affected usage (senses) nicely, and translations can go in wooden.
- -sche (discuss) 06:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

here and there[edit]

Rfv-sense: "From time to time"

MWOnline has it. I've never heard it. Is it archaic, obsolete? Does the OED have it? DCDuring TALK 05:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

No, the OED has only the sense of scattered through space, not time. The equivalent expressions for time are now and then and now and again. I suppose the expression is sometimes used of time, by analogy, but I don't really think it means scattered through time. How do we distinguish between a meaning and a metaphor? Dbfirs 14:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
@Dbfirs: Thanks. I didn't think so, but I suspect you are right about metaphorical use. We don't have too much trouble with many mature metaphor-derived senses of nouns like head, but "live"-but-dying metaphors (or protologistic metaphor-based senses) are harder. It would be nice to have some actual instances of the purported temporal use that we could assess. OED was my best hope, but I'll try some other dictionaries that sometimes have citations. DCDuring TALK 14:34, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
e.g. 2009, John Bogard, The Message from the Cosmos (page 63): "Before we study his ideas, it is useful to note here again that extraterrestrial powers intervened here and there in his life, as early as his birth, then his baptism [] ". Equinox 15:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, after trawling through more than 200 Google Books, I found another example from 2011, R. E. Donald, Slow Curve on the Coquihalla (chapter 23): "Yep. Since nineteen sixty, or thereabouts. Missed a few years, here and there."
I suppose "at this and that point in space" can be used by analogy to mean "at this and that point in time", just as "now and again" is sometimes used for points in space. We are travellers through the four-dimensional manifold.
I wonder if "intermittently, occasionally" would be a better definition than "from time to time"? Dbfirs 16:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Weird. I'd consider it pretty common, as common as the spatial sense. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you move at a different speed and so live on a different world line? :) Dbfirs 20:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I think it's often ambiguous. I find the 2009 cite ambiguous, though not the 2011 cite. In any event, the citations will be proof against a COPYVIO of MW Online, especially if we use them to support wording such as Dbfirs'. DCDuring TALK 19:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
It certainly can mean now and again in my idiolect. I would argue that in most cases, the meaning of spatially scattered and temporally scattered are so inextricably linked for that it must necessarily mean both. For instance in the sentence "The man showed up here and there," the appearances of the man must necessarily be spatially and temporally separated, which might have given rise to the figurative meaning of now and then. I also agree that it is very hard to construct sentences that are explicitly of one meaning or the other. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 20:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
But you can't say "The man showed up here and there at his kitchen window overlooking the road."
You would have to say "now and again" where the spatial context is restricted. Dbfirs 10:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I wouldn't say "The man showed up now and again at his kitchen window overlooking the road" but instead "Now and again, the man showed up now and again at his kitchen window overlooking the road" or "The man showed up at his kitchen window overlooking the road now and again." For some reason, that placement after the verb does not work for me. But in the other two locations, I could definitely say "Here and there, the man showed up at his kitchen window overlooking the road" and "The man showed up at his kitchen window overlooking the road here and there." This, however, may just be the topicalization or backing obscuring the apparent spatial contradiction. —JohnC5 (Talk | contribs) 10:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
I wonder how widely this is shared. Thank goodness we don't have to depend on individual reporting of their idiolect. DCDuring TALK 12:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Ive found one more cite, not sure about the year because the book seems to have been privately published by the author: Andre Maxwell Jacob, And Then There Was Life! (page 218): "She told Justina and Miles everything, pausing here and there trying to remember every little detail of her day."
If my sample of books is representative of the corpus, then usage for a timelike interval is less than 1% of usage for a spacelike interval. Dbfirs 21:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm not at all surprised by the rarity of unambiguously temporal cites for this particular term, where both main terms are principally spatial and alternatives like now and then are available. In my idiolect, I try to use the words that are more specific to the temporal realm. At least I think I do. It is fascinating how many basic time words, like prepositions (after, before) have a spatial etymology. DCDuring TALK 21:23, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

double radio-source associated with a galactic nucleus[edit]

Any attestations meeting WT:ATTEST, including "use in permanently recorded media"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

  • It's used in published articles from paper science journals, so yes. -- 14:33, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
    • The end result of this effect is the perception of a symmetrically receding pair of sound sources, which, in the luminal world, is a good description of symmetric radio sources (Double Radio source Associated with Galactic Nucleus)
      DOI 10.1142/S0218271807010559 Are Radio Sources and Gamma Ray Bursts Luminal Booms? Manoj Thulasidas (2007) International Journal of Modern Physics D
    • Since nobody has yet proposed a name for this phenomenon, I shall do so now: we should call them DRAGNs, which is an acronym for 'Double Radio source Associated with Galactic Nucleus'.
      DOI 10.1007/3-540-57164-7_74 ; BIBCODE 1993LNP...421....1L ; DRAGNs J.P.Leahy (1993) Jets in Extragalactic Radio Sources, Proceedings of a Workshop Held at Ringberg Castle, Tegernsee, FRG, September 22-28, 1991.
      This is the coining event (in 1991), that coins the term ; the Proceedings are a published (on paper) compendium of the conference.
    • double radio source associated with a galactic nucleus
      pagee 282 (2007) C. R. Kitchin Galaxies in Turmoil Springer ISBN 9781846286711
    • 1 - Double Radio source Associated with Galactic Nucleus; see Leahy (1993)
      DOI 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.07685.x ; BIBCODE 2004MNRAS.350..865G ; A multiband study of Hercules A - I. ROSAT observations of the intracluster medium Gizani, Nectaria A. B.; Leahy, J. P. (2004) Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 350, Issue 3, pp. 865-878
It would be helpful if Wiktionary had the external reference templates that Wikipedia has for linking to DOIs, PMIDs, PMCIDs, BIBCODEs, since they link to information to find the published science papers and their journals. -- 15:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
I can find this (without the hyphen):
  • 2008, AJW Echtenkamp, AS Bowles, AJ Sinker, Radio and Starburst Galaxies, in The RBSE Journal (5, 2008), page 5:
    A Double Radio Source Associated with a Galactic Nucleus (DRAGN) is a radio source that is produced by jets produced by active galactic nucleus that is not in the Milky Way.
Most other hits are mentions (sometimes in wordlists). - -sche (discuss) 08:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


The stress is completely wrong. Kaká, not káka - as a person who lived in Greece for years here and never heard anyone say this.

@Saltmarsh, Flyax, Xoristzatziki Any thoughts? Can this be attested anywhere that you know to look? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
Cannot find it anywhere. Except in web and printed materials, where is possibly wrong accentuation or (in some cases) a pun for "Κάκα" (a football player). --Xoristzatziki (talk) 04:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
I am sure that I've heard it, used by children or by elderly people speaking to or about children. --flyax (talk) 08:49, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
Neither of my Greek dictionaries lists the paroxytone form. My Collins English-Greek gives both forms - and Google counts over 3k. Should it be entered as a misspelling ?   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 06:07, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I have changed the Modern Greek entry to "misspelling" and removed the rfv.   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 05:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
According to perseus.tufts.edu, in Ancient Greek, this is an inflected form of κάκη. - -sche (discuss) 02:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


I have looked at the Wikipedia article, but I'm a bit dubious. is Thoroughbred really a breed? I would only use the uncapitalised form. Donnanz (talk) 11:18, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

The Sport of Kings takes itself rather seriously, and the capitalised version is the normal one, as a quick visit to the UK Jockey Club website and the US Jockey Club website will attest.--KTo288 (talk) 22:23, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Regarding the definition: yes, this does refer to a specific breed. The citations at google books:"the thoroughbred breed" seem sufficiently unambiguous.
Regarding the capitalization: I will lemmatize the form which is most common, which is the lowercase form. The arguments for and against capitalizing the names of birds, horses, etc have been laid out over on Wikipedia, and boil down to: specialist sources often capitalize and speak of Bald Eagles, Red[-| ][T|t]ailed Hawks, Thoroughbreds, etc, but general usage is of the lowercase forms. We've always lemmatized the lowercase forms of birds' names (and after a heated debate, WP now does too), and perusing Category:en:Horses I see we already lowercase most of them, too. - -sche (discuss) 04:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the idea is that we presume the lowercase form to be the more common one, but that presumption can be rebutted by good-quality frequency evidence, such as Google N-grams might yield. DCDuring TALK 05:16, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

February 2015[edit]

maximum security[edit]

Perhaps he means maximum security prison? SemperBlotto (talk) 07:33, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

A single cite that I'm not very sure about:
2003, Ann Rule, Last Dance, Last Chance, Simon and Schuster (ISBN 9780743424066), page 462
Mr. Savage tells us he'll appeal, and appeal, and appeal. But you can be sure of one thing. A man in the maximum security on death row will never 'walk away' to prowl the countryside again.” The jury retired on Saturday evening to deliberate.
If not cited, I think this should become "Alternative form of maximum-security/minimum-security." Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
(By the way, there are few hits for "sent to maximum security", but these seem to refer to maximum security areas within a prison with several areas.) Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
I think if the definition was right the hits would look more like "sent to a maximum security", of course not followed by "prison", "facility" etc. Siuenti (talk) 22:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
One of the many widespread defects of our English definitions are, 1., incorrect, incomplete, or missing indication of countability and uncountability on the inflection line, 2., missing or incorrect marking of countability and uncountability at the sense level for polysemic terms, and, 3., wording of definitions inconsistent with the indicated countability or uncountability. The definition in question at least has the third defect: the indefinite article is not consistent with uncountable on the inflection line. DCDuring TALK 23:20, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
@Smurrayinchester: I found ten hits for "in|into|to maximum security [punctuation mark]" at COCA:
1 2011 SPOK NBC_Dateline After six years in maximum security , Glen Ake was nearly unrecognizable.
2 2002 NEWS USAToday brick prison walls passing by him are like scenes from his daydreams back in maximum security .
3 2002 NEWS Denver said he is ready to move from maximum to medium security. # While in maximum security , Glennie has been assaulted four times.
4 2002 NEWS Denver Glennie remains in maximum security ,
5 2000 FIC ScienceNews and I were unceremoniously shoved into soda cups and trundled back across the street into maximum security .
6 1996 NEWS WashPost receiving end, or made to spend a night at Lorton... in Maximum Security ... chained to a cell door... stark naked,
7 1994 SPOK CBS_Sixty So Joe Yandle was locked away in maximum security .
8 1991 NEWS AssocPress 66064 and his crew are ready with " the real deal " on life in maximum security .
9 1990 FIC Bk:Harvest Three years behind bars in maximum security !
10 1990 MAG WashMonth Younis is now serving 30 years in maximum security .
(I'm showing off COCA search capability.)
This indicates it is used without an article, possibly uncountable. Quote 3 suggests that it is not a set phrase. Quote 6 shows it being used as a proper noun in reference to a particular department or unit. Clearly maximum security is not a type of security in the usage here. In contrast under maximum security would indicate a type of security. I don't think it can be used after the same set of prepositions that security, in any sense, can. And etymologically it is clearly an ellipsis of phrases headed by prison, unit, detention, etc. Though I find it hard to believe that "it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means", the meaning being always transparent in context, I know of no instance where an item failed to be included for failing to meet that criterion. DCDuring TALK 00:02, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I have added and cited a noun section. I look forward to someone trying to cite this as a true adjective. DCDuring TALK 17:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi, I notice Random House has "maximum security" defined as an adjective, perhaps we can go with that as opposed to a noun! WritersCramp (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

The noun section is well-cited by the citations mentioned above. As for the adjective section: we have maximum-security defined as an adjective. Should it be relabelled a noun used attributively? Or is it an adjective? If it's an adjective, I imagine maximum security is an alt form of it, since they exist in free variation. - -sche (discuss) 23:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
It's quite possible that there is predicate use of maximum security, but not highly likely that it is gradable/comparable. DCDuring TALK 01:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "The paddlefish." I cannot find uses, but filtering out the other senses may be the only obstacle. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:14, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

There are plenty of mentions: it seems to be US dialect, and is usually given as "duckbill cat" or "duckbill catfish". Equinox 00:08, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
I will add an attested entry at duckbill cat. DCDuring TALK 02:40, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
Cited, IMHO. DCDuring TALK 10:54, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Not in my opinion. All but one of the citations hyphenates it, and all but one of the citations is of duck-bill cat or duck-bill catfish. - -sche (discuss) 04:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
RfV failed; sense deleted. I can't do any better. The connection is made in derived terms, via duckbill cat and duckbill catfish, anyway. DCDuring TALK 16:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
The only uses of "duckbill" to refer to a fish that I can find are referring to percophid fish, e.g. Larvae of Temperate Australian Fishes: Laboratory Guide for Larval Fish has a section on Percophidae: Sandishes, duckbills. - -sche (discuss) 22:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
The citations which had been under the "paddlefish" sense are these, which I would suggest moving to [[duck-bill cat]] except that they are all quite mentiony:
  • 1880, Mollusca, Crustacea, Vertebrata, page 1004:
    Polyodon spathula Walbaum (“Duck-Bill Cat”). — This fish, which is sometimes called “paddle fish,” from the peculiar [] The “duck-bill” is very abundant in the lower Ohio, so much so that it is often a nuisance to fishermen who use seines.
  • 1892, The American Angler, volume 22, page 89: 
    Taking up the fishes of American waters, striatum, as previously scheduled, we now reach the duck-bill catfish {Polyodon spathula).
  • 1911, United States. Bureau of the Census, ‎United States. Bureau of Fisheries, Fisheries of the United States, 1908, page 75: 
    The paddlefish (Polyodon spathula), locally known as "spoonbill," "duckbill cat," and "shovelfish, " is found in all the larger streams of the Mississippi Valley.
- -sche (discuss) 22:38, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
  • It's hard to find citations that are at once certainly referring to a member of a specific taxon and not mentiony. If we remove them, I don't know how that helps. I suppose that redirects or unlinked synonyms would be adequate for someone who actually finds a use and wants to know what's being referred to, but most folks here believe, I think, that synonyms should meet CFI. DCDuring TALK 00:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC). DCDuring TALK 00:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Century prefers the form "duck(-)billed cat" (which several sources say is a distinctly {{lb|en|Mississippi}} term) for the paddlefish, and it is slightly better attested than the "-ed"-less form. Century also gives the fantastic species name "Polygon spatula". I did manage to find an amusing 1922 use, [moved to Citations:duck-billed cat]. - -sche (discuss) 07:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
We may yet manage to cite this apparently obsolete rare Mississippi dialect word! The 1892 citation is a solid use of "duck-bill catfish", 1880 is a use of both "duck-bill cat" and later "duck-bill", 1911 is mention(y). 1922 is a solid use of "duck-billed cats", and 1876+1878 (by the same author) probably counts as a second use, and 1896 seems like a third, so duck-billed cat is cited. - -sche (discuss) 08:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


Allegedly a Turkish word for pearl. Tagged but never listed. Has some citations which are claimed to be Turkish citations of this word in this sense, but in the past it's been noticed that (most but not all!) of the time, such citations are actually Azeri or Turkmen. - -sche (discuss) 23:14, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

@Curious, are the citations adequate? - -sche (discuss) 04:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

hammer fist[edit]

SOP? If not, the def needs reworking and the entry could use with some usexes and citations. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Did you mean to RFD this? It's attested: google books:hammer fist. I'm not sure whether it's SOP or not. - -sche (discuss) 04:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
An argument against its being SOP is that before I looked at the definition, I had no idea what it meant. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 05:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Detagged. There are plenty of citations, and the nominator seems to have intended to RFD it, anyway. - -sche (discuss) 00:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Saran Wrap[edit]

Is this a trademark? If so, can the entry be marked suitably? Donnanz (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I think it's in the category of stuff like Kleenex and Jell-O that start out as brand names but are now used generically. Also, it's a verb too, the most verifiable form of which is saran-wrap. Purplebackpack89 21:20, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
The only thing that could be determined by rfv is whether it meets WT:BRAND. If it does, then the matter of whether it is/was a trademark should go in the etymology section (etymonline has an entry for Saran, which it says is trademarked). As PBP says, this is probably a w:Generic trademark, which means it's valid dictionary material for us and an unending source of annoyance for Dow Chemical Co.'s intellectual-property people ... Chuck Entz (talk) 02:20, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
This is tangential, but I suspect that either Saran wrap or saran wrap is the more common capitalization. - -sche (discuss) 05:20, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
...although ngrams suggest otherwise. Huh. - -sche (discuss) 05:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
So it's possibly 50% trademark? I haven't got a clue, I don't think it's sold here, and I think it's what we call "cling film". Donnanz (talk) 10:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
It's listed in the Oxford Dictionary of English (both hard copy and online) as a trademark. Origin: 1940s, of unknown origin. Donnanz (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Note that ngrams might merely reflect the fact that this product is commonly referred to as a specific trademark, and not in the generic sense required by WT:BRAND. bd2412 T 19:22, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
As Chuck Entz says, it's valid dictionary material; if Oxford can list it without any repercussions, so can Wiktionary. Donnanz (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
There is ample evidence that it has been genericized, such as saranwrap, use of verbal inflected forms of variant spellings, and attributive use, but not all of the evidence is of the form being RfVed. DCDuring TALK 21:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Forget WT:BRAND. The term is genericized, so there's no point in going through that much rigor. DAVilla 06:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I suggest making Saran wrap the lemma, with a redirect from saran wrap (and also Saran Wrap if that form meets BRAND). Put a note in the etymology section that it originated as a brand name, if this is the case. (Avoid any other indication of trademark status, since it opens up a can of legal worms; see WT:TRADEMARK.) - -sche (discuss) 22:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Oxford uses the same format (Saran Wrap) so it must be widespread. I think this entry should keep the format it has at present. Donnanz (talk) 23:11, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The trademark can be mentioned in the etymology. Not mentioning it at all is misleading. DCDuring TALK 22:45, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
A few forms are in use, Saran wrap and saranwrap not being common. Saran Wrap, the trademarked product, was formerly, but is no longer made from PVDC. Saran is apparently still a trade name for PVDC. DCDuring TALK 00:18, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • My position is that Saran Wrap should be the lemma, and that there is no genuine doubt about this being attested per WT:ATTEST. See also Saran Wrap at OneLook Dictionary Search, which finds "Saran Wrap" and "Saran wrap" in oxforddictionaries.com[9] ("Saran Wrap", not OED), Collins[10] ("Saran wrap"), and Macmillan[11] ("Saran Wrap"). Ngram for "Saran wrap", case-insensitive does not provided any conclusive evidence that the occurrences of "Saran Wrap" are not in the genericized use. Looking for attesting quotations supporting WT:BRAND specifically (a policy that I never supported, and for which a rationale has never been presented) is something I feel disinclined to do right now. Also for comparison: (saranwrap*50),Saran Wrap,saran wrap at Google Ngram Viewer. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
Based on the above discussion, it seems that (as Dan puts it) "there is no genuine doubt about this being attested per WT:ATTEST". Therefore, I have detagged the entry. I have let Saran Wrap remain the lemma for now, and created soft redirects from all the variant spellings I could think of (several already had full redundant entries, which I reduced to soft redirects). - -sche (discuss) 04:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)



Does anyone really refer to the Kangxi Dictionary as "Kangxi", or 釒 as a "Kangxi"?

It is common to refer to radicals in the Kangxi Dictionary by “Kangxi radicals”. The noun sense should be deleted. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
(OP) I removed the request for verification of the "dictionary" sense. —suzukaze (tc) 05:46, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

For reference, in diff two senses were tagged with rfv-sense:

  • A dictionary and cross reference of Chinese characters, first published in 1716 at the behest of the Kangxi Emperor, and used to the present day.
  • One of 214 modern Chinese radicals, as organized in the Kangxi dictionary.

I think the recent addition of "Abbreviation of Kangxi Dictionary" and "Abbreviation of Kangxi radicals" to the senses should be undone; I do not want to see e.g. "Abbreviation of vocative case" in the definition line of vocative. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

March 2015[edit]



The given citation is the only Google Books result for "to foresave". Equinox 04:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

cited and labelled rare, as it is extremely rare yet exists Leasnam (talk) 05:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
It still seems that some forms (foresaving) are not attestable: is this a rare error by e.g. learners? Equinox 05:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
RFV-passed. - -sche (discuss) 21:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Hold on. It looks like 6 citations spread over two spellings and two senses. The Christian sense is almost certainly archaic or obsolete and is spread over hyphenated and unhyphenated as the the more recent recoinage. To call both senses saving in advance seems like a stretch. It is like ignoring the difference between predestine and ordain (as a priest) in advance. DCDuring TALK 21:16, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, you're right. In fact, one of the citations was of the noun fore-saving. Of the hyphenated citations, the 1907 Forsyth one is of a religious sense "save (ensure the salvation of) in advance", while the 1937 and 1984 ones seem financial and not particularly intelligible. Of the unhyphenated citations, the 1532 one seems to actually mean "reserved"(?); the 1848 citation is religious; the 1907 citation is financial. So, no sense or spelling has enough citations to pass by our usual standards, although in the discussion of witenagemot some proposed laxer standards. - -sche (discuss) 05:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Yeah but all those senses, whether religious, financial, whatever, can be lumped under the general "save" (all senses) qualifier.Same thing we did at forechoose Leasnam (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure the 1532 citation can be lumped into a general sense, even if the other two unhyphenated citations can be: the 1532 citation seems to man something like "reserved"; compare: "I have assigned that my [feoffs] shall [go] to the use of the said John & Anne [...] always except and (reserved | saved in advance) that such landes in Throp Bulmer as be assigned to & for the fyndyng of a preist be not parcell." Does the OED have any citations besides the ones we're already discussing? - -sche (discuss) 22:03, 23 July 2015 (UTC)



Adjective. Looks unlikely in both cases. Current citation are clearly nominal. 12:35, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

  • Both are being used as noun modifiers. The adjective entries (as modifiers) should be transferred to the noun entries. Donnanz (talk) 22:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
No citations that demonstrate fully adjectival use, though they are, of course, used attributively. DCDuring TALK 13:27, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


Only in dictionaries? Any attestation in use? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:07, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

One citation here, but the text looks a bit scrambled, as if it's been automatically translated from Chinese. Nothing on Pubmed. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
RFV-failed, moved to aboulomania, which does seem to be attested (previously, aboulomania had an entry and was linked to as an alt form). - -sche (discuss) 02:43, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


One citation, which I suspect might be the result of a bad translation. I've never heard Franco-Provençal called this. All the citations I can find use the term as an adjective meaning ‘from Provence in France’, and the hyphenated form as far as I can tell only occurs in the context of (bilingual) ‘French-Provençal’ dictionaries. Anyone familiar with it? Ƿidsiþ 11:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

French-Provençal is a morpheme-by-morpheme loan-translation of a foreign word (Franco-Provençal) in correctly English. I think we shouldn't consider it as a "bad translation", but as a rare form well conforming with accepted standards of the English language. The hyphen excludes the adjective meaning (‘from Provence in France’), to give the word his own sense. Meanwhile, the alternative form Franco-Provençal (foreign word) is a loanword, directly taken into the English language from French with no translation. Auvé73 (talk) 13:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC).
We can find here on this page a serious article saying: "(...) a linguistic challenge and a cultural operation, as an attempt to test and show all the expressive potential of his French-Provençal". On the more popular platforms, I found this page, where a traveler talks about "(..) an old French Provencal language known as Arpitan.", and this student explains that "(...) Standard French and Arpitan (French-Provencal) are spoken (...)", while a member of this forum tells us that "The French Provencal language (francoprovencal, arpitan, patois) is thought to have originated there and the area contains the largest numbers of speakers of this language". However, the words French-Provençal and Franco-Provençal seems very artificial and misleading, that why the synonym Arpitan seems to be more used nowadays on the internet... Auvé73 (talk) 13:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Meh. ‘Franco-Provençal’ is not taken from French, the language name was coined by GI Ascoli (francoprovenzale) and English borrowed it from there. Franco- is a perfectly normal English prefix. Your citations are a bit tepid – the first two are clearly translated, apparently by non-native speakers, the third is from someone completely unfamiliar with the language, the fourth…I guess it's OK…but one cite from an online forum…it's all a bit weak. No published citations? Nothing on Google Books? Ƿidsiþ 16:19, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
I have cleaned up the entry, removing the misleading etymology. Most citations on Google Books are irrelevant (being of e.g. "determine the French-Provençal boundary"). I can find a few citations of this as an adjective:
  • 2013, Peter W. Edbury, The Military Orders: Volume 5: Politics and Power (ISBN 1409483215)
    Before the War of the Sicilian Vespers, at the priory of Messina three out of twenty two were French–Provençal.
I also found and added one more citation of this as a language name, but note that it also uses "Germanics"... I have labelled the entry 'nonstandard'.
I can also find citations of "French Provençal", which are arguably SOP:
  • 2013, The New Artisan Bread in Five Minutes a Day (ISBN 1250018285):
    Flatbreads from southern Europe, like Italian focaccia and French Provençal fougasse, have been popular in the United States for years (though not as long as pizza).
  • 2010, The Translator as Mediator of Cultures (ISBN 9027288054), page 139:
    AC's translations range from French Provencal poetry to cummings, []
- -sche (discuss) 06:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Cited, I think. Tagged as rare and nonstandard. - -sche (discuss) 07:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
So, passed. - -sche (discuss) 17:15, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

half sibling-in-law[edit]

From Pass a Method. I see nothing usable for singular or plural in Google Books or Groups. Equinox 13:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

It appears in the US census data (185 people were recorded as "step/half sibling-in-law" in 1880, for instance). It also appears in the fine print of a few brochures for health insurance plans (eg "For purposes of this provision, “immediate family” means parents, spouse, children, siblings, half-siblings, parent-in-law, child-in-law, sibling-in-law, half-sibling-in-law, or any relative by blood or marriage who shares a residence with you."), but I don't know how durably archived they are. Neither makes clear which of the definitions is meant, of course. Smurrayinchester (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
Combining the senses would be trivially easy and possibly wise.
I'd say US census records are durably archived to the same extent as medieval manuscripts, i.e. yes they could be destroyed by a fire, but we do cite them. Like manuscripts, copies have been made of them. But I don't know if they should be considered independent or not; I suppose it would depend on whether the term "half sibling-in-law" was supplied by the government as a possibility (in which case 185 instances of it are not independent) or whether it was supplied independently to the government by 185 independent people. Of course, it would be preferable to find other places where the term is also used. - -sche (discuss) 08:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
RFV-failed. The one census result which turns up after a Google Scholar search for this phrase is, strictly speaking, "step/half sibling-in-law". The other result, 1987 Summer, C Loftin, K Kindley, SL Norris, B Wiersema, An attribute approach to relationships between offenders and victims in homicide, in the Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, volume:78, issue 2, is actually "half sibling" and "in law" as two separate and merely adjacent items in a list of kinship relationships. - -sche (discuss) 23:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


I doubt that this is a true adjective, but could be convinced by evidence to the contrary. DCDuring TALK 16:10, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

What do you think of these: [12], [13], [14]? — Ungoliant (falai) 16:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
On second thought, the specific adjectival meaning is not obviously the same as any of the clearly appropriate noun senses. Credit is due to Purp for noticing. Obviously the adjective use is derived from one of the noun senses. It seems a bit a stretch in real life to interpret diet in diet soda as soda for "a controlled dietary regimen".
Some, at least, of the predicate uses confirm this or provide additional support, though capitalized "Diet" in quotes doesn't. DCDuring TALK 16:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
If it's a noun, what's its meaning? There's no noun sense for 'low in sugar or fat'. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Exactly my second thought. DCDuring TALK 01:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
So this is being withdrawn, right? Renard Migrant (talk) 12:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I left it here to see if anyone agreed with my first thought. Evidently not. DCDuring TALK 23:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Note that three quotations are now in the entry diet, for phrases "diet hamburger" and "diet drink". Among OneLook dictionaries (diet at OneLook Dictionary Search), adjective for "diet" is in Merriam-Webster[15], which has actually two adjectival senses. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

  • I did point out to PBP (in the Diet Coke RFD) that it's really a noun modifier. The adjective could quite easily be transferred to the noun as a separate sense and marked as such. Donnanz (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2015 (UTC)


compare Talk:canontje

Dutch would-be diminutive. Since diminutives are not inflected forms, they need attestation as words in their own right, IMHO. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:47, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Diminutives are inflected forms in Dutch. Every word can have one, it's fully productive and fully predictable what the diminutive of a given word is. —CodeCat 14:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Every English adjective can in principle have a -ness form, but some -ness forms are unattested and we don't include them. The fact that a morphological derivation process is very regular and predictable does not make it an inflection process. Diminutives are not inflected forms even in Dutch; rather, diminutives themselves are inflected in Dutch. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:02, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Dutch Wiktionary includes diminutives in noun inflection tables. —CodeCat 15:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Which is a rather dubious practice. Is this a tradition in Dutch dictionaries? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
Why is it a rather dubious practice? —CodeCat 15:14, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
It is a dubious practice because they are not inflected forms. They are not inflected forms because they are themselves inflected. Is it a tradition of Dutch dictionaries to present diminutives as inflected forms? --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
You haven't yet established that diminutives are not inflected forms in Dutch. In fact I'm not sure you really know enough about Dutch to judge it. Being inflected themselves is not an argument, compare participles. —CodeCat 15:25, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's possible for inflected forms to be inflected themselves. Latin superlatives (e.g., pravissimus) and Esperanto participles (e.g., manĝanta), for example, are inflected forms that can themselves be inflected. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 15:28, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
The term that has been used for these on Wiktionary is "sublemma". They are lemmas in some ways, like having inflections, but are themselves inflections of another lemma. —CodeCat 15:32, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── (after edit conflict) It is true that some forms considered by some to be inflected forms can be further inflected. Nonetheless, I would argue that if a form is further inflected, one must present a strong argument for it being an inflected form. Your argument was regularity and productiveness, but these two characteristics cannot serve to distinguish derivational process from inflection; derivational processes are often regular and productive as well. Then I would ask for the third time, is this a tradition in Dutch dictionaries? Can you point me to at least one online Dutch dictionary containing Dutch definitions, so I can check what their practice is?
One more thing. Comparatives and superlatives are forms that can be inflected, and that some might consider to be inflected forms nonetheless. But for these, our practice is to require attestation. I submit that even if diminutives can be seen as some sort of quasi-inflected forms, they should be subject to attestation requirements. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
  • I can't help noticing that CodeCat is a native speaker of Dutch, whereas Dan Polansky isn't. Are these diminutives confined to the Netherlands, or they used in Flemish as well? I may be able to find out if I manage to get to Belgium this summer. Donnanz (talk) 12:21, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm a native English speaker and we've deleted English inflected forms before because they don't exist. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
As the creator of this page and thousands of other diminutive Dutch nouns I can mention that most of these words are not in any dictionary for the simple reason that it would make the dictionaries very large. For the same reason many compound words are not in Dutch dictionaries but they are used. Diminutives in Dutch are "made", inflected if you like by the Dutch speakers themselves. Probably nobody ever used the word "aalmoezenierskamertje" but it can be "made": my idea of these words is that if someone would make a small scale model of a military base, the room the chaplain would be in would be called "aalmoezenierskamertje" because it is a small version of "aalmoezenierskamer". The WNT has a section about "the making"of Dutch diminutives, therefore they can exist. I am, as CodeCat is, a native speaker of Dutch. --DrJos (talk) 12:25, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
That's an excellent explanation as to why this should be nominated for RFV. I'm not sure you intended to do that, but thank you anyway. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:36, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way, the Flemish use the same diminutives although sometimes they end with "-ke" of "-ken", like the word "manneken", little man, the origin of the word "mannequin". --DrJos (talk) 12:29, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that answer about Flemish usage. Dictionaries, as I'm well aware with Norwegian, don't contain every word that's in use, and I sometimes wonder whether some words are used more in the oral form than in the written form, especially regarding inflections. Donnanz (talk) 17:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
@DrJos: Is there any monolingual Dutch dictionary online where I can see Dutch definitions for Dutch words? Or is there at least one in Google books that you can recommend? --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Here is Van Dale’s Great Dictionary of the Dutch Language. —Stephen (Talk) 07:43, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
The most obvious is of course is the Dutch wiktionary, or you could use the limited Van Dale's dictionary online [[16]]. It doesn't contain all the words though. --DrJos (talk) 09:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
This page gives a comparison of inflectional and derivational morphology, and points out that the two types are on a spectrum, so that some formations can be somewhere in between. Dutch diminutives (1) do not change lexical category, which is a property of inflection, but of course not all derivation changes lexical category (e.g. child and childhood are both nouns); (2) occur next to the root and inside of inflection (the plural of kamertje is kamertjes, not *kamerstje, which is a property of derivation; (3) contribute lexical meaning, which is a property of derivation; and (4) occur with all or most members of a class of stems, which is a property of inflection. I can't figure out what the "Productivity" line is trying to say; since when may inflectional affixes "be used to coin new words of the same type"? At any rate, the Dutch diminutive affix can be lexicalized, e.g. in broodje which means more than just "bread + DIMINUTIVE". Dutch doesn't have enough inflectional morphology to judge the "Grounding" line, except that diminutives do have to marked with a plural ending (outside the diminutive suffix) wherever they're plural in meaning. The "Affixes used" line is thus the only property that makes diminutives inflectionlike; all the other properties are either derivationlike or indecisive. I don't think being fully productive alone is sufficient to call Dutch diminutives inflectional; they don't fall completely at either end of the spectrum, but they are closer to the derivational side than to the inflectional side of it. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Unlike some other diminutives which have gotten at least one or two hits, this gets none, not even on the raw web. RFV-failed? - -sche (discuss) 23:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
RFV-failed, deleted. - -sche (discuss) 02:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


Dutch diminutive. Appears unattested. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:48, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

RFV-failed, deleted. See discussion above. - -sche (discuss) 02:46, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


English? SemperBlotto (talk) 08:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I can't tell. It seems to be partially composed of Chloroethane (mentioned in 5th paragraph) among other ingredients and production methods. This article uses the word right along. Beyond that, perhaps it is English? I also bet the Portuguese word is a shortening of lança(-perfume). —JohnC5 08:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


The only examples I can find of this term as a verb are in Italian. —This unsigned comment was added by Kiwima (talkcontribs).

I am unable to find unambiguous citations of the challenged (intransitive) sense, but there are numerous transitive citations on Google Books, so I have added a transitive sense with three citations. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 19:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Is e.g. "the central causating power" transitive? Equinox 19:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
It seems ambiguous to me—as far as I know, both transitive and intransitive verbs can be used that way. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 19:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)


English entry added by an anon, possibly our old friend who's been obsessed with Japanese entries.

I can't find any evidence of this in English. I find surnames, and Portuguese. I wouldn't be surprised if this is used in subcultures, but is it used anywhere that meets CFI? I can't tell. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │ Tala við mig 00:24, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's see: adds an asteroid-name sense to an entry for a supernatural being, adds genealogical cruft to another one, and has trouble keeping straight whether a sense belongs in the Japanese or the English section (I would be astounded if the "(childish) honorific suffix" sense is actually English)... who needs to look at the geolocation data? This is our wiki-problem child, in spades (and the IP does geolocate to Easynet in the UK, anyway). Chuck Entz (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)


RFV noun sense: the reference given is to a book that doesn't give any citation, and may well be calquing the term from Latin. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 01:56, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention that it's a 1770 German book on Latin by a Jesuit named Manuel Alvarez (title page here), in an Appendix whose first page says it's mostly compiled from a 1606 work by another Jesuit named w:Jacob Gretser (title page here). Comparing the page referenced with the corresponding page in Gretser's book, it becomes apparent that Gretser doesn't give a term for the ablative case (not surprising, since Greek doesn't have an ablative case), so Alvarez probably made it up to avoid a gap in his table. Also, both Ancient and Modern Greek were written with the same script in those days, so we can't even be sure which of those two we're dealing with. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:43, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
By the way, LSJ doesn't have this term, but it does have ἀποκομιστικός with the definition of "ablativus". Chuck Entz (talk) 07:30, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
πύλη gives — Entry #1 seems to say that "αφαιρετική" comes from the Hellenistic "ἀφαιρετική" which is a substantivisation of the Hellenistic adjective "ἀφαιρετικός" a calque (?loan) from the Latin ablativus. — Entry #2 seems to say something similar.
My two Greek dictionaries give no etymology. I'm a long way from being an etymologist and my translations of etyms in Greek always worry me - Do I understand what they've written!   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 09:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
That helps. It would seem that ObsequiousNewt was correct about it being a calque, but 4th century is definitely well within what we consider to be Ancient Greek. Since Ancient Greek isn't a WDL, that would be enough to verify the term for Ancient Greek, if we accept the source(s). Are they from durably archived works, or are they onine databases only? Chuck Entz (talk) 12:20, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
"I think" the entries are based on the Dictionary of Common Modern Greek Λεξικό της κοινής νεοελληνικής (viewable in English)   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 16:17, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Two (2) sources were given, not just the older German book. The terms in the book could be made up (as mentioned above), even though most grammar terms in it can be found in other sources as well (like dictionaries, (non-Greek) grammar books, translations of Greek books, Greek books like Dionysius Thrax' Tekhne Grammatike). The other source is "DGE (Span., included in logeion.uchicago.edu)", that is Diccionario Griego-Español (Greek–Spanish Dictionary; wp: [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diccionario_Griego-Espa%C3%B1ol]). In DGE it is: "2 gram. ablativo πτῶσις Dosith.392, cf. Gloss.2.252.". gram. stands for (or should stand for) gramática, grammar; ablativo is Spanish for [casus] ablativus, ablative [case]; πτῶσις is Greek for casus, (grammatical) case. -- 02:23-02:38, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
DGE cites Dositheus, page 392, who names all six cases (and the two given names for the ablative.) LSJ has entries for the other five, but doesn't cite Dositheus for any of them—the citations seem to be limited to a baker's dozen translations of Latin words. ObsequiousNewt (ἔβαζα|ἐτλέλεσα) 16:58, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
So... RFV-passed based on the citations (dictionaries) mentioned above? - -sche (discuss) 07:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

golden spike[edit]

Rfv-sense for the metaphorical usage "finishing touch; the final effort leading to a completed project, such as putting in the last nail". It seems reasonable, but I'm not sure how to search for it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:21, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia-logo.png Golden spike on Wikipedia.Wikipedia:Golden spike This is the one I know about. Donnanz (talk) 09:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

The only figurative use in this century AFAICT from Google Books is in stratigraphy, where it refers to a designation of a given stratigraphic layer in a formation as the marker for the start of a geological time period [as the unchallenged definition says. d'oh]. Last spike is apparently used more commonly in railroad construction. DCDuring TALK 14:36, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Google News brings up a handful of results (1, 2, 3, 4), but it's not tremendously common. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)


This word is not a single word unlike spierversterking which is. Where is the source? --DrJos (talk) 22:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

google books:"spierversterken". Yup. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:34, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Move to rfv though as both the noun and the verb need attesting. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Moved to RFV, per the suggestion above. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
  • While this seems attested, it has the properties of a defective verb. Some verbs in Dutch only appear as non-finite forms, perhaps even just the infinitive. Are there any cases of this being used as a "real" verb, or is it only the gerund? —CodeCat 22:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)


This is not in the WNT nor in Van Dale's dictionary. Does it exist? --DrJos (talk) 22:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

In dictionaries it definitely does [17]. Not sure about usage as in use-mention distinction as I don't understand enough Dutch. Oh and should be at WT:RFV#schrinken. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
This might be Middle Dutch... Leasnam (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
This verb is in the WNT though: [18]. I have also added a few attested examples. Let me know if they suffice so I can remove the tag. Morgengave (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
The 2003 and 2009 citations aren't durably archived, which leaves us with one citation per sense. @CodeCat is this a word you're familiar with / can you find citations of it? - -sche (discuss) 07:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


A kind of sci-fi device. I think this only appears in the Empire of Man series by David Weber and John Ringo, thus might fail WT:FICTION. Equinox 15:02, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Here’s one use independent from Empire of Man: [19]. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
It definitely does not only appear in Empire of Man
  • Something deep within his molycirc heart seemed to be beating against the confining cage of his chest's synthetic composites p105 "A Might Fortress" David Weber (2010) ISBN 9781429961356 -- this is not "Empire of Man", this is "Safefold"-series
  • Another three keystrokes and that portion of the Department of State's molycirc memory core where those notes had been stored was reformatted ch54 "War of Honor" David Weber (2002) ISBN 9780743435451 -- this is not "Empire of Man", this is "Honorverse"-series
  • The molycirc shouldn't be possible in this universe. p176 "Claws that Catch" (2008) John Ringo & Travis Taylor ISBN 9781416555872 -- this is not "Empire of Man", this is "Looking Glass"-series
-- 15:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I've typed up the citation Ungoliant links to:
  • 2015, W. C. Bauers, Unbreakable:
    "Just you and the gun. No HUDs or data feeds. No molycircs. Just eyes-on-target and recoil."
All of the citations the IP links to are either non-durable or by Weber, or by Ringo. Can a citation from Weber/Ringo count as one citation if two other citations are independent of him? If so, can anyone find a third citation? - -sche (discuss) 07:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


Portuguese. I also recommend that Italian and Dutch editors investigate the existence of the word in Italian and Dutch. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

The whole page is entirely the work of the contributor who created the Old English lemma for Picelemu- I wouldn't trust anything on it. The Mapudungan entry at lolol looks pretty questionable, too. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
If Dutch and Italian people don't call it Lolol, then what do they call it? —CodeCat 01:00, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Maybe they don’t call it anything. It is a tiny faraway city. — Ungoliant (falai) 01:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Your comment is disgusting, [[Mr. First World. --Diego Grez (talk) 23:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
I’m from the third world, Mr Completely Obsessed With His Own City. — Ungoliant (falai) 13:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
It does have an entry in the Italian Wikipedia. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
This might be my new favourite word. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2015 (UTC)


RFV of the Dutch and Italian sections (the latter has one cite). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:40, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I could only find one citation of this as an Italian word (now listed on the Citations: page), so that section fails RFV.
- -sche (discuss) 19:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Bharat Army[edit]

Needs attestation —umbreon126 02:15, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I've added the following as quotations.
The Bharat Army believe there is nothing to apologise for. What they represent is a confluence of cultures.
...his first taste of the verbal brickbats wielded by India's "Bharat Army" of supporters.
Australia may be the host team in Sydney but it won't surprise any if the local fans are outnumbered by the Bharat Army
--KTo288 (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@KTo288 Are those all durably archived? That is, for something like the third citation, was that ever on a printed page or only online? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge, sorry, I don't know.-- KTo288 (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)


Some suspect Esperanto. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I can find exactly two citations: Iuj stranguloj en mia cirklo simple ne ricevos lokon - se ne temas hazarde pri iu ekzotika dekora danctrupo dum ies feriaj vojaĝoj dum safario. Kvarmil kvincent kilometrojn norden de Durbano mi devis veturi por fari mian safarion en Tanzanio. There's also one use of "Safario" to refer to the web browser. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 19:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Just barely fails. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "foreigner serving another country". The real test is whether cites can be found that do not fall under sense 1, which is the only one that I see attested. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:50, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 00:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "Practical spirit, sense of reality, concreteness." What does this even mean? ---> Tooironic (talk) 08:44, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Realism/pragmatism? Renard Migrant (talk) 12:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm guessing it's the opposite of the equally psychobabbly sense of negativism. DCDuring TALK 14:39, 27 March 2015 (UTC)


Is this attested? We currently have it as an English entry with the definition "An item of possession that embarrasses the owner and cannot be easily discarded. Schrankschanden are often of inferior quality"; is this attested in use per WT:ATTEST in any language at all? See also lowercase schrankschande and the RFV of it at Talk:schrankschande. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:31, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

April 2015[edit]


Needs citations that are not clearly quoting Vonnegut. I've only been able to find one, and that's not really using the word in the spiritual sense Vonnegut meant (although it's probably close enough - it refers to a sports team who works so well together that it could be considered a "cognitive unit") Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:27, 1 April 2015 (UTC)


Same as #karass - needs citations that aren't just direct references to Vonnegut. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:29, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I kind of feel that this is a different kind of word. It originates in a work of fiction, but is not a fictional object (like a lightsaber or tricorder), but a word used to describe a real-world phenomenon. I grant that I have yet to find a use that does not mention Vonnegut in connection with the word, but I think that this is similar to the difficulty in finding references to the sociological concept of anomie that don't mention Durkheim, or the theory of relativity that don't mention Einstein. bd2412 T 20:26, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
Will these 3 do? --Droigheann (talk) 23:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
Despite the use of the search term "-Vonnegut", an individual search for "Vonnegut" in each of those works shows that it does appear in proximity to an explanation of the meaning of "granfalloon". bd2412 T 02:24, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
I know. And? So the authors explain the word for the uninitiated, then use it for their own purposes, not like a nonce word. (Incidentally, the second example uses the word on p 18 and only mentions Vonnegut and his definition on p 37, having in the meantime on p 27 felt the necessity of explaining what "innuendo" means.) So what? I can understand there are some rules to enable editors fight hoaxes, but if the advert on the Main Page about "all words of all languages" allows keeping eg brekekekex, Jabberwocky or... this thing, why not granfalloon? --Droigheann (talk) 21:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
2005 June 1, Grant J. Devilly, “Power Therapies and possible threats to the science of psychology and psychiatry”, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, volume 39, number 6, DOI:10.1111/j.1440-1614.2005.01601.x, PMID 15943644, retrieved on 28 May 2013, pages 437–445: 
someone might like to check the citation.--KTo288 (talk) 09:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not arguing for deleting it; I think that it should be kept despite the tendency to include it with reference to Vonnegut because it is not a "fictional" thing, but a name given to a real thing, albeit in a work of fiction. bd2412 T 13:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Lots of authors do that, though. Philip Pullman's Northern Lights trilogy is set in a sort of alternate universe where things have different (etymologically plausible) names, e.g. "anbaric (electric) light", "gyptians" for gypsies. They're still not words used outside of the work itself and direct references to it. Equinox 15:10, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
It's a little different to use a variant name in fiction for something that already has a name in the real world. I don't think there is another word that means quite the same thing as "granfalloon", which is why nonfiction writers discussing nonfiction topics use the term. I think that such use it is more in line with the way writers use terms invented by sociologists or physicists, with reference to the person who coined the term. bd2412 T 15:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


Etymology_1 only. I cannot find any attestations of the word in English meaning "disease", only of a genus name. Leasnam (talk) 01:36, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a bit tricky: it's used in English to refer to the concept covered by the word in classical languages (here, here and here, for instance). It's a little more clear in passages such as this and this that it's considered to be Latin, not English. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Each of those five passages use the term in italics. That would suggest that it is a foreign word being mentioned in an English sentence. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:51, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
There were some epilepsy related sources that did not italicize (here) when I added this but they did not have a clear meaning about whether those were Latin transliterations of Greek or were English. I added a non-attestable cite of a English medical dictionary and believed that finding it in multiple dictionaries (e.g. here) would make it easy to attest, but it was difficult and I abandoned my effort. I still feel three attestations can be found but I don't have a clue about better key word combinations that remove the microsporidium and expose pathologies. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 04:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)


Does it pass WT:BRAND? I doubt it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds

  • Here's one for BRAND:
    • 2014, Robert Kirkman, Invincible #108, page 19:
      • Is Eve going to start doing crossfit and lose weight when the baby is born?
  • Cheers! bd2412 T 22:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)


One use on BGC in single quotes, which I guess is fine but not great support. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:16, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Abundantly attestable at Google News going back at least to December 2013, though it is unclear which of the sources are durably archived. DCDuring TALK 22:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Hotword? Renard Migrant (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Not if the December 2013 cite is durably archived. DCDuring TALK 23:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
As you know, there are no criteria whatsoever for deciding what counts as 'durably archived' and what doesn't. So... I guess we vote on it? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/dhl-parcelcopter-paketkopter-amazon-prime-air-drone-528873. I guess it depends on whether ibtimes.co.uk deletes its pages or not. I have no idea whatsoever. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Re: "there are no criteria whatsoever for deciding what counts as 'durably archived' and what doesn't": As per common practice, Google books and Usenet generally count as "permanently recorded media", a term used in WT:ATTEST. So "no criteria whatsoever" is rather inaccurate. I don't remember anyone challenging these two items as core of "permanently recording media"; archived RFV discussions should confirm that this has been mentioned multiple times as tentative criteria. The remaining confusion is about what lies in the outer layers of "permanently recorded media": maybe even protuberances? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
No formal or written criteria then; WT:CFI doesn't mention it at all. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
In fact, WT:CFI#Attestation does cover what I said, in this (boldface mine): "As Wiktionary is an online dictionary, this naturally favors media such as Usenet groups, which are durably archived by Google. Print media such as books and magazines will also do, particularly if their contents are indexed online." I admit that CFI could better connect these sentences with the term "permanently recorded media". And I find the phrasing unfortunate; our argument for Usenet was not archiving by Google but rather the massive independent replication of Usenet. Certainly could be improved. I could try to do some drafting and propose a fix but when I create vote Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-02/Trimming CFI for Wiktionary is not an encyclopedia to remove what blatantly contradicts our practice, almost no one attends, and one person opposes on petty grounds, that is kind of demotivating. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


"A file for a simulator, specifically a rhythm game simulator such as Stepmania." Even from Usenet newsgroups I see we will have trouble attesting this, though it sometimes occurs as part of a path/folder name in game installations! Equinox 22:42, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

well ain't that the catfish in the trap[edit]

All Google search results are copies of our entry. Equinox 02:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

RFV-failed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


Anglicised form of "fungus"; plural "fungs". I can't seem to find it in dictionaries or in Google Books. Equinox 19:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  • This book explains that the term was coined by Ferdinand von Mueller but never became widespread. It has the usable quote "The Baron stuck to his fungs, but the term failed to catch on".
  • The same book also discusses an 1892 monograph by Mordecai Cubitt Cooke, "An enumeration of all fungs" which presumably uses the word in running text as well.
  • I'm also seeing citations on Scholar to R Tate "A list of the charas, mosses, liverworts, lichens, fungs, and algals of extratropical South Australia" which also presumably uses the word in running text. If so, that is three cites. SpinningSpark 21:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Looks good. {{context|extremely rare|lang=en}} might be in order. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:44, 11 April 2015 (UTC)


Has one attesting quotation at Citations:whatchamahoosey, one which is possibly not durably archived. Needs three quotations. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


Any attestation? There is one quotation at Citations:whatchamahoozy. My position is that quotations of similar spellings such as whatchamahoosie do not count to attest "whatchamahoozy". --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

I can find plenty of citations, but all on blogs, and as I understand it, they don't meet our attestation criteria. Kiwima (talk) 07:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)


Chinese for Pichilemu, a town in Chile. I'm also challenging the simplified form 皮奇莱穆, which is a soft redirect. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 19:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


Alternative form. I'm also challenging the simplified form 披市勒亩, which is a soft redirect. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 19:27, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The pinyin entries for both will have to be deleted as well if these fail. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


RFV of the Catalan, Dutch, Mapudungun, and Welsh sections. I found one cite for the Dutch and I suppose the Mapudungun has promise (it only needs a single mention), but who knows. NB: I'm speedying translations in Pichilemu in scripts that allow me to quickly ascertain that they have no citations. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


Asturian. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

This is in Asturian Wikipedia. Arkhangelsk is one of the major ports in Russia, and it's vey likely that there would be an Asturian name for it. --Hekaheka (talk) 05:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
"Arkhanguelsk" is also an alternative French name for it, which renders the Russian pronunciation closer than Arkhangelsk ("g", not "ž"). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense for the beach parties at Pichilemu. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:58, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Such an event exists, sure. The etymology is slightly different, coming from La Puntilla, Pichilemu, which is a big deal for surfers in Chile. Some news websites mention it here from last year, and this one from this year. According to the articles, this event has been going on for a few years now. I couldn't find any decent cites using the term without quote marks, however. I'd delete it, personally. BTW, in Spain it is called a botellón. --Recónditos (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
It's a word massively used, specially in social networks, to refer to such beach parties. There are some national newspapers who have used the word too to refer to those parties, including El Dínamo. --Diego Grez (talk) 22:52, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


Russian. One hit on BGC. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:31, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

This one seems good. --Diego Grez (talk) 23:39, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


And in Quechua. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:37, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Google maps and en-Wikipedia recognize this spelling as a name of a lake in central Peru and its not unlikely that there would be a town of the same name. Quechua is the original language of the region and "Marcapomacocha" which you don't challenge is hispanicized spelling of "Markapumaqucha". --Hekaheka (talk) 04:45, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Not present in the AMLQ dictionary (which includes placenames). — Ungoliant (falai) 13:15, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
So? --Hekaheka (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
So people looking for citations need to look elsewhere. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
There's an English book titled Markapumaqucha Lake Safety Book. That's the only thing I can find. RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 08:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)



Spanish: to rickroll. I'll take a break from spamming RFV for now, but my, there are certainly a lot of entries to go through. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

And there are plenty more... --Diego Grez (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
@Diego Grez Are any of those durably archived per WT:CFI (i.e., were they ever in print)? If not, I doubt they'll count as citations. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:59, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
El Mundo, most likely was printed. Cooperativa radio's archives are kept at the National library of Chile, so I think it counts too as "durably archived". As for the others, I'm not sure. Would it count if I go ahead and use the Wayback Machine to archive them? --Diego Grez (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
We don't allow that, no. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Three citations needed for each. Good luck! Renard Migrant (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


Someone's conlang. And don't forget to remove the links from entries that are anagrams of this one if it fails. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


Another conlang. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

RFV-failed. I was able to find discussion of Ceqli (RFVed below in a section that will later be archived to Talk:Ceqli) in scholarly articles about conlangs; no such luck with this conlang. - -sche (discuss) 01:53, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


I'm pretty sure all the uses on Usenet can be traced back to Rex May, who invented Ceqli. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Cited: Citations:Ceqli. - -sche (discuss) 08:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. RFV-passed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:23, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

buy and pay for[edit]

Is this really a verb? SemperBlotto (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Well yeah, what else would it be? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
It is arguably an adjective (something I don't recall saying before), as the forms other than the putative past participle are very rarely used with the meaning "bribed" and can be readily interpreted from their components even when possible used in that sense.
To buy and pay for is a formulaic phrase in some contexts, in which the pay for component seems almost to be used as an intensifier, though that sense is clearly directly derived from the idea that once the payment has been accepted, the evidence that a sale was intended by both parties is complete. In the case of bribery, a quid pro quo is essential for a crime to be charged.
Usage such as "bought-and-paid-for testimony" is supportive of an adjective PoS as well. DCDuring TALK 17:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
"Bought and paid" can be used of sex, friendship, a public official or body of public officials, a public action (as a law), an election, testimony, a witness, biased news coverage, etc. This goes beyond bribery. It is sometimes used in the context of discussions of commoditization, in which it is also pejorative.
I'm not convinced that any of this makes a winning argument for inclusion. We have the appropriate sense at buy ("bribe"). DCDuring TALK 17:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm the one who put it in, and I admit a degree of ambivalence myself. I had entered "bought and paid for", which, in it's adjectival use as corrupted by money, seems a clear candidate for inclusion. When looking up supporting quotes, I found a number of them (such as the quote I put on the "buy and pay for" entry) were using it as a verb not as an adjective. All in the past tense, however. I was not sure what was the right way to go about entering this -- if someone has a better suggestion, I would welcome it. Kiwima (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

life support[edit]

Rfv-sense: "A machine that keeps the body of an ill or injured person alive." --Does such machine really exist or is this some sort of sci-fi concept? I have understood that it still takes a combination of gadgetry plus a well-trained medical team to keep a severely ill or injured person alive. The combination used depends on the condition of the patient. --Hekaheka (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

This is in widespread use. Many citations can be found by searching for "she was on life support" or "he was on life support" (in quotation marks) on Google Books. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 19:49, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Sure, but is our definition correct? Is "life support" really a machine? --Hekaheka (talk) 20:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Further: what, if anything, is the difference between "life support" and "intensive care"? --Hekaheka (talk) 05:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
intensive care refers to the special medical treatment of a critically ill patient, including constant monitoring and testing. It also refers to the department or area of a hospital where such treatment is carried out. The main ingredient in intensive care is the constant close monitoring by specially trained nurses. life support refers to the maintenance of vital functions of a critically ill or comatose person or a person undergoing surgery, and it refers mainly to the equipment and special procedures, such as a ventilator (respirator), an infusion pump, a crash cart (resuscitation cart, code cart), and intraaortic balloon pump. While life support formally refers to the type of care by specially trained doctors and nurses, as well as to the specialized equipment that they use, in informal speech life support can mean the equipment itself. So a person may be in intensive care, but not require the use of any life support equipment. If a patient needs life support, he will usually be placed in the intensive care ward, and will usually remain there for a while after the life support equipment is removed. When life support means it equipment itself, the phrasing is often "to be on life support." —Stephen (Talk) 05:59, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
(after edit conflict)
It could be a single device, but is better defined using (uncountable) "equipment" or "equipment and techniques". ::::intensive care is almost always in a specialized unit of a hospital. It can include medication intended to improve a patient's long-term condition I think. Basic life support can be provided almost anywhere and is intended to keep the patient alive until remedial treatment can be provided or on a maintenance basis to avoid death. Many forms do not have to be provided in an ICU, as IVs, breathing assistance, etc. I think all of this is very dependent on the nature of the medical service system in a circumstance, so it should vary by patient condition and geography and change over time. DCDuring TALK 05:57, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I don't think it's a 'machine' and even if citable that way, the more general sense of 'a system of medical treatments' would cover the machine sense. In other words, it could be a machine or several machines or a machine and other things like saline bags which are not machines or machine administered. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I would sidestep the rfv by changing the definition to include non-machine things. Does any disagree that things like a human (a non-machine, for these purposes) administering medication or fluids is part of life support? If not, just change it and close the rfv as moot. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
  • A tender subject for me, as it's near the 3rd anniversary of my wife's death in hospital. But Oxford does say: "(informal) equipment in a hospital used for life support: a patient on life support." Donnanz (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
It seems to be metonymy at work. The term seems to include the phenomenon, state, or activity; the equipment; the equipment and techniques; and the patient. We could either have a few definitions or just one or two, artfully worded. DCDuring TALK 02:58, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
I think sense 1 needs to be broadened to cover the use of life support in hospitals, which is closely allied to intensive care; either that or expand sense 2. The piece I quoted from my hard copy doesn't appear in the online version, so the definition must have been revised at some stage. Life support (equipment) includes anything used to monitor a patient or keep them alive, especially if they are in a coma. Donnanz (talk) 08:23, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Borrowing from Stephen and Renard above I wrote two new definitions:

  1. (medicine) Maintenance of vital functions of a critically ill or comatose person or a person undergoing surgery.
  2. (medicine) The equipment and special procedures used for life support,

If these were found acceptable then the current #2 could be deleted. --Hekaheka (talk) 05:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, looks OK. Not a machine as such, which is a life support machine. The translations entered for the machine sense will have to be checked. Donnanz (talk) 09:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC)


Bulgarian: Paulette. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

It's correct. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:52, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@Atitarev I wasn't asking whether it is correct, but whether it can be cited. I have almost no knowledge of Bulgarian, so I request your help in finding three cites for this entry. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:34, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I was hoping you would drop the RFV, if someone confirms it's a correct term. I'm not that keen to keep translations of foreign names into other languages to start looking for citations. On the term itself, in Russian, at least, the name could be Russified a bit and turn into "Полетта" in literature (not necessarily) but if it's an official person, the transliteration would be normally closer to the original. If you know a famous person named Paulette or person from a famous book, you could search for a translation into languages, you added RFV for. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 22:16, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
@Atitarev It shouldn't be too hard to find the cites on Google Books and link them here if this really is correct. The issue is that we have users that claim something is "correct" even when it cannot be cited literally anywhere, and that's poor lexicography. The only way to deal with that is to go through the RFV process to demonstrate that a word actually passes CFI. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:53, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
I see your point but it IS hard to find citations for this particular term. Bulgarian Полет is mixed with the Russian полёт ‎(poljót), normally spelled "полет" in a running Russian text and as I said, I am not that keen to keep this entry. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:10, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


Belarusian: Paulette. I see hits, but I think they're all Russian. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:07, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

They are both Belarusian and Russian, plus Ukrainian. Oops, it's Russian and Ukrainian, Belarusian is Палетт or Палет. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:44, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


I see hits, but I need an Arabic speaker to assess that they actually mean Paulette. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:08, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Not to mention that several of them are in Urdu- not Arabic (neither of which I can read). Chuck Entz (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
It's the correct transliteration into Arabic. No, it's only Arabic, which lacks letter for "p", which is normally subsituted with ب "b" (can be pronounced as "b" or "p", depending on the speaker), and ي (yāʾ) is also only Arabic. Urdu and Persian spelling would be something like "پولیت" or "پلیت" (without "o"), with پ and Persian/Urdu ی. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:42, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to the term, but to the Google Books hits, some of which are, indeed in Urdu, and are no doubt unrelated to this entry. While it's good to know that the entry is correct, this is rfv, so, until such time as Metaknowledge withdraws the rfv, the question remains as to whether it's attested in Arabic, and the language of the Google Books hits is relevant. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I don’t know why there would be instances of its use in Urdu books, unless it was quoting something from Arabic. That isn’t how Urdu would spell it. As far as I know, only Arabic uses that spelling. —Stephen (Talk) 06:05, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm not saying there is, but there are, nonetheless, Urdu books in the Google Books search results (unless Google has the language of "بوليت" this book misidentified, for instance). I know very little Arabic, and next to nothing of Urdu, while you and Anatoli know a lot. Both of you, however, seem to be flunking out on interpretation of plain English: read Metaknowledge's sentence above, and show me where he asked you to confirm that the entry means Paulette. It looks to me like "they" in that sentence refers back to "hits" in the first clause. Likewise, Anatoli seemed to think I was saying that "بوليت" is Urdu for Paulette. My point had nothing to do with any detail of the Urdu language whatsoever: we know that there are hits on Google Books, but the presence of Urdu books in that list shows that there's some random noise in the sample, so we can't take the presence of a book in the results as evidence of attestation without further examination- something neither Metaknowledge nor I is qualified to do. This isn't the Information desk, where questions get answered, this is rfv, where entries get deleted if there are no cites. As it stands now, the only things that are going to keep this entry from being deleted are either Metaknowledge withdrawing the rfv- which I think would be a good idea- or someone demonstrating that the entry meets the verification provisions of CFI. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:35, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
No, that’s Urdu, all right. However, Google uses OCR to try to get hits, and OCR works poorly for printed Arabic, and is just useless for printed Urdu. The word in that book that Google claims is بوليت, is actually روایت ‎(rawayat, “tradition”). —Stephen (Talk) 07:49, 14 April 2015 (UTC)


It's vandalizm! --123snake45 (talk) 14:29, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Is there any Azerbaijani dictionary on One Look? If you even search the word çörək (bread) on Groups, there are only 12 results and on books there are only 38 results so how could you wait you would find this kind of word there? Avibase (the world bird database) and Observado contains the word buzlaqquşu. 123snake45 even doesn't know what Vandalism is, if you add a new word that he doesn't want to see it here, he may call it as Vandalism. He wants to spread the word 'buzulkuşu' by the meaning of 'penguin', this is why he tries to make it delete. -- 04:11, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

It's odd how a rare South American bird that merits two sentences in its Wikipedia article suddenly turns out to have common names in a variety of European and Central Asian languages, which a Turkish IP seems curiously intent on creating entries for, in spite of the fact that they have no support in CFI-compliant sources whatsoever (unless you count one Books on Demand self-published book that doesn't even give the name of the author). Chuck Entz (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
Do Avibase and Observado include actual usage of the word buzlaqquşu, or just list it? It's very easy to make up a word and put it in an on-line dictionary when it's not actually a used word, you know. Renard Migrant (talk) 09:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
It is very easy? To you, you are smart, their owners are stupid? -- 12:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 01:38, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "sophisticated" - in what sense? OED doesn't include this. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Added in diff. I can't work it out either, does @Speednat still contribute here? We could ask him/her. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
A few books with what may be cites: 1, 2, 3, 4. This may correspond to the "skillfully done" sense in Macmillan. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:29, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
The first definitions go back to this edit in 2003, and they seem to be verbatim from another dictionary. Perhaps one that is not currently subject to copyright. However they're really poorly worded, by 1913 definitions or 19th century. I would reword them. Oh, and the citations look good. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:59, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

смерть как[edit]

@KoreanQuoter, Vahagn Petrosyan, Wikitiki89, Wanjuscha, Stephen G. Brown. In my opinion, it's not a language unit. Russian Wiktionary has it too. The word "смерть" (death) is used as an adverb but is usually followed by "как". Example: "ему смерть как хочется курить" — "he’s dying for a smoke". A Russian German dictionary has a following example: "мне смерть как хочется" - "ich möchte für mein Leben gern" [27]. Please correct me if I'm wrong. It was also entered in [28]. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Also calling @Useigor. Any input is appreciated. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
"[N]ot a language unit", did you mean to rfd? Renard Migrant (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
No. It doesn't seem like a word to me, "смерть" ("death") is used sort of adverbially in expressions - of type "смерть как (не) хочет(ся)" - expressing strong desire/reluctance. Everything that follows "смерть как ..." is not part of the expression but with "как" (like, as) it seems incomplete. I need the collocation verified as a "word", otherwise "смерть" needs enhancements. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 10:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Anatoli, you probably mean it is a sum-of-parts (SOP) and cannot be included according to WT:CFI. I agree. --Vahag (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
I don’t think it’s SoP. If I think of it as separate words, it makes no sense: death as it-wants. It’s very easy for a native Russian speaker, but for foreign learners of Russian, the meaning is not clear. —Stephen (Talk) 13:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
This is a common use of как ‎(kak) to indicate the extent of something: "Ты сейчас умрешь, как удачно все получилось.", which probably evolved from something more logical like "Ты не поверишь, как удачно все получилось." (I hope I'm using commas correctly...). The only additional part of "Ему смерть как хочется курить." is the interesting use of the word смерть ‎(smertʹ) as an adverb (is it really an adverb here? I'm not sure). We need to make sure we have these senses at both как ‎(kak) and смерть ‎(smertʹ), but there is nothing interesting in their being together. --WikiTiki89 14:07, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, (мне, тебе, ему) хо́чется ‎(xóčetsja) is an impersonal equivalent of "я хочу, ты хочешь, он хочет", etc. So, the interesting part is "смерть как ...", "ужас как ..." only. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
It looks like смерть is used as an adverb "figuratively" in this sense. Anyways, the figurative ways of using words seem to be the hardest part of Russian language learners like myself. Are there any more examples like these: nouns being used as adverbs? --KoreanQuoter (talk) 14:33, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Not just nouns, Wikitiki gave examples of whole clauses used with "как". Ужас как он поёт! - It's terrible how she sings! Пиздец как он быстро бегает! - It's fucking awesome how fast he's running! (vulgar). Infinitives: Обалдеть как она сегодня выглядит! - She looks so-o cool today! (colloquial). --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 14:52, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
That's quite unexpected, but interesting. I think как has more functions than I expected. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
My theory on etymology: something is to be described in an exaggerated way (it's preceded is by "как"), the first part describes the way, the intensity, etc. in an exaggerated way. Literally,the first sentence can be translated (so that it makes a bit of sense) "(It's) death how/the way I want to smoke" - so badly. "Death" can be substituted with other intensifiers, as above. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 15:36, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Now this makes things much clearer. --KoreanQuoter (talk) 15:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. Does seem like an odd request from an experienced editor. RFV determines existence; determining whether something functions as a single unit is an RFD matter. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:54, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't in a hurry to delete it. I needed to verify idiomaticity of the collocation, which wasn't quite straightforward - it has been added to some online dictionaries and the Russian Wiktionary also has it. If other editors proved (with citations) that it's used idiomatically, there wouldn't be any need for an RFD. Attestations would be required for not a free collocation but the idiomatic usage, if it makes sense. Now, I will just delete it but the additional usage should be covered by examples in [[смерть]]. It's still not clear what part of speech it is and what this grammatical feature/phenomenon is called. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:36, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
Also, most hits in google books:"смерть как" have nothing to do with the usage in question. They are equivalent to the English "death as ...". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:41, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
You should send it to RFD, not "just delete it", especially since Stephen above opined it is not sum of parts. No, we do not seek attestation to show a phrase is idiomatic; please check again our practice, by consulting to top sections of RFD and RFV pages, and by checking the long history of RFV and RFD nominations and their resolutions. If you don't believe me, check the comments of multiple other editors above. --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:42, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
(re: most hits in google books:"смерть как" have nothing to do with the usage in question)... that’s a good test for SOP, Anatoli. If it were SOP, then it would just be like most hits in google books:"смерть как" and would be equivalent to the English "death as ...". —Stephen (Talk) 07:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


Aymara. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


Uyghur. Hopefully citable, but I don't know where to look. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


Yoruba. As above, only needs one cite, if someone can find a dictionary that includes it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:02, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Kóstá Rikà[edit]

Yoruba again. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:04, 20 April 2015 (UTC)


Quechua. @Ungoliant MMDCCLXIV, is it in any dictionary you have access to? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Nope, and I couldn’t find anything anywhere else either. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

antanka pampa[edit]

Quechua, as above. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:07, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

big picture[edit]

Rfv-sense: (slang) The movies or movie theaters.

I'm not familiar with this sense. It is not in OneLook. If it is real we need citations. DCDuring TALK 16:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

If it is, it's got to be dated for sure, like short for big picture movie theatre/big picture show or to that effect Leasnam (talk) 20:24, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
A quick look on Google books yields 8 books with Big Picture in the title that are about movies. I have also found a number of quotes, which I will put on the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 20:45, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
As I see it, the cites are 0/4 as citations of the sense:
  1. 2010 (title) Uses the idiomatic sense that we have as "totality"
  2. 2010 Drew "big" + "picture palace", picture palace being a kind of promotional name for a motion picture theater.
  3. 2008 Workshop "big" + "picture"
  4. 2003 Kern "big"+ "picture"
I think we would be looking for something like the baseball sense of the big show ("major leagues"). DCDuring TALK 00:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
I have created big show. bd2412 T 15:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
Not capitalized? Renard Migrant (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Sûreté du Québec[edit]

I think that government entities ought to fall under WT:COMPANY so I'm requesting three cites for this as a common word. —Internoob 06:02, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe they ought to but I think it's clear enough from the wording at the moment that they don't. But CFI's been voted non-binding so whatever. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Really? I guess I've been away for too long. I didn't know that CFI was not binding any more. My thinking is that government entities are companies in sense 2 of the word. —Internoob 22:08, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
CFI has not been voted nonbinding. There was a vote on whether certain people's interpretation of CFI should take precedence over consensus in deletion discussions, and the vote didn't pass. That's a very far cry from CFI having been nonbinding. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
The vote was to make CFI binding and it failed. The fact that it therefore isn't binding is not only a reasonable interpretation, it fits the facts. If we refuse to delete an entry that doesn't meet CFI, what happens? Who comes in and punishes us? Renard Migrant (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Phrasing makes a difference, does not it? You say the they ought to, not that they do, right? You're not even basing the nomination strictly within CFI, as far as I can see. --Dan Polansky (talk) 05:11, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
I'm saying that in my mind, government entities are companies and as such fall under WT:COMPANY. But since CFI doesn't define what it means by "company" it's possible that people will disagree with me. We might have to move to RFD to discuss this, if no one cites it as a common noun. —Internoob 17:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
See, what a scourge is laid upon your hate, that heaven finds means to kill your joys! And I, for winking at your discords too, have lost a brace. All are punishèd. —Stephen (Talk) 01:06, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
Keep per all, including nominator. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

arnés pene[edit]

Is this putative Spanish term defined to mean "strap-on" attested as per WT:ATTEST? google books:"arnés pene" does not look promising. Previously in RFD. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


"Jewelry: pendant. From the homophone for Coulomb in Russian, кулон." Can't seem to find anything on this. Equinox 12:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

If you read кулон ‎(kulon) you at least know what it's on about. Looks extremely spurious that a Russian homonym where both are derived from French, that that would create an extra English word. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Eaglais Chaitliceach Rómhánach[edit]

Irish Wikipedia and two Google Books hits with no preview. Nothing on Google Groups. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC) I asked an editor of Irish wikipedia, SeoMac, if he could anything, maybe he'll be able to. Please note that although I edited that article, I did not create it.--PaulBustion88 (talk) 07:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC) http://tearma.ie/Search.aspx?term=Eaglais+Chaitliceach+R%C3%B3mh%C3%A1nach&lang=3116659 Here's one source that uses the term. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 15:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

[29] and [30] are from a print newspaper. Irish is an LDL so this ought to be enough. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
What is an LDL?--PaulBustion88 (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
A limited documentation language—per WT:CFI, limited documentation languages have weaker attestation requirements than well documented languages. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 17:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

May 2015[edit]


@Adjutor101: nominated this page for speedy deletion, but I hesitated to do so because I think the issue should be brought to RFV. The reason that was given was "This is a Dari word and not present in Pashto [used in creole speech] but not recognised as Pashto see Pashto Academy Research Paper 2005. Also check word لامبو". —Internoob 22:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

A self-designated Pashtun created it, so I suspect it is legitimate, just not prescriptively legitimate. Unfortunately, Pashto has a really low literacy rate and it will be hard to find sources. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
This is one of the most authentic Pashto dictionaries: http://dsalsrv02.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/search3advanced?dbname=raverty&query=%D8%A7%D9%88%D8%A8%D8%A7%D8%B2%D9%8A&matchtype=exact&display=utf8. As you can see it is not mentioned here. The word is 100% Dari and not Pashto. I can add لامبو instead, if permission is granted Adjutor101 (talk) 07:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
But you said it's not 100% Dari and not Pashto by saying it's used in creole speech. It certainly strikes me as one of those cases that would give us arguments and headaches in English, and will probably be resolved in Pashto by a simple lack of evidence.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Just remember that we're a descriptive dictionary based on usage, not a prescriptive dictionary based on authoritative sources. If Pashto speakers use a term as a Pashto term, we consider it a Pashto term. If authoritative sources consider it wrong, we label it as "proscribed", and we might provide more information in a usage note- but we have to maintain a neutral point of view in our explanations. Most languages that are under pressure from other languages go through a period of trying to banish foreignisms in order to "purify" the language- understandable, but not something we can subscribe to. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
Also, from the wording above, it sounds like the w:No true Scotsman fallacy may be at play here: "that word isn't used in Pashto, because no one using it is speaking true Pashto". Chuck Entz (talk) 00:05, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
(Reverted my own previous comment about the wrong letter, this letter IS used in Pashto but not Dari). According to this link it's a Pashto word. Besides, letter ي is apparently used in Arabic and Pashto but not in any variety of Persian, including Dari. Pashto has a less developed written tradition and low literacy, so it may be a "recommended" word, which is hard to attest. I wouldn't delete, since it was added by a native Pashto speaker. Even if we can't find attestations, it may be used in speech and this is just a written form of what is used by Pashto speakers? --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 00:54, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
To respected @Atitarev:, respected @Chuck Entz: and to respected @Prosfilaes: I think the user that added it was probably not a Pashtun [judging from the use of Avestan, was likely a Parsi and motivated by the belief that Pashto is descended from Avestan]. Most Pashtuns come from rural areas apart from Kandahar and Jalalabad. People in Kabul and Peshawar are not ethnic Pashtuns most of the time and when they speak Pashto they use the vocab and grammar of their native languages such as Urdu, Dari/Farsi, Hindko, Pahari, Gujri etc We can include words from all different languages in Pashto over here but ultimately it harms the credibility of Wiktionary as an authoritative source on Pashto which have been hoping to achieve. Adjutor101 (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
@Adjutor101 Thanks for the reply. What do you say about this link? My question is also - is this word used by Pashtuns, in any regions? As User:Dijan said on your talk page, we should include all loanwords as well, if they are used by native speakers, e.g. Arab purists may dislike words borrowed from English like تِلِفُون ‎(tilifūn) ("telephone") and بَنْك ‎(bank) ("bank") and prefer native words with the same meanings - هَاتِف ‎(hātif) and مَصْرِف ‎(maṣrif) but we allow loanwords if they are used in that language.
BTW, I encourage you to add more Pashto words, especially common, frequently used ones. Happy editing. Cheers. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
I am not against borrowing. My aim is just to make this page reliable in the eyes of native speakers. I have pointed out that افغان is also a borrowing, most Pashtuns would die before dong so Adjutor101 (talk) 05:07, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
اوبازي seems to be a legitimate word that is also listed in the Glossary of Herbert Penzl's A grammar of Pashto: A descriptive study of the dialect of Kandahar, Afghanistan (Washington, DC: American Council of Learned Societies, 1955), pp. 154-165. It is a borrowing from Persian, as is the actual Persian form itself آببازي. Both are listed in Qamosona. --Dijan (talk) 05:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)


Norman, by Embryomystic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:58, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

It's used in the filenames of several pictures on Commons of monuments erected in Jersey at the turn of the millenium, which gave me hope that it might be used on one of the monuments. (We have considered runestones and old Roman monuments 'durably archived', and a couple entries cite inscriptions on church buildings in and Sorbian and a Germanic language, IIRC.) Alas, that is not the case. It's used in a poem published in a *.doc on jerseyeisteddfod.org.je, "Lé Nièr Beurre à Mess Dolbé" par GJ (i' fut grée dans l'drein millénaithe, / mais Mess Dolbé lé trouve bein bouan), but that's not durably archived. So, it is real (not fabricated), but it doesn't meet our CFI. - -sche (discuss) 03:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Deleted. - -sche (discuss) 01:43, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


Norman, by Embryomystic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


I can't find evidence of either syiclle or siécl'ye, or syekly for that matter. - -sche (discuss) 03:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


Norman, by Embryomystic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 03:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


What about dêtri? Is it attested in Norman? - -sche (discuss) 03:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


Norman, by Embryomystic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:04, 2 May 2015 (UTC)


Norman, by Embryomystic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:06, 2 May 2015 (UTC)



Norman, by Embryomystic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Adding the singular to the RFV. - -sche (discuss) 03:35, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


Any proof of the first sense, at least in Modern English? Tharthan (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It sounds very unlikely. Any parliament... so the French parliament could be called a witenagemot? Yeah... right. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. Hence why I brought it up here. I have never heard "witenagemot" used in any other way outside of its historical meaning. Tharthan (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, right. From the OED:

1614 J. Selden Titles of Honor 226 Their Wittenagemots or Mikel Synods.
1656 J. Harrington Common-wealth of Oceana 35 (margin) Weidenagamoots.
1660 E. Waterhouse Disc. Arms & Armory 181 The Wittena~gemote and great Councel of our wisdom, in the preamble to the Statute of 43 Eliz. c. 12. acknowledgeth it to have been the policy of this Realm.
1769 W. Blackstone Comm. Laws Eng. IV. xxxiii. 405 The wittena-gemote, or commune concilium of the antient Germans.
1785 W. Cowper Let. 22 Jan. (1981) II. 322 Shall I derive no other advantage from the great Wittena Gemot of the nation, than merely to read their debates..?
1827 R. Southey Select. Lett. (1856) IV. 348 Having occasion to write to Sir T. Acland while he is attending the Witena~gemot at Cambridge, I sent him a fact for the geologists.
1855 R. Browning Old Pictures in Florence xxxiii, A kind of sober Witana-gemot [rhyme bag 'em hot].
1899 M. Foster Presid. Addr. Brit. Assoc. 22 The first select Witena~gemote of the science of the world.
Ƿidsiþ 07:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Those are atypical uses of the term. I've looked on google and I cannot find any use of witenagemot other than the ancient English legislature.The dictionaries I've looked at only use the ancient English legislature sense, [.... redacted direct word-for-word quotations of definitions from 5 dictionaries --Dan Polansky (talk)] So all the definitions I've seen so far are restricted to the witengamot being the ancient Anglo-Saxon council, not allowing broad uses such as describing other parliaments. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 09:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

  • This is a request for verification, and the definition in question has been verified. What dictionaries say is somewhat beside the point (although in fact the OED says ‘transf[eratively]. of modern parliaments or other deliberative assemblies’). Ƿidsiþ 09:41, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
We need to change the meaning though. "[a]ny assembly, parliament or discursive gathering" makes it sounds like it means, well, just that. Renard Migrant (talk) 09:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
I think it can mean just that, except that the usage should probably be marked as usually jocular (and probably now rare as well – but I haven't done enough research outside the OED to be very sure). Ƿidsiþ 14:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
In the Harry Potter series Dumbledore was a member of a council called the Wizengamot, maybe it comes from the second use of this term, that might tend to support widsith's argument that its jocular, if its true. --PaulBustion88 (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The quotations posted above (paragraph starting with "Yeah, right. From the OED") are of different spellings, e.g. "Wittenagemots" with double t, which does not count by my lights to attest "witenagemot" with single t. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:27, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
I'll tweak per Widsith and the OED but leave it tagged. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:54, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Then you have a lot of tweaking to do, including to "Weidenagamoot", which differs from "witenagemot" rather significantly. What is the basis for the claim that "Weidenagamoot" and "witenagemot" should be considered same for the purpose of attestation; is the pronunciation assumed to be the same? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:01, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Hence "leave it tagged". Renard Migrant (talk) 12:08, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
  • We obviously differ on how to treat alternative forms. For me (and all other dictionaries…) all uses of alternative forms or spellings count as evidence for the headword. Ƿidsiþ 11:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I'd accept them. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:41, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
As would I. Leasnam (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Seems fair enough. Tharthan (talk) 00:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
I would say that it is an overapplication of the rules to exclude a word solely because the citations have variant spellings. That might be a reason to not give every variant its own entry, but to have no entry at all is unhelpful to our readers. SpinningSpark 14:01, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Exactly. And we allow plural citations for singulars. WT:CFI#Attestation doesn't mention variant spellings so I think we're safe de jure as well. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
It's true I don't think we've ever really written it into the guidelines. The position agreed on aaages ago (with User:Eclecticology, if I remember rightly) was that a given citation can be used to support either the specific form used, or the original uninflected, lemmatised headword, or both. Ƿidsiþ 09:51, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
  • If quotations of "Witana-gemot" are supposed to support "witenagemot", then I figure that quotations of "coal-mine" can be used to support "coalmine". By that logic, an attestation of <noun>-<noun> hyphenated compound would automatically attest non-hyphenated <noun><noun> compound. Is this what you intend? On this very RFV page, there is a nomination of "skinnymalinky" for which only quotations of "skinny-malinky" with dash have been found; should these quotations be used to claim attestation of non-hyphenated "skinnymalinky"? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:09, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, basically. You collect a series of citations that are all obviously of the same ‘word’, and then at the end you make a decision on what the best lemma form is, either based on frequency or on some kind of etymological rationale. I don't care what the lemma should be in this case, but it's very clear that all these citations are using the same basic lexical unit with the same basic meaning, which is the whole point of what the entry is trying to show. Ƿidsiþ 17:10, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
We're different from paper dictionaries in that we have separate entries for cleanup and clean-up. For me, the only time cites for one wouldn't count for the other is if specifically a hyphenated or hyphenless form were being challenged, while the other form was unchallenged. In reply, if only citations for skinny-malinky have been found, have the entry at skinny-malinky and delete skinnymalinky as unattested. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:23, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
What I find most curious is that a set of quotations is presented to support a sense of "witenagemot", yet "witenagemot", in this precise spelling, does not occur even once in the set. My preferred attestation approach is per particular spelling, but even if we relax that to pool variant spellings, the spelling for which an entry is being made should have at least one attesting quotation; if the particular spelling has zero of attesting quotations, then I really do not see what makes it attested. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:06, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Dan on this. I also dispute the claim that accepting citations of one spelling as evidence of another spelling is an established practice. I would also point out that in several of the citations, it's not at all clear than the generic sense is being used; e.g., how can anyone tall what sense the 1614 citation is using? However, let's sort out what spellings we're dealing with:
  • Weidenagamoot(s): 1656 (nothing about this citation gives indication that it's a use rather than a mention)
  • Wittenagemot(s), Wittena Gemot: 1614 (nothing about this citation gives indication that it's using the sense in question), 1785 (possibly a use of this sense)
  • Wittena-gemote, wittena-gemote: 1660 (seems like a good use), 1769 (seems like a good use)
  • Witena-gemote: 1899
  • Witena-gemot: 1827 (seems like a good use)
  • Witana-gemot: 1855
When we consider that Capitalization in the Old Days was frequently applied to all nouns or to all important nouns, without lexical significance, the best-attested spelling in this sample is Wittena-gemote (attested 2x). I will see if I can find other citations. - -sche (discuss) 03:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Ngram data[edit]

(Note: ngrams does not plot sense data, so this only reveals which form of the lexeme is most common.) After comparing every capitalization and variation of wit(t)ena(-)gemot(e), I determined that the following forms were most common: [wittena-gemote]+[Wittena-gemote],[wittenagemote]+[Wittenagemote],[wittena-gemot]+[Wittena-gemot],[wittenagemot]+[Wittenagemot],[witenagemot]+[Witenagemot]. (Type that string into Ngram Viewer; I can't link it because Mediawiki can't handle links that contain brackets, and Google problematically drops the brackets if I URLencode them.) Comparing those forms reveals that our chosen lemma, witenagemot, is clearly the most common form in recent history (from 1850 to the present). Historically, the most common form was wittenagemot, followed by wittenagemote (then by wittena-gemote and then wittena-gemot). It is unsurprising that the RFVed sense (which is obsolete) was most commonly spelled one of the ways that the word overall (in all its meanings) was most commonly spelled at the time it still had that meaning. I will create some alt forms, move the sense and draft a usage note. - -sche (discuss) 05:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

What do you think of what I've done? See witenagemot and wittena-gemote. We could even delete the rare "any assembly" sense from wittena-gemote and limit it to the usage note that would explain that it's not actually attested in any spelling enough times to meet CFI... or we could try to track down more citations. - -sche (discuss) 05:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


I see a bit in italics, although I don't think we usually count that as English. Otherwise, not much comes up. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


Hawaiian English for 'enlightenment'. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems quite plausible, since Hawaiian mālamalama refers to light, including the metaphorical light of understanding, as well as the spiritual sense used in biblical translations. It's part of the motto of the University of Hawaii, and is the name of a periodical they publish. Given the abundance of New-Age-y folks in the area, it's entirely possible it has some limited usage in a few contexts.
That said, the only quotes I could find in Google Books, here and here, seem to be referring to the word as Hawaiian. There were hundreds of hits, but most were sentences in Hawaiian and Samoan (which also has the same word with the same meaning), references to a fish of the same name, to a place name, and to a given name. There were also quite a few New Age-themed books which had no previews. Google BooksGroups had 42 hits, but they were all Hawaiian- or Samoan-language, placenames, or University of Hawaii-related. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if manamana is Hawaiian for ‘Muppet’. Ƿidsiþ 06:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

It actually means "finger or toe", though it's accented on the wrong syllables for the song- Hawaiian doesn't do syncopation. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


There are hits in BGC, but I can't really read Thai, and I can't figure out whether any of them are good. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't RFV such entries, then, if I were you. The entry will be deleted because there won't be anyone trying to find citations, which is a pity. Using Thai2English transliteration, it's "saylaynaa" ("ay" stands for a long [e:]), เซเลนา seems a correct transliteration of the name. Wikipedia uses this name to transliterate the name "Selena" and as you said, there are hits in b.g.c. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge I have provided two examples (not citations, sorry) for the Thai usage. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 05:02, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
@Atitarev Well, both of your usage examples have zero hits on BGC. The reason that I RFV these entries is that they were made by an editor with no knowledge of the language in question at all, and therefore there are bound to be some errors (some of which you yourself have identified above). I'm not seeing actual evidence of use that passes the CFI, as before. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:17, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
They were just examples, not citations. I don't know enough Thai to make citations. Judging by google books:"เซเลนา", I can see three to five good hits, which match the sense. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:00, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


So Latvian Wikipedia seems to think that this is used, at least for a certain singer, but BGC is not bearing that out. LV.WIKI also uses "Selena" (as in "Selena Gomesa"), which also seems to be uncitable, but I didn't try inflected forms. @Čumbavamba Any ideas about whether this can be cited? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge There are only three women registred in Latvia, which name are Selēna (reference in Latvian). Name day (or naming day) in September 7, but that isn't include officially in calendar of name days. --Čumbavamba (talk) 20:27, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
This name is very rare in Latvia. --Čumbavamba (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


The original creator of this page challenged it on my talk page. A quick look at google books:memrize isn't particularly promising. What I'm actually seeing is hits for mem'rize and totally unrelated hits. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:57, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

I found a few hits on Google Books (though some of them might be typos): [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]. Einstein2 (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The second and third look okay; the fourth and fifth are the same one and looks like a typo, not an eye-dialect. I can't see the first as there's no preview. So that's two. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
This is what I can see at the first one: "can find to do is memrize the printin' on all the cans and". In addition to this, I found another use: [36]. Einstein2 (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

fat hen[edit]


This is the result of a boneheaded mistake by the creator of the Wikipedia article, and apparently copied from there to Wiktionary. There are two smearworts: a species of Aristolochia (apparently Aristolochia rotunda, but some sources say Aristolochia clematitis), and Good King Henry, Blitum bonus-henricus (aka Chenopodium bonus-henricus). The Aristolochia has only one other common name that I know of: "round-leaved birthwort".

So where did all the other names at w:Aristolochia rotunda come from? From the other smearwort, as can be seen from A Modern Herbal, which is also the source of the reference cited in the second edit for the article. Notice that the original version of the page was a condensed, but otherwise almost verbatim copy from the Good King Henry article in A Modern Herbal (or the html copy of it at www.botanical.com) , but with the name "Aristolochia rotunda", instead of "Chenopodium bonus-henricus". Over the years, content specific to the real Aristolochia rotunda was added to or used to replace parts of the article, but there's still some of the original content left- including those common names.

So much for factual accuracy, but what about usage? After all, if the incorrect common names caught on, we still need to document it. I found at least one source in Google Books that used them, but I'm hoping there aren't three- otherwise the usage notes needed to clear this up are going to be a bit involved... Chuck Entz (talk) 02:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)


The only form that obviously comes up on BGC is the capitalised Liassic with the given meaning; if this can even be cited as a lowercase word, does it really refer to lias in general or to just the Lias, as Liassic does? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

I added this one, which means I read it somewhere – probably, judging by the date, it was Richard Fortey's The Earth: An Intimate History. It's also in the OED though, so I'm pretty certain it exists. They have the following cites:
1833 C. Lyell Princ. Geol. III. 378 Metamorphic rocks of the Eocene or Liassic eras.
1854 A. Adams et al. Man. Nat. Hist. 561 In the Liasic period of the secondary formations.
1854 H. Miller My Schools & Schoolmasters ii. 37 The first ammonite I ever saw was a specimen..from one of the liasic deposits of England.
1854 H. Miller My Schools & Schoolmasters xxi. 451 Both shale and nodules bore, instead of the deep liasic gray, an olivaceous tint.
Ƿidsiþ 05:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
@Widsith The OED doesn't trouble itself with attestation the same way we do. They want to illustrate use, but we want to prove it (hence their acceptance of terms that don't pass our CFI). Not one of those cites serves to save this entry, but instead are support for Liassic, Liasic, and liasic respectively. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:50, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Well, whatever. Move to Liassic then. Ƿidsiþ 07:28, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I changed the entry to an alternative-form-of Liassic, and added a couple of cites. Ƿidsiþ 07:38, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Some citations that appear to be an alternative case form of Liassic:
  • [...] jurassic or liassic strata have been conformably folded around this point, the whole having been since altered and denuded.
  • The Wall, therefore, passes over rocks of the liassic era for some distance westward of Carlisle; but these rocks are there concealed by the thick deposit of drift.
  • It cannot tell, for example, why trilobites should have flourished so profusely during the silurian epoch, and have died out before the deposition of the oolite ; why chambered cephalopods should have culminated, as it were, during the Liassic era, reptilian life during the oolite and chalk, or why mammalisan development have been reserved to the tertiary and current epochs.
and some that appear to cite a general "pertaining to lias" sense.
  • A totally different liassic stone is Blue Lias, a whitish-grey stone obtainable only in relatively small pieces and difficult to dress.
  • STOKE-SUB-HAMDON (Sm), called Stoke-under-Ham locally, is on the Yeovil-Ilminster road right under Ham Hill, from which it quarried the beautiful Liassic stone for its charming cottages.
  • The top of a liassic stone wall/foundation, probed to a depth of 1.5 m, was recorded from 50 cm deep. A secondary footing of 5-6-cm handmade bricks, bedded on a course of liassic stone, overlay from a depth of 20 cm the above foundation.
  • The concrete jointing or matrix is probably a mixture of local Liassic lime and river or glacial gravel.
Of course, these are mostly from Victorian-era journals before palaeontology came into its own, which means that differentiating the two senses isn't always easy (just as it's hard to tell whether cretaceous is being used to mean "roughly 100 million old" or "pertaining to chalk" in many of these journals). Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:45, 22 May 2015 (UTC)


There it is "Wirren n., pl. Wirren".
In contemporary German that word should be a plurale tantum (e.g. at duden.de and DWDS) and traditionally it should be "die Wirre, pl. die Wirren" (e.g. in DWB, and in [books.google.de/books?id=N99nAAAAMAAJ&q="die+Wirre"&dq="die+Wirre"] it is: "Daß ein so unrihiger Kopf, der von allen Nöten und Doktrinen der Zeit in die Wirre getrieben wird, der das Bedrüfnis fühlt, sich um alle Bedürfnisse der Menschheit zu bekümmern, und gern die Nase in alle Töpfe steckt, worin der liebe Gott die Zukunft kocht:").
PS: Duden is kind of contradicting (once again): [www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Wirre] & [www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Wirren]
- 22:54, 22 May 2015 (UTC), PS: 22:57, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

The current entry is valid as a nominalisation of the verb, which is how I would use it myself as well. It's also reasonable to assume that Wirren (pl.) would come from die Wirre (attestable, but not abundantly used). We mustn't treat it as a plurale tantum since both singulars will be attestable and the plural does come from either of them. Since German plurals don't have a gender, it might be a bit more difficult to prove that it's from one or the other, although the female noun probably makes more sense. So if you feel so inclined, make an entry for Wirre and leave this one untouched. _Korn (talk) 00:00, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Substantivisations like "das Gehen", "das Wirren" don't have plurals, so "die Wirren" can't be a plural of "das Wirren".
Or is it just "Substantivisations [...] usually don't have plurals"? But then please give an undoubtful example or a reference for that, as it's usually "don't have" without exceptions (e.g. at [de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singularetantum#Beispiele], see "substantivierte Verbinfinitive", and [de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantivierung#Substantivierung_von_Verben]). - 00:56-01:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Grammatically, nominalisations are simply weak nouns and can form a plural like any other. They're really more restricted by their lexical nature which renders their plurals nonsensical and hence unused. But exceptions happen, like Essen and Trinken. x-tantums aren't cast in stone. The singular Leut is anything but unheard of, after all. _Korn (talk) 09:45, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Hmm... duden.de has Essen with a plural, but Trinken only in singular, but well, duden is kind of unreliable anyway.
  • I'd guess, "something else" does happen with those substantivated infinitives, like: At first Essen denotes an activity which doesn't have a plural (~ eating, without plural), and then it's also used to refer to the meal itself which can have a plural (~ meal, with plural). So, there should have been such a transformation of "Wirren" too...
  • Other question: What's with the etymology? Here we were saying it's a substantivisation/nominalisation of the verb wirren, while the entry says it's coming from the adjective wirr. Well, wirr ~> das/die Wirre, pl. die Wirren should also be possible.
- 15:22, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
  • The nominalisations have to develop a countable sense to develop plurals, yes. I think the original author had some kind of mix-up of words, although the verb might come from the adjective, but I don't know about this case. I'm also rather convinced that the term Wirren for turmoils comes from 'die Wirre', we just can't prove it. _Korn (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


Supposedly a general-purpose UK interjection. Never heard of it. Google Books has very little, but it seems to be an adjective, and probably of American use (since it's in a conversation about the Ku Klux Klan). Equinox 19:07, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Never heard of it, although the other edits by this user seem genuine so I doubt it's a joke. More likely a mistake or so regional none of us have ever heard of it. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:08, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Added the American adjective use. I think this might be an extremely idiosyncratic minced oath - like sugar or fiddlesticks, but much rarer. Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Oma fiel ins Klo[edit]

-- Liliana 19:45, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I can find a few mentions of the Mondegreen itself:
  • 2013, Internet-Meme – kurz & geek, page 164:
    So wird die Wortfolge »oh, my feelings grow« (»oh, meine Gefühle wach- sen«) aus dem Song »Midnight Lady« des Sängers Chris Norman von manchen deutschen Ohren als »Oma fiel ins Klo« missverstanden.
  • 2014 September 14, takt, volume 226 (year 19), page 65:
    Als Mondegreens bezeichnet man falsch verstandene Liedtexte. [... Zum Beispiel,] „Agathe Bauer“ statt „I've got the power.“ [...] Wir haben hier noch ein paar schöne Mondegreens für Euch gesammelt:
    Chris Norman - Midnight Lady
    Richtig: Oh my feelings grow
    Mondegreen: Oma fiel ins Klo
  • 2012, S Mues, Der deutsche Schlager im DaF-Unterricht (dissertation, Freie Universität Berlin):
    Spätestens seitdem mehrere Radiosender, darunter Radio FFN, daraus ein Spiel gemacht haben, gibt es Online-Blogs zu diesem Thema, z. B. http://omafielinsklo.podspot.de/?s=oma+fiel+ins+klo (Link kontrolliert: 30.08.2012): „Oma fiel ins Klo“ ist die Verballhornung der Zeile „All my feelings grow“ aus Midnight Lady von Chris Norman. Sie gab dieser Kategorie ihren Namen.
And S Meyer, M Ptok, Das Phänomen der Mondegreens, in HNO (2011 September, volume 59, issue 9, pages 926-930) discusses "... Oma-fiel-ins-Klo-Songs bei einigen Radiosendern thematisiert."
- -sche (discuss) 19:23, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

June 2015[edit]


Does not seem to exist as an English word. Possibly Spanish. Uppercase may possibly mean Canadian American. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I came across the word in the Looking Glass Library edition of Twilight Land by Howard Pyle. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 20:09, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Should be speedied, since it has no definition, no etymology, no pronunciation, no nothing. We already have WT:REE for requests. Equinox 20:26, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
I think it's a variation of canakin. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 20:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


Cowardly. Equinox 19:29, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Added a couple of cites. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:54, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


Does the citations mean "cowardly", though, or something more like the noun definition (which is "someone who is soft and benign"), e.g. "soft; being a pushover"? - -sche (discuss) 19:55, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
@Equinox, Smurrayinchester, DCDuring - -sche (discuss) 18:22, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
"Tending to be a pushover; overly accommodating" DCDuring TALK 00:32, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I've reworded the sense. - -sche (discuss) 01:46, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
RFV-passed. - -sche (discuss) 02:53, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


Wild animals, excluding fish. Wild animals. These look dodgy to me. ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Exceedingly common usage. Check out google books:"fish and wildlife" to see the two treated separately in discourse. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. But what about the last sense, wild animals? Does this mean that wildlife can mean animals to the exclusion of plants? Wouldn't that be confusing, and contradict the first sense? ---> Tooironic (talk) 02:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Sure, it's confusing and contradictory, but we're a descriptive dictionary, and as I said before, it's exceedingly common. Look at google books:"endangered plants and wildlife" and you'll that the last sense is used as well. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
As Meta said, such contradictions are common. Raw counts (salt required): google books:"plants and other wildlife" (32.2K); google books:"plants and wildlife" (22.4K). DCDuring TALK 15:55, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Well there you go, you learn something new everyday. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:56, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I wonder whether the word is used to include living things that are not visible to the unaided eye or that are deep-sea dwellers. DCDuring TALK 13:54, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I see no reason to separate the senses here. For some people it includes fish, so what? You might say the same about animal. Ƿidsiþ 09:52, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Our entry for animal seems to separate the senses that way: sense 1 includes fish and humans, sense 2 excludes humans, and sense 3 excludes fish. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Some other dictionaries just use an "especially" clause, but they do support distinctions. Also, the definitions differ among dictionaries. There are probably even other distinctions to make, such as whether insects and other invertebrates and animals too small to see are included in the term as it used. Perhaps a "variously including" clause in a sense line and two or three subsenses for the most common concepts. Humans and domestic animals (but not corresponding necessarily to species, eg, Canis lupus) are often explicitly excluded, probably because those are the most demonstrable hard boundaries of usage, whatever else might be included. DCDuring TALK 14:37, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • I've revised sense 1 to at least partially reflect the complexity in a single definition. Please feel free to revert or revise. There is some additional variety at one of the "demonstrable hard boundaries" concerning whether a tamed animal of a type not normally domesticated is included. Also, the definition of fish varies and even plant (fungi?, algae?) and animal (Archaea? etc) are not as simple as one would hope. DCDuring TALK 15:21, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
    I think that's already somewhat better. The OED just says ‘flora and fauna’ of a region. There may be a dozen different gradations of what exactly the word implies to different people, but I'm not convinced such things primary to the word's meaning – nor is it clear, if we split the senses, to which of them most citations of the word in use should be assigned. Ƿidsiþ 06:51, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
    This is supposed to be an RfV discussion, not an RfD.
    It IS clear that OED misses even the easy-to-attest distinction between the definitions "flora and fauna" and "fauna", so the usual respect we give them as definitive authority does not seem warranted in this case. The wildlife lexicographer seems to have simply punted the ball to the lexicographers defining flora and fauna or, worse, to the poor fellow defining flora and fauna, a set phrase in the ears and eyes of many. I suppose that some of the awkward text now in definition 1 more properly belongs under a new Usage notes header, probably better suited to the actual context-dependence of the varying placement of the boundaries of the term and the varying degrees of precision with which such boundaries are felt.
    The issue at hand is to see whether the less common definition under challenge explicitly excluding fish is attestable. I'd be willing to stipulate that we need not go beyond that except in Usage notes. DCDuring TALK 11:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
google books:"wildlife and fish" suggests the fish-less sense is 'attested', but I agree that not everything needs its own sense line. Thanks for your improvements to sense 1; I've expanded it a bit further and folded the two challenged senses into a subsense. Does that look good? - -sche (discuss) 08:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Passed as amended. - -sche (discuss) 04:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Looks fine. One somewhat vague definition is a better reflection of usage than multiple precise definitions. The term is not one would use when was seeking precision. DCDuring TALK 16:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: ‘A low-ranking soldier who merely carries a pike.’ Ƿidsiþ 16:40, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Clearly meant to be a diminutive of pikeman, and in that sense I found this this cite. It is, however, in the context of a coal mine pikeman rather than the type of soldier. SpinningSpark 22:50, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps the definition could be reworded to be more general. SpinningSpark 23:13, 3 June 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "a fossil radiolarian shell". Never heard this; if true, it must be obsolete or something. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:33, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Appears to be used by non-native speakers of English, but they write a large portion of scientific literature. It seems hard to call this a mistake on their part. Take a look at the cites. DCDuring TALK 11:43, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
@DCDuring: Two of your cites are very clearly for the other sense; I've moved them. The 1999 cite could go either way, because in context it's hard to tell. The 2000 cite seems pretty clear. I labelled the sense "uncommon", but maybe "rare" is more like it — I can't find a single quote in the singular that supports it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't at all sure about the ones you moved. I found a glossary that has a comparable definition, which would arguably afford it some protection, but that isn't the same as 3 cites. (I liked the challenge of finding more and liked using the "and other" trick [more generally, the coordination tool], but couldn't find more hits.) I wouldn't take the lack of singular attestation too seriously. The damned things are vary small and the fossilized ones not well studied AFAICT, so one would expect little use in the singular of this hyponym, for which radiolarian, in context, would be a good synonym. DCDuring TALK 22:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Your point about the singular is good, although we do sometimes look at them individually to find something diagnostic (if you need them for indexing, say). In any case, I mentioned this to a very experienced geoscientist who thought of it as just plain wrong; that was my gut feeling as well, but I can't actually find any source to support labelling it "proscribed". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:09, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
I'd be OK with deleting the sense and moving the apparently good cites to the citations page. DCDuring TALK 13:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)


Two hits at google books:"쎌레나", but I can't tell whether they're any good (and then a third would need to be found). It's baffling to me why a spelling with ㅆ would be used rather than one with just ㅅ. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 09:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)


Japanese. It seems that the spelling that is actually used is セレーナ instead. Using Selena Gomez as an example, compare google books:"セレーナ・ゴメス" with google books:"セレナ・ゴメス". But maybe this is citable as an alternative spelling? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:42, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

@EirikrΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


Greek. @SaltmarshΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:31, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

done   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 04:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
@Saltmarsh: This is RFV, not RFC (although I do appreciate the cleanup). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:59, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
yes - it's an entry in Βικιπαίδεια, isn't this sufficient?   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 04:44, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
@Saltmarsh: I'm afraid not; please see WT:ATTEST. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
el:Google has over 2.5k instances of Αρίκα with Χιλή   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 06:24, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, but that doesn't count for attestation. If we try your search as google books:"Αρίκα" "Χιλή" there are zero good hits, which suggests that the term cannot actually be cited. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
This string gets a couple of Scholar hits, but they seem to be using it as a personal/family name:
  • 2004, Kassoli–Fournaraki, in the Bulletin of the Geological Society of Greece
    [] ανδραδίτη και µαγνητίτη. Η παρουσία µετασωµατικών φαινοµένων εντός των αµφιβολιτών της ευρύτερης περιοχής λόγω της διείσδυσης, των τροντχεµιτικής σύστασης πηγµατιτών έχει περιγραφεί από τους Αρίκα κ. α. (1992).
  • 2004, Α Κατερινόπουλος, Π Βουδούρης, et al, Ανάπτυξη γρανατιτικού Skarn σε αμφιβολίτες στην περιοχή Θεραπείου, του Νομού Εβρού, in Δελτίον της Ελληνικής ...:
    [] ανδραδίτη και µαγνητίτη. Η παρουσία µετασωµατικών φαινοµένων εντός των αµφιβολιτών της ευρύτερης περιοχής λόγω της διείσδυσης, των τροντχεµιτικής σύστασης πηγµατιτών έχει περιγραφεί από τους Αρίκα κ. α. (1992).
- -sche (discuss) 20:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Searching for "Αρίκα" "Χιλή" on Issuu shows that "Αρίκα" has been used in two editions of Manessis Travel guides (which are not independent of each other, IMO), viz. the 2013 and the ΕΚΔΡΟΜΕΣ & ΤΑΞΙΔΙΑ ΧΡΙΣΤΟΥΓΕΝΝΑ / ΠΡΩΤΟΧΡΟΝΙΑ / ΦΩΤΑ : 2014 guides (the latter has "Αρίκα, Χιλή"). We just need two more citations. - -sche (discuss) 20:33, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
el.WP notes that this name is also used in the Νέα Γεωγραφική Εγκυκλοπαίδεια: Νότια Αμερική (New Geographical Encyclopedia: South America), volume (τόμος) 4 (Σκάι βιβλίο; ISBN 978-960-482-011-5). That means we have two citations. - -sche (discuss) 20:39, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


Entered to mean argumentative. Do we have attesting quotations meeting WT:ATTEST? Dictionary entries do not count; beware of the requirement of independence (WT:CFI#Independent) of the quoations. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I can cite argol-bargol so I created the entry. That makes argol-bargolous likely, but still technically uncited of course. SpinningSpark 21:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Note that there is currently one citation for argol-bargolous on the citation page. SpinningSpark 07:23, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


I don't think this exists with the meaning "goad". Maybe they meant מַלְמַד ‎(malmád)? --WikiTiki89 19:18, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


And 網頁#Japanese. These are translations of web page used nowhere outside of our dictionary. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 03:45, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

@TAKASUGI Shinji: You meant for this to go to WT:RFV instead, right? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:23, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge Thank you, I have moved this request here. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 02:23, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
  • google books:"網ページ" shows 84 hits, collapsing to 56 as you page through. I just quickly glanced through the first 10, and saw only egregious scannos.
google books:"網頁" "は" (adding the "は" to ensure we're getting Japanese) shows 944 hits, collapsing to ostensibly 906 hits as listed by Google on the top, but there are only 16 pages of results, for 154 hits by my count (10 hits per page, with only 4 hits on the last page). Again, looking through the first 10 hits shows a lot of scannos. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:28, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


I know it's been here for a while - but I can't find any usage of this German noun. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:31, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Google Books finds uses both with hyphens (as would be correct according to German spelling rules) and with spaces (as in English). It doesn't seem to be unattestable, at least. -- Liliana 13:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Could you do us a favour and add a few of those citations please (version with two hyphens) - otherwise it will be deleted. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)


The entry has a dual (e.g. ἑαυτοῖν, ἑαυτώ), but in Smyth's and Messing's Greek Grammar it reads: "Reflexive Pronouns. -- [...] The nominative is excluded by the meaning. There is no dual." - 17:54, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

I checked Perseus for all of the distinctive dual forms. ἑαυτοῖν and αὑτοῖν appear once each, in Philostratus's Imagines (book 2, chapter 17) and Sophocles' Antigone (line 145) respectively. It appears that the dative occurred (probably), however rare it may have been. ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 23:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Well, then should the rarity be marked somehow, maybe through a usage note like "The dual forms are rare"? Also, should it be noted in the entry that some modern Grammarians said the word has no dual? - 13:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know. It could be that the readings I found were wrong (if they do legitimately exist, they're certainly quite rare in any case.) I guess I'd say "Dual forms of reflexive pronouns are rarely, if at all, attested." —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 05:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


The entry here has 4 meanings, 3 nouns and the 4th being a pronoun. LSJ for example has also 4 meanings, 3 nouns but the 4th is a cardinal numeral/number meaning one.

  • LSJ: "ἰός [ῐ], ἴᾰ, ἰόν, [..] one, commonest in fem. (v. εἷς) [...]" & "εἷς, μίᾰ, ἕν [...]—Ep., Aeol., and Ion. fem. [..] ἴᾰ [...]; acc. ἴαν [...]; gen. ἰῆς [...]; dat. ἰῇ [...]: neut. dat. (ἰῷ κίον ἤματι) [...]"
  • "AutenriethHomer" at logeion.uchicago.edu: "ἴος, ἴα, ἴον (=εἷς, μία, ἕν), gen. ἰῆς, dat. ἰῷ, ἰῇ: one; as subst. τὴν ἴαν, ‘one portion.’ (Il. and Od. 14.435.)"
  • Smyth's & Messing's Greek Grammar mentions the Homeric feminine form ἴα (ἰῆς, ἰῇ, ἴαν) and masculine/neuter dative ἰῷ for the cardinal number meaning one.

So based on these sources it seems to be like this:

Alternative forms
Cardinal Numeral

ἰός (ἴα, ἰόν)

  1. (context: Epic, Aeolic, Ionic, and at least partly Homeric): one
Case m. f. n.
Nom. ἰός ἴα ἰόν
Gen. ἰοῦ ? ἰῆς ἰοῦ ?
Dat. ἰῷ ἰῇ ἰῷ
Akk. ἰόν ? ἴαν ἰόν (?)

- 13:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


I searched Google Books and Google Groups for this and the (also-deleted) alternative spelling Grecicize, got one hit for Grecicize (with the same wording repeated in a couple of others), one for graecicize, and nothing else- so I deleted both as unattested. The creator of both posted an objection on my talk page, with the two cites mentioned and a third, for grecicize that I missed because it's on a non-durably-archived web page, but the web page says it's an excerpt from a book- so it should count.

Though I still think this doesn't meet the requirements of CFI, it's close enough to be worth going through rfv rather than speedy deletion- so I restored both and am posting here (especially since they were added in good faith).

The main problem is that the lemma spelling is still unattested, the alternative form has one cite, and the other two cites are for two different other spellings: all near-misses.

There's also the matter of the lemma having four senses, of which the first two aren't represented in the cites at all.

Here are the cites provided on my talk page:

  1. Grecicize
  2. "Graecicise" (double-quotes from the original)
  3. 'grecicize' (single quotes from the original)

I should also mention that we have an entry at grecize that covers the same range of definitions. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

This search, from US, finds 90 citations (raw count, actual about 50, usable lower yet) at Google Books. I haven't done any formatting or matching with definitions. DCDuring TALK 03:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Confirmed getting a similar number of hits on gbooks from the UK. Scholar also has one hit for Grecicize in the Journal of the Central Asian Society from 1917. SpinningSpark 10:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
There are more on Scholar using DCDuring's search terms. SpinningSpark 11:03, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I have created an entry for graecization.
As to the challenged definitions in the capitalized spelling only one is attestable so far.
For the state of attestation by spelling and capitalization see Citations:Graecicize. DCDuring TALK 18:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


This abbreviation of sometimes has incomplete attestation, one use and one mention. Apparently use limited to studies of old texts. DCDuring TALK 18:43, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I've added two more uses. I don't read Ancient Greek, so I hope I've transcribed the Greek diacritics correctly. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 19:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
They look right to me! —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Me, too. BTW, would you considered sts. to be an alternate form of sometimes or a synonym? DCDuring TALK 20:09, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I think ====Abbreviations==== should be its own L4 header. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Alternative form—they're not two different words, but rather two ways of writing the same word. Their pronunciation is the same, for example. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 20:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Mr. G.
@Angr: That's a BP question. DCDuring TALK 20:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


and nakedhandedly. I don't think three citations without the hyphen could be found... Equinox 00:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but there are problems with both of the citations you've added. The 1859 quotation, which can be found here, has a hyphen at a line break, so it is ambiguous between the spellings "nakedhanded" and "naked-handed". The 2010 quotation, which I assume you got from this website, does not seem to be durably archived. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 22:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
The 1859 quotation appears without a hyphen here, which is where I found it. Kiwima (talk) 23:24, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
That site transcribes "FORTY-FOUR YEARS OF" as "FOUTT-POUE TEAES OP". I do not think it can be trusted regarding spelling. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 23:49, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I has about to second-guess Mr. G on his skepticism on the scan of Forty-four years ... hunter when I read that it has both naked handed and nakedhanded on the same page and also spells Knox both as Knoy and correctly. The scanning seems too unreliable.
The other citation clearly reads as written by a non-native speaker. The sentence containing nakedhanded is: "In this national park you can feel volcanic ember [should read "embers"] nakedhanded!" But that mistaken sentence is not alone. Many of the sentences have mistakes of number or awkward diction. I suspect that nakedhanded is a calque of a word in another language, presumably Spanish. DCDuring TALK 01:16, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


Volapük for the constellation Phoenix. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 00:55, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


Esperanto for cloudberry. Nothing on Google Books, Google Groups, or Tekstaro, and the dictionaries at vortaro.net and lernu.net don't have it. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

It can be found the following places:

https://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamemoro http://esperanto.lucaslarson.net/

and is also listed in the ESPDIC: http://www.denisowski.org/Esperanto/ESPDIC/espdic.txt

- User:Vikungen • 16:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC+2)

Please see WT:CFI for the requirements for verifying a word. None of those three websites appear to be durably archived. Moreover, they all mention the word "ĥamemoro" rather than using it, as described in WT:CFI#Conveying meaning. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:13, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I've added one quotation, but I can't find any more. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 16:10, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
User:Vikungen has added two more quotations (thanks!). Unfortunately, the China Radio International quotation does not seem to be durably archived, and it is not apparent to me whether or not the Rusia Esperantista Unio quotation is durably archived. (Is REGo published in print, or only online?) —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 04:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
This is starting to get silly. 90% of the words on Wiktionary don't contain three quotations. If it matters though, REGo is published in print as well. Vikungen (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Okay, then I think we just need one more quotation.
It's true that most words on Wiktionary don't have three citations—our entry for Kalifornio currently has none, for instance. But if someone were to challenge that entry, it would be very easy to find three citations to verify the word's existence. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Well, how come a non-existing word (not in PIV, ESPDIC nor Lernu) like viriĉo has an entry, even though it has not a single quotation?
And when you're talking about "challenging" an entry, is that what Μετάknowledge did? Without even proposing anything else.
Here is another quotation: http://www.ikue.org/cz/arkivo/a-57-1-05.htm Vikungen (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
viriĉo has an entry since no one has noticed it could be suspect. Thank you for adding it to RFV, to #viriĉo. We request attesting quotations only when an entry looks suspect. google:"ĥanejo" shows only 142 hits, which makes it look suspect. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks—I've added that quotation to the entry. It now has enough citations to pass, assuming that other editors agree that REGo and Dio Benu are durably archived. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 17:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
So for how long will it be like this? Vikungen (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Until someone closes the discussion, so anywhere from a week to a few months. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 22:28, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
It's been over a month now.. How can we make someone with the authority to, close the discussion? It's impossible to contribute to the Esperanto Wiktionary if one is to wait half a year for a single entry to be accepted. Vikungen (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure why no-one else has commented, but for my part I've held off on doing anything because (a) it does have three citations, which are being alleged to meet WT:CFI durability standards, but (b) I see no evidence that the first two of them actually do (that they actually exist in print). A side effect of delaying closure of a RFV is that sometimes more citations become available, but that hasn't happened here; there's only one book citation to be found via Google Books, no scholarly papers to be found via Scholar, no newspapers or journals to be found via Issuu, and nothing on Usenet AFAICS. - -sche (discuss) 17:46, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: a person of Northern, Eastern, Southeastern, Central and Western European or Ashkenazi Jewish descent (derogatory, Brazilian)

Very confusing definition. For one, “Northern, Eastern, Southeastern, Central and Western European” looks like a pleonasm for “European”. I’d like to see some evidence of this sense. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, it might exclude Italy, Spain, Portugal, et al. DCDuring TALK 18:24, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense self-driving car. I haven't seen it in any of the news articles on the subject, and certainly wouldn't recognize it, so if it is a real thing, some citations providing context would be useful.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, this was coined by CGP Grey in this video (start at 5:32). I don't think it has caught on. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 16:33, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Basically impossible to check, given that "auto" already means car. This may be a citation (since surely non-self-driving cars are already seen more as utilities than status symbols?), but context suggests not. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:04, 25 June 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "Pertaining to Syene (modern Aswan)"; if it can even be cited, I assume such cites would be of Syenitic (as Eq. pointed out). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


Ladino entry by User:Embryomystic. Doubt expressed in diff. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Not sure why JSBrowand13 thinks that בוהנו is more common than בואינו, but I can find no citations for the former and plenty for the latter: google books:"מונגו" "בואינו". This word and spelling can be found in virtually any Hebrew-script Ladino text. --WikiTiki89 15:40, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


Per Wikitiki's comment above that he couldn't find citations of this. - -sche (discuss) 18:44, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

מזל בואינו[edit]

Ladino entry by User:Wikitiki89. Doubt expressed in diff. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

As above. See google books:"מזל בואינו". --WikiTiki89 15:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


User:Vikungendiscuss 18:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

There's nothing on Google Books, Google Groups, or Tekstaro, and it's hard to imagine why someone would ever use this word instead of viro or homiĉo. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 17:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
It is peculiar, though I suppose I could imagine using it jocularly to distinguish a masculine manly man. Doesn't seem attestable from here either. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 01:37, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


Esperanto for male human. The four quotations currently in the entry do not appear to be durably archived. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 17:12, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


Supposed neologism, yet without any widespread use outside of beginner environments, even there it is hard to come by. Both quotations are from the same source, by the same author, and thus do not spand for a duration of over 1 year. Vikungen (talk) 17:59, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

The word is not listed in the dictionaries of neither PIV nor Lernu. Vikungen (talk) 18:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)


An English adjective, an alternative spelling of adiaphorous — really‽ — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

google books:adiaphora, e.g. [37]; seems to be.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • DCDuring and I have each added an additional sense to the entry, so I've converted this to an rfv-sense. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 20:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Those hits make it look like a plural noun, as is confirmed by [[adiaphoron]], adiaphoron in The Century Dictionary, The Century Co., New York, 1911, and adiaphora in The Century Dictionary, The Century Co., New York, 1911. DCDuring TALK 20:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: I agree with DCDuring that all the English hits you linked to are examples of the plural noun; on my interpretation, "the adiaphora concept" also exemplifies the plural noun, meaning "the concept of adiaphora".
@Mr. Granger, DCDuring: Shall we mark the singular sense nonstandard, like singular uses of criteria and phenomena?
 — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't contest the details of the definition, but it still exists; it needed correcting, not deleting.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I've seen no unambiguous attestation for the sense given and under challenge. DCDuring TALK 21:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be appropriate to mark the singular sense as nonstandard. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 22:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
If it were to pass RfV that might well prove the right way to handle it, but is it even worth the citation effort? DCDuring TALK 00:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I think we must be talking about two different senses. If I understand correctly, I.S.M.E.T.A. wants to mark the singular noun sense, which currently has three citations, as nonstandard. The challenged sense is an adjective sense, which I agree is not yet cited and does not seem to be citeable. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 01:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes. My mistake. DCDuring TALK 01:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


gelingen exists - at least as an impersonal verb (es gelingt, gelinge, gelang, gelänge).
But is it attestable as a personal verb (e.g. du gelingst)?
(Note: zeno.org has results like "hilf Gott, daß ihrs gelinge!" - but there it is ihrs = ihr's = ihr es, thus gelinge is impersonal.) - 17:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

P.S.: gelingen can also be used 3rd-personal like "das Werk gelingt" or "er gelang", but 1st-personal and 2nd-personal usage like "ich gelinge" or "du gelingst" are doubtful and "ich gelinge" shouldn't be attestable if one excludes grammar books and dictionaries which mention the form. In one book it also was: "Zwar können wir nicht, wie der Franzose (ich reussire) sagen, ich gelinge, sondern nur drittpersonl. [= drittpersonlich] es gelingt mir.", that is "we can't say ich gelinge but just es (or er/sie/es) gelingt".
(Note: "dass es dem Ich gelinge" is also 3rd-personal and not 1st-personal). - 14:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I can find a handful of uses, mostly in self-published German poetry (probably because -ingst is a useful rhyme, and because personification is a common poetic technique).
  • 1982, T. Ádám Szabó, Siemers Éva, Moldvai Csángó és Érdélyi népballadák (Apparently a collection of folk songs from Hungary)
    Wenn du hinein gelingst, in Sorgen du versinkst.
  • 2011, Lorett Sachs, Glück (k)ein Geheimnis: Lyrik für viele Stimmungen, BoD – Books on Demand (ISBN 9783842316997), page 7
    Deine Stunden, Augenblicke mal sehen, ob du gelingst.
  • 2011, Heiko Alexander, Erfolg beginnt im Kopf: Die Geheimnisse des NLP, C.H.Beck (ISBN 9783406620096)
    Selbst wenn du mir jetzt nicht gelingst, wird mich das nicht aufhalten!
  • 2015, Lisi Schuur, "Dein Bild", EigenBlick, BoD – Books on Demand (ISBN 9783739289410)
    Nach und nach gelingst du mir besser.
I'd call this vanishingly rare. In the 1982 quote, "du hinein gelingst" seems to mean something like "get where you want to go"/"make it in the world". The others are examples of addressing an impersonal object as if it were a person: the Lorett Sachs quote is addressing the morning, the "NLP" quote is a self-help book where you're meant to talk to your difficulties as if they were people. I can't parse the 2015 quote, even in the context of the whole poem. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:20, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
The 1982 quote looks like it ought to be gelangst, only that wouldn't rhyme. I think the 2015 quote is supposed to mean something like "I'm succeeding more and more at [forming an image of] you". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 11:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Can the RfV be closed?

  • Two quotes and a note are in the entry.
  • Here with the quote from 2015 there'd be a third one (though IMHO it's not a good one, as it isn't obvious who/what the "du" refers to).
  • Searching for "gelingest" (that's 2nd person singular indicative/conjunctive present active) gives another quote: "Welche achtsame Sorgfalt muß auf dich und auf alle die Hülfen und Mittel, die dich erleichtern, der Mensch verwenden, damit du gelingest!".

- 22:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

RFV-passed (it has been established that the verb can be used personally as well as impersonally). - -sche (discuss) 00:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


Appears in Charles Mackay's 19th-century book Lost Beauties of the English Language — and nowhere else? Equinox 19:02, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


Seems to have been popularized by a franchise with an ateji fetish; was this actually a legitimate word before this? (for what it's worth, wikipedia:ja:超電磁砲 redirects to the page for the aforementioned franchise) —suzukaze (tc) 20:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I found two possible leads. The first appears to use the term to annotate レールガン (railgun). The second is more questionable as the CD was released after the "Railgun" anime. Regards. Allen4names (talk) 15:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
  • @Allen4names, your caveat about the CD seems to apply to your first link as well -- that only dates from this February, well after the early-2007 start date for the manga. In addition, while that link makes for an interesting point of reference, online blogs do not count as citable sources for Wiktionary purposes.
I also find it notable that the JA WP article on actual railguns (ja:w:レールガン) does not use this term anywhere in the article. (It only appears at the top as a disambig link for anyone looking for the manga/anime.)
In my own poking around online, google books:"超電磁砲" "は" -wiki -"とある科学の超電磁砲" ostensibly finds 235 hits that exclude the title of this specific manga / anime, but paging through reduces the number of results pages to 3, 4, or 5 (changing as you page through) --but even then, Google only seems to show ten or eleven hits, all manga, and this term isn't shown in the excerpted text for any of them.
In the wider web, there is so much noise in the hit results that it's harder to analyze. I did notice that many (most?) uses of this term appear to be shorthand for the full title of the manga / anime, and not instances of a regular noun meaning railgun.
My sense is that this term, at this point in time, does not meet WT:CFI, and we should delete the entry. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:16, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Noted. Allen4names (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
It was originally listed as a proper noun until PalkiaX50 changed it to a noun saying "and surely this isn't a proper noun, is it?" which gives me the idea that the current listing is a result of confusion. Nibiko (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


Esperanto for khanate. Tagged by User:Vikungen but not listed. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 22:52, 26 June 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: “after (because of)” and “after, next” — Ungoliant (falai) 01:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

the axe forgets but the tree remembers[edit]

Listed on a Web site as a Shona proverb. Appar not really used in English. Equinox 11:50, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I see many variations of this proverb on Google Books: The axe forgets but not the tree. The axe forgets, but the tree can never forget the axe that chopped off its beautiful brances. The axe forgets what the tree remembers. The axe forgets, but the cut log does not. The axe forgets. The tree remembers. Though the axe forgets, the tree remembers. The axe forgets, the log does not. The Axe Forgets / The Tree Remembers. The axe forgets, but not the tree. The axe forgets and the tree remembers. But I can't find any citations of this exact form. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Any attestable form that includes the clauses "ax/axe forgets" and "tree remembers" would seem a worthy addition to Wiktionary, likely to be findable by normal users' searches. IMO, we need not have every attestable form as an alternative form in this decade's editions of Wiktionary. DCDuring TALK 15:01, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


Visayan word entered to mean "to raid for pillage and booty" in diff. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:12, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

independentist, independentism[edit]

Are these words really used in this general sense in English? It seems to me that the use is restricted to Quebec (probably influenced by French indépendentiste) and to Spanish-speaking countries (Latin America, Puerto Rico, autonomous regions of Spain; probably influenced by Spanish independentista), while they are not used in general English. I could not find these words in any mainstream English dictionary (Merriam-Webster, Collins, Oxford, Cambridge, New Oxford). So, are they Canadianisms or Hispanicisms? --RJFF (talk) 12:48, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

I've added three quotations for each word. One is about Poland and another is about South Africa, so the words are not limited to Quebec and Spanish-speaking areas. There also seem to be one or two senses of independentism that we're missing—one related to Christianity [38] and one related to moral philosophy [39]. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: ⱥ is also used for the sign for avo, the small form of pataca. Tagged but not listed. The other sense is RfD material and thus should probably be deleted. -- Liliana 14:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)



Rfv-sense for the senses "fast forward" and "rewind". The correct Unicode characters are and , and I can find no proof that the guillemets were ever used for that purpose. -- Liliana 14:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


Is Latin e.g. (without space) attestabe? In the internet (la.wp, la.wt) it's used, but as far as I saw it's only "e. g." (with a space) in Latin books (resp. New Latin books before the 21th century as google book search doesn't have ancient manuscripts).
Also (for comparision):

  • Even in English spaces were traditionally used, e.g. in books before the 20th/21st century it's often "A. D." (with a space) and not "A.D." (without a space).
  • German spelling rules even prescribe the use of spaces (e.g. "z. B.") though this is nowaydays sometimes omitted as it isn't easy to type non-breaking spaces which are the correct ones to use.

- 14:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


Vikungen (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


Vikungen (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


Vikungen (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


A Spanish word denoting a polygon with 56,645 sides. It seems only to occur in this list of Spanish tongue-twisters. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 07:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I've worked out most of the etymology; viz. that this word represents an Ancient Greek word of the form *πεντακισμυριαεξακισχιλιο…εξακονταπεντάγωνον ‎(pentakismuriaeksakiskhilio…eksakontapentágōnon), but what does the -letracosio- bit represent? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 08:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
@I'm so meta even this acronym: So, this currently reads 56,?65-gon:
  • 50,000 (pentakismyria)
  • 6,000 (hexakisquilio)
  •  ?00 (letracosio) - I think this is probably supposed to be tetracosio (τετρακόσια) giving 400
  • 60 hexaconta
  • 5 penta
Based on the apparent error in some of the other places, it seems like this may be a typo, though no form pentakismyriahexakisquiliotetracosiohexacontapentágono seems to exist. Also, this page is somewhat useful. —JohnC5 09:32, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Given the other examples on that page of English poorly converted to Spanish, I would guess the author found an English word in some list of long words and substituted in Spanish equivalents for a couple of the parts. The dead giveaway is the strange mixture of "ki" and "qui", which sound the same in Spanish, and which would normally never be in the same word. By that interpretation, the stray "l" is a scanno in the document they "borrowed" it from. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
@JohnC5: Good catch with τετρακόσια ‎(tetrakósia)! Also, that Foundalis page you found is a gem; I love that Archimedes gave a name to 1080,000,000,000,000,000. :-)
@Chuck Entz: Does this entry deserve the full month, or should we speedy it?
 — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 02:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015[edit]

quattuordenary and other -denary words[edit]

Tagged by not listed. - -sche (discuss) 01:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any English hits on Google Books. - -sche (discuss) 01:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 01:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


Tagged by not listed. - -sche (discuss) 01:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

This occurs as a scanno/typo of "sedentary", but also sometimes in a mathematical sense:
  • 1905, World's Work and Play, volume 6, page 309:
    For a generation there would be used tables of equivalents in notation, in weights, in measures, and in currency; after that, the people would think in the sedenary scale, as they do to-day in the denary,
- -sche (discuss) 01:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 02:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


Tagged by not listed. - -sche (discuss) 01:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Nothing on Google Books AFAICT. - -sche (discuss) 01:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 01:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


Tagged by not listed. - -sche (discuss) 01:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

No English uses on Google Books, but many mentions. - -sche (discuss) 01:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 01:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


Tagged by not listed. - -sche (discuss) 01:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Most hits on Google Books are mentions, but there is this:
  • 1972, Automatic Documentation and Mathematical Linguistics
    However, when the number of cells in one row is large, the cell number is greater than 10, and in this case we can consider that we are dealing, for example, with a novemdenary number system, []
- -sche (discuss) 01:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 02:00, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


Tagged by not listed. - -sche (discuss) 01:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

I can find citations, but which sense do they use?
[citations moved to entry]
- -sche (discuss) 01:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I've reduced the entry to the one definition which seems to be attested. - -sche (discuss) 03:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
RFV-passed as amended. - -sche (discuss) 01:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

adult baby diaper love[edit]

"Mentioned" on Usenet but not "used", I think. Equinox 18:30, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


... — קהת — 18:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

It's got numerous uses in Google Books:
Also appears to be even more common in French, which is surprising. WurdSnatcher (talk)


Nothing in Google Books (except for 1 Chinese search result with a couple of punctuation marks within the matched string, and 1 other search result that is a book about Bleach characters). Nothing in dictionaries. Japanese Wikipedia search results are 100% Bleach-related. Web search results also seem to be Bleach-related. The alternative spelling is obviously nonexistent and the name is just a fictional character name. Nibiko (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


Keφr 11:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

While Instagram would not be considered "permanent archived" for RFV purposes anyway, I had a look at what uses the 🏯 tag (Instagram being one of the few websites where emoji are widely used and easy to search). The first pictures are: a Chinese gate, the Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana, an Indonesian shrine, two pictures of a woman dressed as a samurai, a set of pictures of Osaka castle and Osaka in general, other castles and temples in Japan, and a plane ticket to Beijing. I don't see a lot of evidence that people specifically mean "Japanese castle" when they use this symbol - it just seems to be used to tag anything that looks Asian. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
As far as I know, Google doesn't allow searches for emoji. There's really no way to attest emojis through normal means. It doesn't seem reasonable to apply standard attestation criteria when standard attestation methods don't work. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
It does allow searches for emoji, it just does not necessarily return results. Web searches return a handful of them, for whatever it may be worth. Keφr 16:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Why don't we put them all into an appendix? SemperBlotto (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
What should be in it? Keφr 16:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
We already have such an appendix: Appendix:Unicode/Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs Smurrayinchester (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


Keφr 11:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


PAM. I see one use and one mention on Google Books. - -sche (discuss) 21:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


Computing sense - shim is a common enough term, but I can't find any sources for shiv meaning the same thing. Keith the Koala (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "the world generally". Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 06:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "anal sex". Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 06:28, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "vocative singular of karš". Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 06:31, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "vocative singular of logs". TBNL. - -sche (discuss) 06:34, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Combining this with the one above, as they can be considered together. I don't think there is, or should be, a requirement for inflected forms to be verified separately from lemma forms, however unlikely it may be that someone would be speaking directly to war or a window (perhaps in poetry?). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:23, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah, but are these properly-formed vocatives? The tagging commenter suggests they're not. @Neitrāls vārds. - -sche (discuss) 01:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Oh, well, in that case, an RFV is definitely in order. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 05:41, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Imo they can be removed without worry as masc. monosyllables that are commonly used addressing people (dēls, tēvs, etc.) will be barely attestable with the -s dropped in voc., let alone someone addressing a window or war in this form. I think Pereru suspected this as many masc. monosyllables have black links in voc. sg. while all the other forms are blue links. I have added additional parameters (with CodeCat's help) to lv declension templates to handle irregular vocatives. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 01:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "A visual illusion whereby a sequential pattern of lights produces a false sense of motion." Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 06:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps Color phi phenomenon? Equinox 22:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Rather the phi phenomenon. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. May be fine now, given that it was moved some time after it was tagged. - -sche (discuss) 06:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "sharpen wood". From the Unihan database. Not only is it bizarre but it is not listed in Yedict, Zdic (in Chinese at least), or MDBG. (also, Mandarin pronunciation ruì is another seemingly Unihan-exclusive piece of data) —suzukaze (tc) 09:43, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

duping delight[edit]

The three citations given are all mentions (they use the term in quotation marks). SemperBlotto (talk) 16:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

That's not hard proof; e.g. the last article put a lot of things in quotation marks. Of course, I see no evidence the last one is durably archived, and it's questionable for the first two.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have chosen some other quotations, but see Google Books for several books where the term is used without quotation marks: [40]. The term also gained usage in non-academic circles, with results on Google Images being indicative of this: [41]. Morgengave (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


RFV of several senses. The adjective I cannot find at all; it was listed as gradable both with -er and the more (I have suppressed that), but neither "graither", "graithest", "more graith" nor "most graith", nor "(is|are|was|were) graith", gets any relevant hits. The second verb sense I can't find evidence of, either. (NB there is an Oriental Miscellany citation on Google Books "now returned here from Bukhir in good graith" which, however, is a scanno for "good health"!) - -sche (discuss) 17:52, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


I searched for this using the same collocations I used to find citations of graith#Noun, and couldn't find anything. - -sche (discuss) 18:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


The only two citations on Google Books are the two in the entry. On Usenet I see only a mention-y hit from alt.religion.asatru (which may not even be English, given that it's in quotation marks next to a series of other non-English-looking words in quotation marks), one hit of "Northwestern Mountain-Mennish", one hit of "dawn-mennish", one hit of "X-Mennish", and one hit of "Manly Mennish horndogs who'll have to get real friendly with Rosy Palm". - -sche (discuss) 19:09, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

There may be another: "Men don't scare me. If they get too mennish, I just sprain their " --it's from The Saturday Evening Post 1943, but the snippet view doesn't show any text. Is there another way to verify outside of Google Books ? Leasnam (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2015 (UTC)



google books:"the (Healand|Healend)" turns up only one mention (wich is arguably not even mentioning it as a modern English word), and google books:"(Healand|Healend) (Jesus|Christ)" turns up mostly scannos. - -sche (discuss) 20:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


Searching for "abered" turns up only scannos and misspellings (pronunciation respellings?) of "averred" or "abhorred". "To aber the" turns up nothing. "Abering" is only a proper name an a typo of "bearing". "Aberring" seems to only occur as the past tense of "aberr". "(is|was|are|were) aber", an effort to find the adjective, only returns hits mentioning the German word aber. - -sche (discuss) 20:43, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't even find mentions. Why aren't there at least references? Are these some kind of forward reconstruction? Or are they hoaxes? How many like these are there? DCDuring TALK 23:33, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
In effect, they are forward reconstructions, yes. In some cases, they are attested in Scots or Middle English — in those cases, I sometimes just correct the L2 header, as here, because a couple of RFV discussions have established that the reason they were entered as English is that the OED and several other dictionaries don't distinguish either Scots or Middle English from English. The same dictionaries are also often satisfied by 1 use or mention, whereas we demand 3 uses.
Using various techniques, I compiled a list of ~750 suspect words, and I suspect that's only half the true number. I intend to check the attestation of them and RFV the ones that I can't find English (or, with a changed header, Scots) attestations for, but only a few at a time so as not to overwhelm WT:RFV. Anyone who wants to help cite the words on that list (or RFV words for which no citations are findable) is welcome to. - -sche (discuss) 02:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
This is a Scottish/Scots word, and a dialectal one at that within Scots, so finding this on Google Books is not going to be easy Leasnam (talk) 03:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Do you have a reference for it? DCDuring TALK 04:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Absolutely. http://www.dsl.ac.uk/entry/snd/aber Leasnam (talk) 04:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Given the closeness of our entry to theirs, the absence of additional corroboration or attestation, and their copyright terms, I think may be in trouble. DCDuring TALK 04:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


The only citations I can find that aren't scannos of "for drunken" (driving, etc) are of Chaucer. It's also not clear to me how the two senses could be distinguished. - -sche (discuss) 22:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


google books:"(a|the) hathel" turns up only the same Middle English text over and over. google books:"hathels" likewise turns up mostly Middle English. It's possible, though, that there are enough modern editions ("translations") of different works that this could pass à la Talk:undeadliness. - -sche (discuss) 22:36, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


I added the only citation I could find to the entry. It's an updated Middle English work. (one more citation on Google Books, "Of hem that love so beswike", is clearly Middle English.) - -sche (discuss) 23:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

So, this entry could be converted to Middle English if it doesn't meet CFI as English. - -sche (discuss) 23:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

fuck you Jack, I'm alright[edit]

Is there any evidence that the phrase doesn't contain a comma after "you?" The citations given indicate otherwise. --WikiWinters (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


All 4 Google Books hits are mentions. - -sche (discuss) 05:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


No Google Books hits for "forthganging" or "forthganged"; the only hits for "forthgangs" are German (an obsolete spelling of Fortgangs); the only hits for forthgang are German or Old English. - -sche (discuss) 05:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


There are a couple mentions of this as a Scots word (but Scots is a WT:WDL, so it would need more than that), but no English uses. The English Dialect Dictionary notes that the term was not known even to its informants. - -sche (discuss) 05:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


Does not seem to have made it into modern English. - -sche (discuss) 05:56, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

It did exist in Middle English, although whether as an adjective or only as a past participle (verb form, of the verb forōlden, which UMich's Middle English Dictionary has citations of) I'm not sure. - -sche (discuss) 23:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "luxuriant": from Unihan, not in yedict, zdic, or MDBG.


Rfv-sense X2:

  1. Any plant of the genus Heliotropium.
  2. A heliotrope.

Furthermore, I have added a non-gloss definition, "Used as an abbreviation of many words beginning with helio", which would subsume these and include many others. DCDuring TALK 15:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


RFV-sense "Temporal Analysis, Reconnaissance and Decision Integration System". That phrase gets all of 1 hit on Google Books, and only about 140 raw Google hits. - -sche (discuss) 05:49, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

All the Google hits are either from Wiktionary, or refer to the same study as in the book. Exterminate. Keith the Koala (talk) 19:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


On Google Books I can only find this as a scanno of "frame". The English Dialect Dictionary only knows this as a word for "refrain" (with a single citation). - -sche (discuss) 01:19, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Added another from a translation of the Gospel of St Matthew, making 2. Added alternative forms. Leasnam (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Added numero 3 citation from a Modern English translation of Canterbury Leasnam (talk) 16:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
And a fourth Leasnam (talk) 16:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
Except the Gospel of Matthew one (which is a very literal translation of a Saxon text for academic use), they all seem to be Middle English quotes. The Chaucer quote doesn't seem to be modernized, just different - the standard version, from Caxton, reads:
She freined, and she prayed piteously To every Jew that dwelled in that place, To tell her, if her childe went thereby;
while the citation reads:
She fraineth and she prayeth pitously To every Jew that dwelt in thilke place To tell her if her child went ought forby.
What kind of modernization adds words like "thilke" and "ought forby"?!
The quote attributed to "Thomas Humphry Ward" is actually from the 14th century poem Piers Plowman and the one attributed to Walter Scott is actually from an anonymous author writing from about the 13th century prophet Thomas the Rhymer. The date of that one is unclear, but it's believed to date from the fifteenth century (see footnote "r" here - the poem itself is quoted on page 235) and the author seems to be trying to imitate an even older style. I'm seeing very little evidence that this survived into even the Early Modern English era. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
@Smurrayinchester, No, that is not Middle English either, despite the use of thilke and ought forby, which are apparently left in for deliberate archaic effect. The Middle English original is
She frayneth and she prayeth pitously to euery Iew that dwelte in thilke place to telle hire if hir child wente oght forby.
Maybe "modernisation" is the wrong term, as it is not modern by today's standards, but I can see that this is an updated normalisation of the original, and qualifies under reasons for Talk:undeadliness? --Same for the other cite. The point of the matter is that all 3 citations added were written in (Modern) English. Leasnam (talk) 16:16, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
(Sorry, my mistake. I took the quote from Wikisource, which claims "Chaucer's Canterbury Tales presented in the original Middle English version", but clearly isn't.) Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Comparing the 'modern' citation of Chaucer to the original, it doesn't look like much updating has gone on. The prophecies of Thomas the Rhymer, on the other hand, does seem like a modern edition: looking over the whole work as quoted in The History of Scotish Poetry (which seems identical to the book you link to, but Google will only let me see one page of the book you link to; Google is weird) the language is thoroughly modern, with only a few unfamiliar words; I'd never guess it was translating/rendering an older work if the surrounding book didn't say so. (Btw, that edition has "Whence that" where we have "Where that".) It would seem as passable as the citations discussed on Talk:undeadliness.
However, Talk:undeadliness consists of me suggesting "translations" of Middle English to modern English be allowed, crickets, and an Anglish-o-phile who has since left the project agreeing with me. I've mentioned the "test" in a dozen RFVs since then, but in most cases, there've been fewer than 3 citations total and the terms have failed without it being necessary to judge whether citations passed the test or whether the test was valid. I welcome discussion of whether or not allowing modern English rewrites of Middle English works is a good idea: I admit there are grey areas, and not only with Middle English; for example, which of the many possible levels of adaptation of a Scots song in the direction of English would be the point at which it stopped being ==Scots== and started being ==English== (Scotland)?
- -sche (discuss) 17:32, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Translations are often a sore point with the way they adopt translingual vocabulary, and that goes double for close languages where a spelling adjustment and some vocabulary notes can bring the work within range of the dedicated reader. I don't know; I guess in general works that puts themselves forward as Modern English should be treated as Modern English instead of Middle English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
Given how much trouble we're having citing the lemma form (and how frequently it has been determined that the many alt forms which get copied from other dictionaries are not attested; cf bysen above), I feel the alleged alternative forms need to be cited as well, or removed. - -sche (discuss) 02:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


I question the validity of the last verb sense, "(intransitive, with up) To position oneself on all fours, after the manner of a dog." -- I have never heard of it, can't verify it or find any uses. Urbandictionary doesn't list it (has a different meaning for dogged up). "dogged up on the ground" and "dogged up on the floor" don't get anything. If it does exist, it seems like it should be moved to dog up anyway. WurdSnatcher (talk) 23:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

I can't find that meaning for "dog up", -- although I find a number of others. Primarily to dress in one's best clothes, but also to move doggedly. Kiwima (talk) 01:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


Noun and adjective meaning "Russian". Not found at lower-case commie, and isn't this backwards, like defining Nazi as "a German"? Equinox 02:59, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

"backwards"? I'd guess that one could still add the definition "a German" in the entry "Nazi", maybe with a label like "informal/colloquial, prejorative" or regarding wt's critera for inclusion maybe "dated". It shouldn't be uncommon that non-Germans also refer (or refered) to non-Nazi Germans as Nazis, as in WWII times or nowadays in video game or internet chat conversations like "from? - germany - hi there nazi". So in the same way Commie/commie most likely did or maybe does refer to non-Communist Russians (or soviets). -eXplodit (talk) 14:09, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not convinced that constitutes use of the word "Nazi" to mean "(non-Nazi) German", though; I think it's just use of the word "Nazi" to mean "National Socialist" coupled with the (sincerely-held and/or intended-as-an-insult) notion that all Germans are also National Socialists. - -sche (discuss) 22:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

cross one's fingers[edit]

Rfv-sense: To tell a white lie. I think I was the one who added this originally, but now I realise it's not quite right. In some cultures, crossing one's fingers can represent the telling of a white lie, but I'm not sure if that's something that can be attested. ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:21, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

In the US it is a childish accompaniment of telling a lie that is supposed to remove the moral consequences or a theatrical way of indicating that a real person or a theatrical character is telling a lie. Not too many lemmings have any definition for cross one's fingers. Only AHD has "tell a white lie". I don't think it means "tell a white lie", but it should be possible to attest to meanings something like what I suggested. That the lies are only "white lies" doesn't seem right, though it may often be so. DCDuring TALK 12:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The following easily-found citations illustrate my view:
  • 2007, Toni White, Ridge Street Home, page 5:
    Amanda placed her right hand behind her back and crossed her fingers. Her friend Sarah told her if you cross your fingers behind your back when you tell a lie, it's not a lie. Amanda didn't know if she believed that, but she crossed her fingers anyway.
  • 2014, Millie Criswell, Staying Single:
    It's not like I've been having fun,” she lied, crossing her fingers behind her back
  • 2014, Frank Sousa, The Tree of Young Dreamers, page 313:
    He always tried to make sure there wasn't a mirror behind him when he made a promise, and if there was and he couldn't cross his fingers, he just crossed them in his mind and hoped this was as good as the real thing.
    DCDuring TALK 12:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
The theatrical use, as a stage direction, is a little harder to find:
  • 1969, Phyllis McCallum, The Vanilla Viking A Three-Act Play for Children, page 37:
    AFTON: (CROSSING HER FINGERS) I always tell the truth. See for yourself. From the men's doorway you can see that the fjord is empty
My understanding is that you do it while telling a lie if you hope not to be found out, or if you are not sure that your statement is true (but you hope it is. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:51, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Do the current definitions that are unchallenged capture your understanding? Can they be better worded? DCDuring TALK 15:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
While I appreciate the work you've put in here, I'm still not convinced this can be attested. Crossing your fingers behind your back may represent the telling of a white lie, but I'm not sure that the phrase cross one's fingers has any meaning beyond the first two senses. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
@Tooironic: I explicitly reject as too specialized the "tell a white lie" definition. Clearly this is not identical to, though it is probably derived from, the "hope for good luck" sense. The association with deceit is also clear, witness the three citations that explicitly mention lying and place the crossing of fingers "behind one's back". I can find still more cites on any aspect of this that remains in question. This is a common expression of a common bit of folk culture in US, UK, probably Canada, Oz, and NZ. It may exist in other places with Christian heritage, as crossed fingers probably represent a kind of prayer, certainly in the "hope" sense. DCDuring TALK 03:47, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps we should either let sense 1 handle this and explain the various purposes of crossing one's fingers with a usage note, or explain it in the definition, as "To put the middle finger across the index finger, especially when wishing for luck or when telling a lie". - -sche (discuss) 02:42, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with -sche and Tooironic. It is important that we distinguish the meaning of the phrase cross one's fingers from the meaning of the action of crossing one's fingers. As far as I can tell, the current sense 1 is the meaning of the phrase, sense 2 is one meaning of the action, and senses 3 and 4 are another meaning (or else two closely related meanings) of the action. I agree with -sche's suggestion of cutting down the entry to one definition (the meaning of the phrase), with either a usage note or an extra phrase to explain the meaning of the action. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 04:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
I thought this was exactly the kind of thing that made an expression idiomatic. I thought it was the reason why we have entries for sit still (for), middle finger, etc. All such expressions are conventionalized ways of referring to the gestures involved. Many other gestures (like circling one's extended index finger around the side of one's head to indicate silently that a person is crazy) do not have such conventionalized expressions to refer to the gesture.
This expression conveys cultural information that is the meaning of the gesture, which differs according to who can see the gesture in the context. There are some instances in which lying is explicitly mentioned in the vicinity of the expression and others in which the expression simply accompanies what is transparently a lie. There are other instances in which the expression explicitly refers to the gesture being behind the liar-gesturer's back and out of sight of the hearer. Judging by the kind of first-person fiction is which this appears, it also seems that the expression refers to an act that conveys a kind of innocence, which is what AHD and the Wiktionary who added the "white lie" sense picked up on. I am not aware of any other expression that is used in this way nor of any other expression that refers to the gesture with the two classes of meanings. DCDuring TALK 11:08, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
That sounds to me like a good argument for a definition like the one -sche suggested. I think that their suggested definition is comparable to sense 2 of middle finger ("An obscene gesture directed towards another as an insult."). On the other hand, defining cross one's fingers as "tell a lie" is like defining middle finger as "fuck you".
To put it another way, the sentence "John crossed his fingers" does not mean the same thing as the sentence "John told a lie." But it might mean the same thing as "John put his middle finger across his index finger, indicating by convention that he was lying." —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 11:40, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
You must also object to sense two then. DCDuring TALK 12:27, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes. I think that all four senses should be combined into one, unless citations can be found indicating that the phrase cross one's fingers can actually mean "tell a lie" or "hope for something"—that is, that someone can be said to be crossing their fingers even if they are not doing anything with their hands. I think that all of the citations currently in the entry support a definition like the one -sche suggested. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 00:19, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "myriads". In Unihan, but is it anywhere else? —suzukaze (tc) 21:41, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


User placed the rfv template and forgot to add a section to this discussion page. Their comment: "Wikiwörterbuch" exists and is attestable, but this form seems to be unattestable and made up. --MaEr (talk) 06:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


Equinox 06:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


Protologism? Correct caps? SemperBlotto (talk) 11:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


As above. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "policewoman": Wiktionary:Tea_room/2015/July#馬達suzukaze (tc) 00:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


There's enough interference from Dutch that I may have missed something, but I'm not seeing any citations for this word in any of its forms (bedelve, bedelves, bedelving, bedelved, bedolve, bedolven). - -sche (discuss) 02:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

It's attested in Old Scots (DOST), and Middle English (MED), but I imagine the question is about the modern dialectal use? --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 02:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Correct. I estimate there about 1400–2100 words which have been entered as ==English== (influenced by Century’s and the OED’s inclusion of them as such) but which are in fact only attested in Middle English and/or Scots. I've listed about 750 at User:-sche/suspect words and have been going through them when I have time. Some turn out to be attested (though often obsolete), like edgrow and edgrowth, but some don't seem to be attested and so I list them here. - -sche (discuss) 03:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Beware also that many hits for "bedelved into", etc, are actually "be delved into". - -sche (discuss) 03:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
N.E.D. has this labelled at 1500 : The tre schal be bedolvyne abowte but I cannot make out what work or who wrote it. Leasnam (talk) 20:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
The Middle English Dictionary has that citation as "a1475 Grafting (Halliwell) 68: The tre schalbe bedolvyne abowte and dongyd." - -sche (discuss) 03:34, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

field trip[edit]

Can we attest the literal meaning of this phrase? ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Widespread use in geology, paleontology, engineering, archaeology, history, etc. They occur often when professionals in any field are at a meeting in a place where the area has places of professional interest. The student-teacher sense is a specialization. DCDuring TALK 03:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Extremely common use. Plentiful citations can be found at google books:"field trip" "GSA" (GSA is the Geological Society of America). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:26, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Based on the Google Books hits, I'd say the geology/paleontology/etc sense is not limited to fields (a trip to e.g. foothills could also be called a "field trip")... but an accurate sense 1 would be redundant to sense 2. I think we just need to combine the senses. "An educational trip made by students or researchers out into the field (realm of practical, direct, or natural operation) (to a valley, mountain, field/plain, etc)." - -sche (discuss) 05:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
DCDuring has expanded sense 2, and I have now merged sense 1 into it, per my comment above. - -sche (discuss) 01:40, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

call center[edit]

I don't think the second sense can be attested as having a meaning independent of the first; surely this is just a call centre being used for the purposes of telemarketing? ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:10, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Definition one looks like "inbound call center", two like "outbound call center". They probably could be attested separately, as they tend to be distinct in the real world, though I'm not sure of the lexicographic implications of that. Nowadays such a center can be virtual, so reference to a facility excludes the extended use. DCDuring TALK 12:48, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
The two kinds are sometimes combined. A good solution IMO would be to have a general sense allowing for both kinds of calls, use the words inbound and outbound somewhere in the entry, and have usage examples that reflect possible interaction between and normal user and some kind of call center, which would suggest specialization. This would reflect the appropriate vagueness of the term, suggest the possibilities, and provide a good search target. DCDuring TALK 12:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • 2002, Madeline Bodin, The Call Center Dictionary, page 216:
    VIRTUAL CALL CENTER A “virtual call center” is several groups of agents, usually in geographically separate locations, that are treated as a single center for management, scheduling and call-handling purposes.
BTW I would call The Call Center Dictionary a short-attention span encyclopedia, rather than a dictionary, though, of course, others will differ. DCDuring TALK 13:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

make to[edit]

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

This is a usage often heard in the US South for "closing" a door = make ( the door ) to. Sometimes also "push" it to. Perhaps this should be at to ? Leasnam (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
MWOnline has 7 definitions for to#Adverb; AHD has 5; Wiktionary has 3. DCDuring TALK 17:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I've heard "pull the door to" (i.e. closed). Equinox 13:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
  • AFAICT to occurs adverbially after collocations of the form pull|push|slide|slam [determiner] window|door|shutter|hatch. Make is a not-very-common occupant of the push|pull|slide slot.
A (real) usage example is: Once inside I eased the door to and made my way down the steep stairs.
IOW, even if attested, make to should be RfDed. DCDuring TALK 15:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


The user's other contributions should also be looked into. Some of the ones I've looked at have turned out to be rare but attested; others, like this one, I'm only seeing in wordlists. - -sche (discuss) 06:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Added two quotes to the Citations page. Einstein2 (talk) 12:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


Defined as "(set theory) covers; is covered by", with a pointer to w:Hasse diagram. Intriguing, any citations? Keφr 11:57, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

In discussing some other arrow-y symbols, @msh210 mentioned that he had seen this symbol but couldn't recall where. So, it's not made up. Perhaps someone with a clearer idea of how it would be used could search Google Books for strings that might be scannos of it, and/or search for works about Hasse diagrams. - -sche (discuss) 03:52, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I've found two search engines that can handle mathematical notation if input in LaTeX: searchonmath, through which I notice that this symbol is ascribed a (different) meaning by Wikipedia's article on the Wirth–Weber precedence relationship, and latexsearch, which finds two journal articles that use this term in the following "sentence fragments":
  • Tail Asymptotics for Discrete Event Systems, in Discrete Event Dynamic Systems 18 (2008 September 30), pages 563-584:
    • [i]\lessdot [j] (or as quoted by latexsearch: $[i]\lessdot [j{\kern.8pt}]$)
    • {\mathcal C}_\ell\lessdot {\mathcal C}_m
    • [i]\lessdot {\mathcal C}_\ell\lessdot [j]
    • [j]\lessdot [i] (or as quoted by latexsearch: $[j{\kern.8pt}]\lessdot [i]$)
    • \mathcal{C}_\ell\lessdot \mathcal{C}_m
  • A Study on the Inequalities for Fast Similarity Search in Metric Spaces, in Trends in Communication Technologies and Engineering Science 33 (2009 January 1), pages 307-321:
    • \begin{aligned}LAESA &\lessdot AESA \lessdot LPAESA2D\\ & \lessdot \;LPAESA3D \lessdot PAESA2D \lessdot PAESA3D,\end{aligned}
- -sche (discuss) 04:12, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
More citations (of some sense):
  • 2003, V E Marenich, Conjugation properties in incidence algebras, in Fundamentalnaya i Prikladnaya Matematika (Fundamental and applied mathematics), volume 9, number 3:
    Incidence algebras can be regarded as a generalization of full matrix algebras. We present some conjugation properties for incidence functions. The list of results is as follows: a criterion for a convex-diagonal function f to be conjugated to the diagonal function fe; conditions under which the conjugacy  f \sim Ce + \zeta_{\lessdot} holds (the function  Ce + \zeta_{\lessdot} may be thought of as an analog for a Jordan box from matrix theory); a proof of the conjugation of two functions z< and  \zeta_{\lessdot} for partially ordered sets that satisfy the conditions mentioned above; an example of a partially ordered set for which the conjugacy  \zeta_< \sim \zeta_{\lessdot} does not hold. These results involve conjugation criteria for convex-diagonal functions of some partially ordered sets.
  • 2014, Daniel Alpay, Maria Elena Luna-Elizarrarás, Michael Shapiro, Daniele C. Struppa, Bicomplex and Hyperbolic Numbers, in Basics of Functional Analysis with Bicomplex Scalars, and Bicomplex Schur Analysis:
    Let us now define in ({\mathbb {D}}) the following binary relation: given (\alpha _1), (\alpha _2 \in {\mathbb {D}}), we write ( \alpha _1 \lessdot \alpha _2 ) whenever ( \alpha _2 - \alpha _1 \in {\mathbb {D}}^+ ). It is obvious that this relation is reflexive, transitive, and []
  • 2014, T Chatain, S Haar, A canonical contraction for safe Petri nets, in Transactions on Petri Nets and Other Models of Models of Concurrency IX, in Lecture Notes in Computer Science, volume 8910, pages 83-98:
    We need a few definitions to introduce them. Denote by (\lessdot) the direct causality relation defined as: for any transitions (s) and (t), []
- -sche (discuss) 05:34, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
If you search Google Scholar for "lessdot", you find plenty of citations; the hard part is working out what they mean. - -sche (discuss) 05:50, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the Marenich citation is using the challenged sense, based on the definitions earlier in the article. The Chatain and Haar citation is either using this sense or a sense that is very conceptually similar to it. The Alpay et al. citation, the 2008 citation, and the 2009 citations are using different senses.
If the challenged sense does fail, I think these five quotations are sufficient for a sense along the lines of "Used to indicate a relation conceptually or formally related to the less than relation." Different authors evidently use the symbol to mean different things, but all of the uses I've seen are somehow related to <. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 12:04, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Aha, found something which is clearly using the challenged sense:
  • The order of birational motion (MIT):
    We say that u ∈ P is covered by v ∈ P (written u ⋖ v) if we have u < v and there is no w ∈ P satisfying u < w < v.
This outright says what that implies, namely that it's only "covered by", not "covers":
  • Finite Posets:
    Here, ⋖ and ⋗ mean (respectively) “covered by” and “covers”, []
This, on the other had, is something to do with logic:
  • 2014, Jan van Eijck, Dynamic epistemic logics, in (Johan van Benthem on Logic and Information Dynamics, in) Outstanding Contributions to Logic, volume 5 (2014), pp 175-202:
    The S is serial, for let x be an arbitrary member of the state set A. If there is no yA with (x, y) ∈ Rα we have (x, x) ∈ S. If there is such a y then (x, y) ∈ S. So in any case there is a zA with (x, z) ∈ S. It is also easy to see that S is transitive and euclidean. Therefore (?[a]⊥;?⊤)∪ a;(aˇ;a)* can serve as a KD45 operator, and we have an appropriate way to interpret KD45 belief in epistemic PDL. Abbreviate this operator as ⋖α.
- -sche (discuss) 16:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

evangelize (evangelise)[edit]

I would like to request verification of the sense 'To preach the Quran and sunnah to non-Muslims'. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The original etymology and primary definition was specifically Christian ("to tell the Good Story"), but I would say that the expanded definition is to "tell people about any ideology or religion in an attempt to convert them", which would subsume the RfVed definition, and include, e.g., "Apple evangelizing" and the like. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 00:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have put it in the 'tea room'. Anyway, there is something problematic about the definitions as things stand. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 00:08, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks User:-sche for improving this sense. Kaixinguo~enwiktionary (talk) 10:05, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps a "by extension" tag would be appropriate? Anyway, I do think the word is especially pertinent to Islamic preaching. To "evangelize" someone to Hinduism (for example) sounds very odd to me. But I guess that is just because Christianity and Islam are the most active proselytizing religions. The new definition also strikes me as rather broad; can you "evangelize" someone to Marxism? Just my two cents. Aperiarcam (talk) 09:12, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you can:
--Catsidhe (verba, facta) 09:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Touche. Still skeptical about Hindu "evangelism," but seeing as Hindus don't tend to proselytize, I suppose the rarity of the phenomenon doesn't have to reflect on the applicability of the word. Aperiarcam (talk) 10:07, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Tiny Tim[edit]

Discussion moved to WT:RFD.


Rfv-sense "To transfer the input focus away from." --WikiTiki89 19:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Added four citations. Equinox 12:52, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


I managed to find some citations of mirken, but I don't see any of this word. All Google Books has is a lot of scannos of an inflected form of an obsolete spelling of formieren. - -sche (discuss) 02:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


Ido word with an unknown definition. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 07:51, 17 July 2015 (UTC)


RFV of etymology sections 1 and 2, the "fool" related senses. I can only find citations of the etymology 3 sense I added. - -sche (discuss) 01:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I can find old mentions of this, but no uses besides the one in the entry. - -sche (discuss) 06:33, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


This was tagged but not listed. It's another of those words which one IP entered as Turkish and which another IP says isn't Turkish. In the past, some entries like this have been found to be regional/dialectal Turkish, but other entries have been found to be words only in some other Turkic language (e.g. Azeri) and not Turkish. It's hard for those of us who don't speak Turkish to tell which of those is the case. @Sae1962, Curious, is this word used in Turkish, and if so can you link to (or type up) some citations from Google Books that show it to be Turkish? Please also take a look at simek (below) and #kıyın and #bağdarlama.
On Google Books, I find evidence that beket is used (possibly in another script) in Kazakh, Kyrgyz, and Uyghur. - -sche (discuss) 01:45, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

also pinging @Hirabutor - -sche (discuss) 01:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
beket cannot be found in TDK, the official Turkish dictioary. It may be of other origin (another Turkish language).--Sae1962 (talk) 11:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)


As above. Also take a look at #kıyın and #bağdarlama, above, please. - -sche (discuss) 01:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Both simek & bağdarlama(k) cannot be found in TDK. I doubt that they are Turkish (and for sure not High Turkish).--Sae1962 (talk) 11:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Hamburger (Adjective)[edit]

Adjectives like "Berliner" and "Hamburger" exist (e.g. [duden.de/rechtschreibung/Berliner_Adjektiv] & [duden.de/rechtschreibung/Hamburger_Adjektiv]), but the declension is doubtful: The predicative usages as "er ist Hamburger [predicative adjective]" shouldn't exist.

  • *"er ist Hamburger [predicative adjective]" looks like "er ist Hamburger [substantive; = person from or living in Hamburg]", so "Hamburger" should usually be parsed as an substantive in this case.
  • Something like *"Der Hafen is Hamburger" (instead of something like "Es ist ein Hamburger Hafen") sounds awkward.
  • [www.canoo.net/services/OnlineGrammar/InflectionRules/FRegeln-A/Texte/A-Invar.html] states: "Viele unveränderliche Adjektive können nur attributiv verwendet werden. Dazu gehören die unveränderlichen geographischen Adjektive auf –er (Elsässer, Jenaer usw.)" -- that is: Adjectives like "Berliner" and "Hamburger" can only be used attributively (and not predicatively or adverbially).

- 10:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

There exists a template Template:de-decl-adj-inc-notcomp-nopred (used on a whopping two entries) which could express this, but we might be better off just adding something like "invariable, attributive only" to the headword line. These fail even more tests of adjectivity than wood (discussed above); they don't inflect, they don't compare/grade, they don't appear predicatively... - -sche (discuss) 18:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I've fixed Hamburger. If you find any more -er adjectives with erroneous predicative lines in their inflection tables, please either fix them or let me or someone else know. :) - -sche (discuss) 19:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Now I can do that (copy it from Hamburger), but earlier I wasn't completely sure whether or not such adjectives can be used predicatively, and earlier I didn't know about the template. Thanks for fixing the entry. - 21:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
But at least German gives us one straightforward way to tell whether it's an adjective or a noun compound - it's Hamburger Dialekt not Hamburgerdialekt. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Even that test doesn't help us here, because these -er forms could plausibly be genitives of nouns (which would be written separately, like "Königs Krone" used to be), as mentioned here. (I am tempted to undo that removal; I think the information is pertinent.) - -sche (discuss) 22:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
@Smurrayinchester: Well, maybe forms like "Hamburgerdialekt" do/did also exist? (Maybe because of hypercorrection regarding "Deppenleerzeichen".)
@-sche: I agree with you that the information is pertinent, and even pertinent if one just considers 21st century German: According to modern German spelling rules adjectives are usually written with a small letter, such as grüne Wiese, großer Mann, kleines Kind, berlinerisch, englisch, but Blauer Planet, Weißes Haus. (It is "modern German spelling rules" as earlier maybe forms like Berlinerisch and English existed, similar to English capitalisation.) So if words like Hamburger would be adjectives, it would be logical to spell them like hamburger by modern German spelling rules. And this still holds, even if one would say that these words ones where genitive forms of substantives, but are adjectives nowadays. namens/Namens originally is the genitive of Name, but nowadays only the spelling namens is official (in wordings like "ein Hund namens Beethoven"). So I partly undid that removal, and also added some further information and references. Please feel free to add further annotations (like: what did other grammarians or what do modern grammar books says?) or to improve my wording. -eXplodit (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


  • Here: "locative - humī - humīs".
  • [en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locative#Latin]: "It is impossible for the locative to express being located at multiple locations; plural forms only exist because certain proper names such as Athenae happen to be plural."

The locative singular "humī" does exists. But does locative plural "humīs" exist? And if it exists, what does it mean? Technically it should mean "on the grounds", so either en.wt or en.wp should be wrong. Maybe compare with domus which doesn't have a locative plural here at en.wt. - 12:29, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

First-Class-, Erste-Klasse-[edit]

RfV for the Part of Speech please.
Erste-Klasse- shouldn't be an adjective, but rather a "combining form" (that wording is used in tri-).
Also: Maybe they should be deleted like Boden-Boden. - 00:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I would delete these for the same reason as "Boden-Boden". "Erste" is a word, "Klasse" is a word, and one could even argue that "Erste Klasse" was an idiomatic phrase, and that "Erste-Klasse" was its attributive form like criminal-law is the attributive form of criminal law. But in the same way that we don't have criminal-law-, we shouldn't have Erst-Klasse-. It's like "cloud-to" / "cloud-to-": it's not a word, it's either two terms ("cloud", "to") or part of a longer term ("cloud-to-ground lightning"). - -sche (discuss) 19:28, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Discussion moved to WT:RFD.


I would like to challenge this "Adverb" sense in the entry sic:

  1. thus; thus written

I recently created [sic] for uses of sic between square brackets. (and (sic) since it appears parenthesized sometimes in Google Books) I also moved the usage notes from sic to [sic] about this use. My rationale is that, since it seems to be, in a way, always "separate" from the text and used between square brackets, syntactically it behaves more as a symbol, like an asterisk or a footnote. For comparison, I also created […] recently, while (...) I created in 2010. IMHO, sic#English shouldn't be defined as a normal adverb unless it can really be found in running text as a normal adverb. Thoughts? --Daniel Carrero (talk) 05:52, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't agree that, just because it's only ever used as a parenthetical aside, it's not a ‘normal adverb’ (whatever that means). The main definition should be at sic without brackets, as in Wikipedia and every other dictionary. Ƿidsiþ 14:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the sense should be at sic; compare this brief discussion of (aq).
The sense is also used without brackets, as in:
  • 1971, H. E. Wilkie Young and Elie Khadouri[e], Mosul in 1909, in Middle Eastern Studies, volume 7, page 229 (quoted in 2014, William Taylor, Narratives of Identity: The Syrian Orthodox Church and the Church of England (ISBN 1443869465), page 207):
    When it is all over they merge and go in a body to visit [...] the Telegraph Office – with plausible expressions of regret and excuses for the mob 'which' they say 'is deplorably ignorant and will not be restrained when its feelings are strongly moved' – sic, the fact being that the mob's feelings will never be 'moved' unless it is by one of them.
And other parenthetical information may be added to the brackets, as in:
  • 1884, James Grant, Cassell's old and new Edinburgh, page 99:
    This I may say of her, to which all that saw her will bear record, that her only countenance moved [sic, meaning that its expression alone was touching], although she had not spoken a word []
  • 2004, Michael Cook, Studies in the Origins of Early Islamic Culture and Tradition, page 43:
    [] then the kingship of the Romans (Rum) moved (sic: kharaja) from the family of Heraclius to Leo (Liyun) and his son after him.
... showing that the brackets are not part of the word. - -sche (discuss) 19:20, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
One quote that does suggest that the brackets are to some extent seen as part of the word:
"The question of wether or not to give anonymity to criminals in cases like this will go on forever," intoned madam – and you may care to know there is a [sic] bag in the rear pocket of the seat in front of you. (source)
But of course there it's being used in a playful punning sense. Some more citations which suggest the brackets are not essential:
  • 1939, Benjamin Britten, Letters from a Life Vol 2: 1939-45: Selected Letters and Diaries of Benjamin Britten, Faber & Faber (ISBN 9780571265923)
    The only person who wrote to me about 'duty', 'conscience' – 'being a pacifist at heart, but this was a war', etc... – (sic, sic, sic!!!); was he of that noble ancestry.
  • 2010, Paul Booth, Digital Fandom: New Media Studies, Peter Lang (ISBN 9781433110702), page 127
    Jim 's Interests: General: Working out, hanging out at the local bars, expanding my mind, eating Tuna Sandwhiches...or so I'm told and poker... Television: ... this show that's on Thuresday nights at 8 :30pm... I can't place the name of it but it has this crazy interview style thing...[all sic]
  • 2012, editor of Too Brief a Treat: The Letters of Truman Capote, Vintage (ISBN 9780345803092)
    I have ignored occasional errors of grammar, such as “she has not written either Jack or I." Too many "[sics]" I find obnoxious. (Note that they didn't say "too many [sic]s")
I don't like the idea of having the main entry at [sic] for several reasons - bracket shape is not fixed, bracket use is not compulsory, and unsupported titles are incredibly ugly. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:10, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Actually, even better - unambiguous adverbial use:
  • 2012, Milton J. Bates, The Bark River Chronicles: Stories from a Wisconsin Watershed, Wisconsin Historical Society (ISBN 9780870206047), page 271
    whole bussiness: Quoted sic in George F. Willison, Saints and Strangers ( New York: Reynal and Hitchcock, 1945)
  • 2006, Christina Scull, Wayne G. Hammond, JRR Tolkien companion & guide, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt (ISBN 9780618391028)
    *Joseph Wright, his predecessor in the chair, called him 'a firstrate Scholar and a kind of man who will easily make friends' at Oxford (quoted, sic, in E.M. Wright, The Life of Joseph Wright (1932), p. 483).
  • 2003, Monika Fludernik, The Fictions of Language and the Languages of Fiction, Routledge (ISBN 9781134872879), page 468
    Bolinger, Dwight (1977) 'Pronoun and repeated nouns.' Lingua18:1-34 [Quoted sic in Toolan 1990. Neither in Lingua 18, nor in the 1977 volume of that journal.]
Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Why woudn't we have the bracketed form be a redirect to the unbracketed form and show both as usage examples. Keeping punctuation out of headwords of lemmas whenever possible seems like a worthy goal. DCDuring TALK 13:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
    I have redirected the bracketed forms — compare (aq) — and removed the RFV template based on the citations above. I have also removed the following bit, because it isn't a very good example of the use of "sic" to ridicule a perceived error — it isn't even a "perceived error", it's (in the second case) a plain and simple error of spelling/grammar. We can find a better example, I imagine. - -sche (discuss) 01:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
It may also be used to highlight a perceived error, sometimes for the purpose of ridicule, as in this example from The Times:
Warehouse has been around for 30 years and has 263 stores, suggesting a large fan base. The chain sums up its appeal thus: "styley [sic], confident, sexy, glamorous, edgy, clean and individual, with it's [sic] finger on the fashion pulse."[1]


    Really? SemperBlotto (talk) 06:08, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

    One match in Google Books, self-consciously placed in quotation marks as an invention, and not by any famous author; so a nonce word that doesn't meet our requirements IMO. Equinox 11:57, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
    Bit it is for that very reason an example of the productivity of -able. DCDuring TALK 21:41, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

    mine arse on a bandbox[edit]

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

    • I find multiple uses, but all but one are by the same author (Dewey Lambdin), see, for example [this]. Other than that, I found [this], which still leaves us one short if you want three authors. Kiwima (talk) 00:39, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Here's a "my arse on a bandbox" by another author (Maureen Jennings, Except the Dying, p. 305). "Ass in a bandbox" and "ass in the bandbox" also generate Google hits, although apparently with an unrelated meaning. -- · (talk) 21:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
    • It's also worth noting, I suppose, that, although Grose's dictionary dates from the 18th century, all of the above quotations are from contemporary works affecting old-timey language, so they constitute no real evidence of actual usage back in Grose's day (although contemporary usage still counts as some kind of usage). -- · (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

    bust the dust[edit]

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

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


    RFV-sense "Advocacy of the rights or needs of men." This sense (variously worded) has failed RFV before, but the last RFV was two years ago, and the citations page already has two citations of the sense, and the topic of masculism is oft-discussed, so it seems reasonable to have a new inquiry into whether or not a third citation has come into existence. (But feel free to remove the sense pending a successful outcome of this RFV.) The wording of the sense is open to improvement; see Talk:masculism, where the wording "a doctrine or movement advocating equal rights for men in areas of perceived inequality" is proposed. PS I wonder if Meninism/meninism is citable, and given the apparent allusion to Leninism, I wonder if it was originally coined as a joke or pejorative. - -sche (discuss) 18:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

    Most of what I find is references to the use of the term within the Men's Rights movement, such as [this] -- but Google books doesn't have any sources of that literature, which I suspect is mostly on blogs and such. I did find [this], [this], [this], [this], and possibly [this]. In addition, the [OED] includes that definition, and references a quote in the Sydney Bulletin. Kiwima (talk) 00:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

    @Sche - Meninism was created by simply grafting "men" onto feminism. Which, obviously, doesn't make sense from an etymological standpoint. I believe it was originally coined by an MRA to describe the men's rights movement/philosophy, but it got picked up by feminist bloggers, who used it in a joking way to highlight how out-of-touch they see MRAs as being. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 01:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


    User:Cinemantique opined this does not exist. Hence this request for attestation (WT:ATTEST). --Dan Polansky (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

    freeze baby[edit]

    Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#freeze baby.

    Seems to be a urbandic term with no actual use. 18:18, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

    I have found plenty of usages. I added four citations, but there are lots more. Kiwima (talk) 00:01, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

    eat like an American[edit]

    The fact that the entries from this IP have all had to be fixed in one way or another led me to check this, and, so far, I've only been able to find references to food choices and table manners, not to Americans as the epitome of gluttony, along the same lines as a pig or a horse. I should add that the IP geolocates to the US, so I'm not sure where they would have heard this.

    • Forget the rfv. This should just be speedy deleted. -- · (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
    I agree. Equinox 00:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


    Trademark / brand name; must meet WT:BRAND. If kept, should probably have a capital P: Puffcorn. Equinox 22:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

    Attestable as a common noun, added citations to the entry. Einstein2 (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


    RFV of the verb. The only citations I can find (searching for "gemoting" and "gemoted" because the other forms bring up too many noun hits) are of Chatteron ("Gemoted warriours to bewrecke her bedde", etc). - -sche (discuss) 04:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


    The crude sense has been questioned on the feedback page. It was added by an editor who retired from Wiktionary after criticism. Can anyone find evidence of this meaning, or is it just an English variation? Dbfirs 15:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

    Is twist someone's balls not just a synonym for "annoy"? Siuenti (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, in English, so I would delete the sense, but I wondered if there was something in Italian that should be noted. Dbfirs 17:13, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

    five second rule[edit]

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

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

    • There are a number of citations in the Wikipedia article on the topic. bd2412 T 20:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
    • I see lots of citations for the spelling "five-second rule", but none for this spelling. If citations can be found for this spelling, I think it should be turned into an {{alternative form of}} entry. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 01:18, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
      • Oh, definitely. Right now we have two different definitions for the same thing. We should only have one, combining the best features of each, and at the most common usage. bd2412 T 01:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
      I guess I didn't filter very well again. DCDuring TALK 02:23, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
      I went ahead and merged them. No sense in having a content fork. I retained the rfv-sense tag, but it's hard to imagine that an attested hyphenated form doesn't have at least some unhyphenated usage. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
    I've never encountered five-second rule in any sense other than the one involving dropped food. I think we can dispense with the primary sense, unless evidence can be found to support that the term is used this broadly. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 03:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
    There's also some variation on the number: I first heard it as the "15-second rule", and I think one can find usage as the "10-second rule". Unfortunately, the construction "the x-second rule" is used by just about every self-help and how-to book out there, with dozens of different contexts and dozens of different rules- so finding variant forms of this sense isn't easy. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:02, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
    Non-food uses for a "takeback" concept are likely referential, but see Lee Rowland, There Is No 5-Second Rule for the First Amendment, Ferguson. bd2412 T 04:03, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
    @Chuck Entz: I've had some success by adding the word "germs" to the search. With searches like that, I think ten-second rule is attestable, and possibly also three-second rule. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 04:49, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


    This seems likely to be citable, but maybe under a clearer and more neutral definition. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:19, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

    If we generalise it to simply "make brown" I can find other citations, such as [[42]], [[43]], and [[44]] Kiwima (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


    I found an English translation and a Wikipedia entry that give the name of a character in Plautus's Aulularia (not Bacchides) as "Sobersides", but no actual Latin texts. The only Google hits for the purported declension "Sobersidei" are scannos for sobersides. According to the versions of Aulalaria and Bacchides at the Latin Library, neither play has a character called Sobersides or anything resembling that. In general, I think a lot of the entries in Category:Latin male given names are dubious (was Periplectomenus actually a Latin name, or was it a silly pseudo-Greek word that Plautus invented for use in a play?), but this one seems outright wrong. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:33, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

    The only Google Books hits I see are of this as an English last name, presumably of Burnside's teetotaller cousin. - -sche (discuss) 01:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


    Does not appear to be a name, but a misreading of mulier ‎(woman). Per Wikipedia, "Most free adult women [in Plautus' plays], married or widowed, appear in scene headings as mulier, simply translated as “woman”." Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

    Definitely not a name. Aperiarcam (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)



    Doesn't seem to be a name, but a misunderstanding of the word coquus/cocus ‎(cook). Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

    Probably as you say, but I would like to be able to check it in loco, and I don't have a copy of Pseudolus, so I'm not certain on this. Aperiarcam (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
    The internet always provides! Smurrayinchester (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
    coquus” in Charlton T. Lewis & Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1879. suggests that coquos is the right form for the time of Plautus's (c. 254 – 184 BC) writing. Coquos occurs three times in the online text. DCDuring TALK 18:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, it's certainly just a cook, though it is awfully strange that Plautus uses "coquos" throughout the text except in the cast (and to note who is speaking), where we find "cocus" and "coc."; this may well be an editorial issue, perhaps attributable to a lazy scribe rather than our dear Plautus. The nominative in -os is certainly the norm for Plautus, but perhaps something about the "qu" would make "coquos" simplify to "cocus"? All idle speculation, in any event. We also have another such entry, Harpax, but I'm tempted to let this one stay, as it's really a Greek word (ἅρπαξ [45]); also attested as a Roman war machine, but this is after Plautus was writing. In any event, this person has done us a favor, because they have drawn our attention to several words that need to be added, including ἅρπαξ. Aperiarcam (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


    Doesn't seem to be a name - simply plural of piscator ‎(fisherman). Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:31, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

    Confirm. It's not a name. Aperiarcam (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


    Doesn't seem to be a name (for one thing, it's plural). However, it does show that we're missing an entry lorarius ‎(harness-maker) (see Lewis & Short). Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

    Not a name. Aperiarcam (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


    Doesn't seem to be a name - just an unnamed adulescens ‎(adolescent) from a play. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

    One might say "teenybopper." Aperiarcam (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


    I'm sure you can guess what I'm about to say. Doesn't seem to be a name (who on earth would call their child that?!) - just a misreading of the character description sycophanta ‎(trickster). Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:41, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

    Hey, people in Japan have gone to court to name their kids "Devil" and "Pikachu." But I don't think "Sycophanta" had such a malicious parent. Aperiarcam (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


    I can maybe believe that this is a Latin name (although perhaps I've just been reading too much Asterix)... but Plautus' play provides no evidence for this, since the name only arises in an allegorical scene where Luxuria ‎(luxury) and Inopia ‎(poverty) discuss the content of the play. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:45, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

    I think this one is safe to gut also. Aperiarcam (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


    Nothing obvious on Google (I wonder why it is uncountable?) SemperBlotto (talk) 14:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

    re: uncountable. It seems to me that, often, contributors insert and "-" because they never heard a plural and haven't looked at the {{en-noun}} documentation. They may also not be aware of the meaning of uncountability. It might be a worthwhile quality improvement exercise to review the ones that display "uncountable" with the presumption of changing them to normal plural. DCDuring TALK 21:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    I think it will turn out to have at least one other entertainment meaning. DCDuring TALK 21:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    • Added some citations (not the best quality, since it's almost always glossed in use, but I think they pass) and a new sense. Ironically, the plural turned out to be easier to cite than the singular! Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


    Don't know if this is the right place to put this, but the genitive form Jesus', listed on the German entry for Jesus, is something I've never seen before. I didn't conduct a thoroughgoing search of the internet, but a simple ctrl + f search of the German Wikipedia page turned up zero hits. I haven't seen the genitive form Jesus either, but Jesus' strikes me as particularly suspect. Any citations with the form would be appreciated. Aperiarcam (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

    It seems to be fairly rare, but I did find this (I was searching for Jesus' Geburtsort to make sure I got genitives; we can try searching for other likely nouns too.) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    Hmm... I've tried the search with "Leben," "Lehre," "Einfluss," and "Jünger" and haven't come up with anything. I did find one with "Botschaft" (the genitive Jesus' is used throughout this work), though with such minimal attestation I'm really tempted to write it off as an error or an author avoiding standard usage to be sensational or controversial. The German is suspect throughout in that work you linked to, and I don't know if "Die Gute Botschaft der Menschenfresser" is really a good source from which to draw standard usage, either. At the very least, if we retain this minimally attested form, it should have some sort of qualifier as daß does. My opinion is still to exclude it; fwiw, de:Jesus lists Jesus as a possible genitive but not Jesus'. Aperiarcam (talk) 18:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    I doubt anyone writing "Jesus'" is trying to be deliberately sensational or controversial; it would after all be the standard genitive of any other name ending in the /s/ sound (Thomas', Lukas', Max', even English names like Vince'). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    Not according to our entry for Thomas. --WikiTiki89 19:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    What I meant was to say that a work like Die Gute Botschaft der Menschenfresser (apparently based on the Gospel of Thomas), which aims to "demythologize" Jesus and assert his humanity and historicity versus the canonical gospel accounts, is inflecting Jesus as a regular personal name, instead of using the Latin forms used >99% of the time, as a conscious choice to suit its message. (Doesn't it seem that way to you?) With what citations we have seen so far, anyways, it seems to me that Jesus' is more of an innovation by independent authors than a previously attested form that they learned. Aperiarcam (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    @ Wikitiki89 That is an issue with our entry (but see de:Thomas) Aperiarcam (talk) 19:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    I was hinting that it should be fixed. --WikiTiki89 19:24, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    de:Thomas does list Thomas' as the genitive, and Duden lists both Thomas and Thomas'. I do think that using Jesus' is a way of humanizing the name; I would expect to see it more in works about the historical Jesus (and in reference to other people by that name such as Jesus Justus, Jesus ben Ananias, or any number of Spanish speakers named Jesús) than in liturgical language. Duden, lists all three of Jesus, Jesus', and Jesu as the genitive. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    I guess we aren't really in a position to contradict Duden, but I would hope it be made clear that Jesu is the form employed in the overwhelming majority of cases, both religious and secular. Aperiarcam (talk) 19:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    I've added citations to Citations:Jesus.
    In Google Books' corpus, Jesus' was formerly only 1/1000th as common as Jesu, and is now 1/100th as common, perhaps corresponding to the increase in the use of Jesus as a personal name and the practice of regarding Jesus as a human historical figure. Hans' has also gotten more common over time at roughly the same rate. - -sche (discuss) 18:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
    The user who added this has been adding (either as both a registered user and an IP, or in conjunction with a like-minded IP) obsolete inflected forms to quite a few entries, which is indeed helpful — we're one of the few dictionaries that cover obsolete forms, and hence one of the few places someone reading an old document can turn for help in figuring out what it says. But because the information is so obsolete, no-one (myself included) has been interested in creating templates for the information, so the user has just been adding it in large wikitables, or (in the case of vocative and ablative forms) bulleted lines below the tables. I will go design noun templates that include vocative and nominative forms now. As for things like der: so few of the forms in the "obsolete declension" are different they I think we're better off using usage notes like we do in other entries, e.g. laugh (but possibly placed below the inflection table), to specify the only two alternative forms which previously existed (the plural dative and plural genitive). Likewise, in Gott the current setup gives the impression that Götteren was formerly the plural genitive form, when in fact Götter has always been in use even when Götteren was also in use. - -sche (discuss) 21:05, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
    @Aperiarcam: de.wt is prescriptive and a wikitionary, so doesn't count. And as mentioned above [www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Jesus] - not a wiktionary, but prescriptive and maybe using auto-generated inflections which sometimes might be wrong - has it as "Jesus, Jesus', Jesu". It should be like this: Traditionally it is "das Leben Jesu" or "Jesu Leben" (declined the Latin way), besides "das Leben des Jesus", while it's younger also "das Leben Jesus'" or "Jesus' Leben" (many people can't decline Latin anymore, and in some languages Jesus is a "normal" proper noun).
    • There were/are other people besides me who added/add older forms/words.
    • You mean "vocative and ablative forms", right? (BTW: Albertus' grammar (16 century) implies that there was a "real" vocative in German, like "das Herz" & "o (du) Herze".)
    • Götteren was also genitive plural (e.g. see Citations:der: "der HERR der Götteren") - and there are examples of using both genitive forms Götteren and Götter in the same text. Also:
      • Schottel's grammar might also imply the genitive form "Götterer" (cf. Bürgerer), but Joseph Kehrein also wrote that he couldn't find the genitive form "Bürgerer" anywhere.
      • Albertus only lists the genitive plural Götteren, so Götter might have been a colloquial contraction or error first. On the other hand, he also only lists dative singular Gott, so his declension table might (in some way) be incomplete.
      • Maybe dative and genitive plural could also be contracted to "Göttern" (cf. modern NHG "den Göttern").
    • Regarding the article der: There are also other even more obsolete forms, namely "daß" and "deß" - so it's not just genitive and dative plural which where different. But ok, one could still put these four forms in a text note. Also: Maybe deme was also used as an article instead of dem. Searching for "deme Manne" gives a few results, but they should be MHG.
    -eXplodit (talk) 13:01, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


    Discussion moved to WT:ES.

    nineteenth hole[edit]

    Tagged but not listed RFV-sense "the pub after a round of golf". Very plausible. - -sche (discuss) 08:49, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

    Widespread US use. DCDuring TALK 09:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
    Is it? I'm familiar with sense 1, "the clubhouse at a golf course", but not sense 2, which implies leaving the golf course and going to some unaffiliated pub or bar. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:58, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
    WP says "In golf, the nineteenth hole is a slang term for a pub, bar, or restaurant on or near the golf course, very often the clubhouse itself." google books:"the nineteenth hole" pub|bar turns up a lot of hits, in some of which the bar is the clubhouse, but in others of which it's somewhere off-course. - -sche (discuss) 16:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
    The definition with pub wouldn't work for the US anyway. I guess we need US cites with an off-course venue. DCDuring TALK 17:05, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
    But it would be more economical and more reflective of reality to combine the senses into a vaguer one rather than imply that there is something meaningfully distinct. DCDuring TALK 17:07, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
    I agree and have combined the senses. - -sche (discuss) 17:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
    This is the first time I've tried to apply the principle of "vagueness matching", something I inferred from Lexical Analysis: Norms and Expectations (2013), by Patrick Hanks (editor of Cobuild, Collins English Dictionary, and New Oxford Dictionary of English. I haven't finished the book, so it may turn out that he goes in a different direction. (He is also dismissive of excessive sense proliferation, of which I am probably guitlty.) DCDuring TALK 19:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


    Tagged but not listed, French section, RFV-sense "suite (group of connected rooms)". Shouldn't be hard to find if it's real: search Google Books and Issuu for travel guides, etc, that mention "suite"+"hôtel" and then check if they're using the right sense, e.g.:

    • 2012, Mexique 2013 (avec cartes, photos + avis des lecteurs), page 118:
      Cet hôtel de récente création est installé dans une belle maison du XIXe siècle, près du monument à la Révolution. [] Compter 695 $ pour une chambre standard pour 2 personnes et 850 $ pour une suite.
    • 2015, Circuits - été 2015 (by Thomas Cook Belgium):
      Le City Palace est une suite de petites places []
    • 2015 January 25-30, Hôtel de Paris, page 7:
      dans la Suite Churchill

    Btw, fr:suite has several more senses than our entry suite. - -sche (discuss) 09:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

    Cited, I think. Could a French-speaker confirm that? @Lmaltier, Darkdadaah, Renard Migrant. - -sche (discuss) 17:50, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
    Of course, it's real, and it should be added to fr.wikt: group of connected rooms in a hotel (same sense as in English). However, the 2nd citation above clearly uses a different sense. Lmaltier (talk) 17:54, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
    RFV-passed, then. (Plenty more citations can be found using the search I described above.) - -sche (discuss) 06:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


    The plural gets only one hit, seemingly meaning something to do with land. The hits for the singular are mostly mentions. Needs formatting (of the labels) if OK. - -sche (discuss) 19:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

    Donetsk People’s Republic translations[edit]

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

    Данецкая Народная Рэспубліка[edit]

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

    Doněcká lidová republika[edit]

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

    Volksrepubliek Donetsk[edit]

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

    République populaire de Donetsk[edit]

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

    I don't have time to write these up, but here you go. To be honest, I don't see any reason to doubt these. They are all translations of the original Russian/Ukrainian name in just the same way that the English is, and "People's Republic" is a standard phrase.
    Smurrayinchester (talk) 06:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

    Volksrepublik Donezk[edit]

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

    I don't have time to write them up, but here are three spanning a year:
    Smurrayinchester (talk) 06:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    That shouldn't count: web sides usually aren't durably archived (cf. WT:CFI). Regarding books that are durably archived there might be the problem that books do not appear as fast as news paper articles, i.e. it might take some time till the word is attestable with book quotes. -eXplodit (talk) 12:02, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    We generally accept the websites of newspapers, under the assumption that what appears there most likely also appeared in print. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    tagesschau.de shouldn't appear in print, and I doubt that n-tv.de does. Well, both should also appear in TV, but maybe another wording is used there, and TV news shouldn't be durably archived too (at least not publicly durably archived). Anyways, google books has ~11 results for "Volksrepublik Donezk" from 2014 and 2015, though sometimes maybe selfpublished e-books.
    Do quotes with quotations marks count such as the following one?
    • 2014, Ukraine: Der Weg in den Krieg, Die Welt (ISBN 978-3-944166-54-4) (e-book version without page numbers):
      Inzwischen sind es die militanten Separatisten, die die "Volksrepublik Donezk" komplett kontrollieren.
    BTW: Maybe it is also "Donezker Republik" in German?
    -eXplodit (talk) 14:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    "Donezker Republik" and "Donezker Volksrepublik" are both quite rare. At Google News, the two terms are used almost only by the German-language version of the pro-Putin Sputnik, and only vanishingly rarely by anyone else. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

    Λαϊκή Δημοκρατία του Ντονέτσκ[edit]

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

    Repubblica Popolare di Doneck[edit]

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

    Doniecka Republika Ludowa[edit]

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

    Донецкая Народная Республика[edit]

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

    Донецька народна республіка[edit]

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


    Rfv-sense Caló. While the word is derived from caló it does not seem to have the meaning of caló. – Jberkel (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

    Cited. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:41, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


    Has one citation in the entry and one hit in Google Books, the first in an English-language journal but written by a resident of China and the other in a Chinese-language journal published in China- this may be a translation artifact. Nothing in Groups. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


    google books:"a hirchen" is just scannos of "a birchen", and "hirchens" is just scannos of "Hitchens". - -sche (discuss) 05:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

    Here is the source cited in the entry (or at least a similar edition). This dictionary includes Middle English, obsolete English and dialectal English without giving chronological information, so we don't know what this term is, exactly, which is too bad: if this is obsolete or dialectal English, one mention in a dictionary doesn't cut it. It's probably not dialectal, because regional information is usually given. The Middle English Dictionary entry for irchǒun has lots of very similar variants, but not this one. The "(A.-N.)" evidenty refers to the etymology- there's nothing at the Anglo-Norman Dictionary entry for heriçun like this. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    If English citations can't be found, I suggest moving it to whatever Middle English spelling we decide to go with (and updating urchin's etymology section to also reflect that spelling). The MED lemmatizes irchoun, which is attested in use in a few places, including a Bible translation. - -sche (discuss) 21:31, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


    An editor recently RFV-failed Toshiba despite the term's being in widespear use. Apparently, the editor applied WT:BRAND to that company name. I disagree with applying WT:BRAND to company names as opposed to products or services, but let us play that game since that seems to be the best chance, for the time being.

    I placed quotations that seem to meet WT:BRAND at Citations:Toshiba. Please comment on how good they are for WT:BRAND; if some of them are good and some not, I'll try to find more good ones. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

    It's worth noting that what was deleted was a proper noun defined as "a company", whereas your citations are of a countable common noun meaning "a computer". Thanks for finding those citations, though — as I noted, I did try to find common-noun uses, and wasn't able to (the first several pages of "Toshibas", "on his Toshiba", "on her Toshiba", etc that I looked at all explained what they were, namely laptops/notebooks or in some cases other equipment). I'll "restore" the entry (but with the common-noun definition you've attested, not the proper-noun one that failed RFV). - -sche (discuss) 21:23, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    Similar to Atari or Nintendo. Looks better to me now, as an opposer of company names as dictionary entries (unless they have some further sense like kleenex or xerox). I know there are arguments for including transliterations and etymologies, but if there isn't a real definition beyond "a company" then it just seems silly to me. Other dicts don't seem to include them; I doubt this is purely for the NOTPAPER reasons. Equinox 21:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    @Equinox: Other dicts seem to have a very limited coverage of names of specific entities in general, as apparent e.g. from Aristaeus at OneLook Dictionary Search (a god), Framlingham at OneLook Dictionary Search (village or town), or Botein at OneLook Dictionary Search (a star); but there is some coverage, e.g. Odin at OneLook Dictionary Search, Liverpool at OneLook Dictionary Search, and Betelgeuse at OneLook Dictionary Search. It can be admitted that the dicts shy away from company names wholesale, unlike for gods, cities and stars, but we don't know the reasons; it could be for being considered ephemeral or connected with commerce, which would be considered bad. I only see practical reasons (limits on paper but also on editors to curate the material), not lexicographical ones, to remove all companies from the dictionary. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:35, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    @-sche: Can you point me to a citations attesting a company sense, for any company? --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:20, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    Company names fall under WT:COMPANY and not WT:BRAND. And that says: "Being a company name does not guarantee inclusion. To be included, the use of the company name other than its use as a trademark (i.e., a use as a common word or family name) has to be attested." -- Liliana 22:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    @Liliana: Great. Now, can you point me to citations attesting a company sense to meet the quoted WT:COMPANY, for any company? --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    I can't, because a company sense cannot possibly meet CFI in any shape or form, which is already implied by the wording. -- Liliana 12:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
    @Liliana: The regulator says "To be included, ...". Do you suggest that the regulator, rather than saying "no definition line for a company name can be included", chose to suggest a criterion that cannot be met? Is my impression correct that this RFV and the previous ones are fake as for being RFV since no verification is actually requested, but rather, the RFV process is used instead of RFD so that the outcome is apparenty driven by WT:ATTEST (which it obviouly is not) and so that the nominator and his or her allies can delete content without consensus? --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
    Well you asked specifically for a company sense. Obviously, the name of a company can have an entry if it has a meaning other than "name of a company". Samsung, for example, doesn't meet WT:COMPANY right now, its sole sense (in the proper noun section) is "name of a company". -- Liliana 14:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
    @Liliana: I think I see what your understanding is of WT:COMPANY: WT:COMPANY has as a necessary consequence that no company can ever have a sense line. It follows that RFV-sense on a sense line for a company never makes sense since there is no way quotations could be provided so that the sense can be kept. However, the whole entry (as opposed to sense) can still be RFV-ed to see whether a non-company sense can be added to it. Please, correct me if I'm wrong. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, that's basically what I'm trying to say. -- Liliana 14:49, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
    @Liliana: When the entry in which a company sense was located is kept in RFV, can a company sense fail RFV? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:10, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    The company sense would be RFD matter in this case. It's obviously attestable, but just plain doesn't meet CFI. -- Liliana 11:05, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    I hope to clarify this: Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2015-07/Clarify exclusion of companies. DAVilla 05:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    I let Samsung pass based on the citations I found for it (perhaps I shouldn't have — the ones which don't mention that it's a company in the quoted snippets probably do somewhere on the same page — but I was persuaded by the plural usage in reference to companies which are not the original Samsung but rather companies as successful as it, as in "Samsungs of tomorrow" and "[the country needs to have] its own Samsungs"). - -sche (discuss) 22:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    @-sche: Is this a policy you made up on the fly or is it based on WT:CFI or, verifiably, on previous practice in relation to company names? Or, ideally, can it be traced to a discussion or a vote that we should be seeking these sort of quotations that you provided that are reminiscent of the attributive-use rule that got shot down in Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Names of specific entities? --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
    In light of the general disagreement over whether or not company names should be included, I decided to err on the side of inclusion and assume that, because (I thought at the time) company names as such generally by definition name specific companies and don't pluralize, the plural citations I found of "Samsungs of tomorrow" etc might constituted "use of the company name other than its use as a trademark (i.e., a use as a common word[)]". (I left the "proper noun" header in spite of the pluralization, because plenty of proper nouns pluralize — indeed, more of them pluralize than don't, because personal names which do pluralize outnumber every other kind of proper noun we include.) However, I notice from google books:"Berkshire Hathaways" that pluralization and "referential" use may be a general ability of company names, as of other kinds of words — "the Putins [=Russian leaders, probably with an emphasis on cult of personality and undemocratic governance style] of tomorrow", "the next Iraq [=quagmire the US invades on flimsy pretexts and then gets bogged down and creates bigger ISIS-like enemies in]", etc. Perhaps, as Liliana suggests, Samsung#Proper_noun should go to RFD. - -sche (discuss) 18:06, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
    As for Atari, the nomination on Talk:Atari says 'RFV-sense: do citations of the sense "a company" which meet COMPANY and BRAND exist?'? How can a company meet WT:BRAND and why should it, given that WT:BRAND regulate senses for products or services, not for companies? And why should a sense for a company meet both WT:COMPANY and WT:BRAND? How much more fishy can this get? --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
    "All words in all languages" is so much easier to understand. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
    You're right. And it's very clear that Toshiba is a word. Nonetheless, it's normal to define a special rule for company names or trademarks, because anybody can make "official" any sequence of characters by creating a company or registering a trademark, even if nobody uses this "word". This is why a first rule in these cases should be: at least n citations, excluding uses by the company itself or people related to it. The 2nd rule should answer the question should the name or the trademark be considered as a word worth an entry (= of linguistic interest)?. For IBM or Toshiba, the answer is easy (yes). For International Business Machines or Syspark Inc., I think the answer should be no, because nothing of a linguistic interest can be written about these complete names. Lmaltier (talk) 18:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


    Nothing on b.g.c -- Liliana 18:33, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

    • I would expect any actual reference to be abbreviated as Ykat, but Google books returns a lot of scannos for that form. If not verified, this should be redirected to Appendix:SI units, as are other unverified unit titles that otherwise conform to the SI standards of measurement. bd2412 T 22:33, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


    Vikungen (talk) 09:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


    Rfv-sense: romantic partner of either gender. Removed by User:Vikungen with the edit summary "Can't find any use of it meaning girlfriend.", but I'm bringing it here in case citations can be found. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 10:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


    No mention in the Google Books.--Cinemantique (talk) 01:42, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


    Dictionary-only word? SemperBlotto (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

    jail lock[edit]

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

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

    signum crucis[edit]

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

    anti-state capitalism[edit]

    Ungoliant (falai) 20:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

    anti-state marketism[edit]

    Ungoliant (falai) 20:51, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


    This looks like it was made up to show how long words can be in Swedish. Nothing in Google Books or Google Groups. Even in the rest of the web it seems to be mostly some variation on "look at this long word in Swedish!".

    I found this word here. I'm not interested in Swedish and I don't speak Swedish, but I'm interested to help Wiktionary and other Wikimedia projects. You can delete that page but I think that everything is useful on Wiktionary especially words of that type. Thank you.--BrunoMed (talk) 08:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    According to the Wikipedia article, it's mentioned (not used) in an old edition of the Guinness Book of World Records. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)



    Tried to clean up a bit. The toothpaste brand wasn't dict material; the game might be (?). Equinox 19:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

    Also this may be an alt spell, or a misspell, for kaladont (or that might be a misspell): the same user created both. Equinox 19:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    Looks like "kaladont" is newer at least according to images from google [46]. Both are used as a term for toothpaste (originating from the brand name) and for the game. Do "hjp" and "kakosepise.com" qualify as good verificator sites: How do you write:kaladont-ili-kalodont (on kakosepise.com) and kalodont entry on Hrvatski jezični portal (the site having its own ref template on wikt, which I used on kalodont entry)? Regarding the "kaladont" it exists on Vukajlija also, an Urban-Dictionary-like site well-known in sh-sphere: [47]. Do these suffice? There's even a w:Kalodont article and when you google/ncr "kalodont" among first ten hits I get kakosepise.com. --biblbroksдискашн 23:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
    I don't want to make problems and I won't. I wrote that article and I want to defend it. I found that word in Rječnik stranih riječi by Vladimir Anić and Ivo Goldstein, Second edition. On page 649, second column, fifth hint there is a word kalodont, in brackets prema jednom tvorničkom imenu proizvoda that means after a name of product, after that pasta za zube that means toothpaste. We also use term kalodont for a game and all toothpastes, like word džip (Jeep) for all big cars or tule (Thule) for transportation boxes on roof of the cars. Some people say kaladont what is alternative form of word kalodont. Thank you.


    Russian and Ukrainian. @AtitarevΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:54, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

    Thanks for pinging but I won't spend my time trying to protect transliterations of small towns from another language. Not now, at least. I don't see any problem with these entries. If this town ever entered the Russian and Ukrainian literature, that would be the right spelling or the only spelling.
    I suggest to change CFI to allow standard transliterations of proper names to save us some time, at least for selected languages with available resources.
    I will comment more later. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:36, 30 July 2015 (UTC)


    Needs to meet WT:BRAND (I haven't tagged the Cyrillic spelling, but that should be deleted as well if this fails). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

    There are some pages in Google Groups and Google Books. There are even online dictionaries with word Traubisoda.


    It's possible, I suppose. @Dijan, I don't know Serbo-Croatian forms, but do you see any inflected forms in Google Books? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:06, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

    A few instances:
     »Taj svijet je enciklopediziran, tj. na stanovit način ‘dovršen’.« (»That world is encyclopedified, i.e. ‘completed’ in a certain sense.«) Bagić, Krešimir. Treba li pisati kako dobri pisci pišu, p.103.
     »Enciklopediziranje teme nije posao esejiste.« (»The encyclopedification of themes is not the job of essayists.«) Izraz, 1987, p.634.
    Vorziblix (talk) 13:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


    Doesn't look too promising, but maybe. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


    As above. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


    As above. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


    Rfv-sense "millibitcoin". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


    Rfv-sense "fan of Firefly". It's real, but IME not nearly as common as Browncoat, and I just don't see any cites. @Cloudcuckoolander, -sche, or anyone else who is good at finding things, can you work your magic? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

    Cited, I think, with help from Equinox. Five citations from four distinct newsgroups. In the process I discovered a restaurant called Cafe Firefly (apparently related to wildlife conservation rather than TV) which offers flan on its menu. Also, Flanvention looks citable from Usenet. - -sche (discuss) 07:16, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks; looks good to me. Conclusion: I am doing something terribly wrong when I try to search on GGC. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:50, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    Google Groups doesn't work as well as it used to work. It appears that many posts aren't getting properly indexed. Searching all of Google Groups for a specific keyword will sometimes return very few to zero results even though are actually dozens of posts featuring said keyword out there. These posts can be found by individually searching a specific newsgroup, but that's obviously a more time-consuming process. I've been able to cite a number of fandom-related terms that appeared uncitable at first glace this way. Basically, if you're trying to cite a fandom-related term, try individually searching major fannish newsgroups (the newsgroups for Star Trek, Buffy the Vampire, Xena: Warrior Princess, and The X-Files seem to be/have been the most active).
    If you're getting too many irrelevant results, try adding an additional keyword to your search. Like "firefly flan science fiction" or "firefly flan whedon" to pre-emptively weed out the surprising number of conversations involving insects and pastries. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:19, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
    @-sche - "Flanvention" was the name of a Firefly/Serenity fan convention held in 2005. It was almost held again in 2006, but ended up being cancelled one day before it was scheduled. All Usenet citations for "Flanvention" are references to this specific convention, so it doesn't seem to be a generic noun meaning any Firely fan convention. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2015 (UTC)


    Both appear to be 100% confined to mdf wiki, which, I presume, is where both their creators drew inspiration from.

    I created Россия ‎(Rossija) and Эстония ‎(Estonija) with appropriate quotations. As the lemma form is identical to their Russian counterparts, their inflected forms allow to pull up usage in Moksha media. Although the results are littered with typos of Russophone usage, some cases yield quite a few relevant results: def. gen. Россиять ‎(Rossijatʹ, of Russia) yields quite many, 1st sg. pos. sg. nom. Россиязе ‎(Rossijaze, my Russia) pulls up some muzikal'nyj ansambl' or something, etc. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

    Эсти мастор[edit]

    Same as above. Neitrāls vārds (talk) 01:38, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


    This sense: (economics, of a group) Created by public as opposed to private information. I don't see it in any of the usual major sources (including OED, Merriam-Webster 11th, Random House, or wikipedia). -- · (talk) 05:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

    I assume this wasn't added by a native English speaker, as I can't work out what it means. Are economic groups created by information? How? Aren't they created by people? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:48, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
    It was added in 2008 by User:Klasovsky~enwiktionary, who only made 2 edits ever. It's been edited slightly since then, but his original definition was essentially the same: descriptive of a group created by public as opposed to private information. Doesn't make much sense to me either, but I thought I should rfv it, rather than just delete it, in case someone else can divine what he was getting at. -- · (talk) 19:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


    Nothing in G.Groups. Equinox 15:30, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

    Nothing on Issuu, either. (Hardly anything even on the web.) - -sche (discuss) 17:06, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
    It's used in an episode of the series, but nowhere else that I could find. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 20:09, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


    Spanish, looks like made-up crap by LWC --A230rjfowe (talk) 16:14, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

    I can't say anything about the Spanish term, but the English equivalent ENT and the German equivalent HNO are both definitely real, so it's at least plausible. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)


    Apparently it means a chess bishop in Spanish. --A230rjfowe (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

    Took some work to filter out the scannos for the bishop symbol, but now cited, I think. -- Visviva (talk) 20:55, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


    Spanish misspelling of nerd. Seems dubious, although I've seen in written by a native in a txtmsg before. --A230rjfowe (talk) 00:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


    Serbo-Croatian. Under suspicion. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

    • Not listed in major dictionaries, seems fake. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


    Rfv-sense: "humankind"

    I did not find any use of this word in the sense "humankind" and have strong doubts that it exists. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:54, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

    banjo ukelele[edit]

    While ukelele is an old-fashioned spelling of ukulele, I'm not sure this particular combination exists. Even if it is attested, Wikiedia's article is at banjo uke, which I think is more common, so any spelling of banjo ukelele or banjo ukulele is better treated as a synonym of that. WurdSnatcher (talk) 03:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

    geek chic[edit]

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