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


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)

I added two others. One gives a nod to Vonnegut, but is using it separately. Kiwima (talk) 01:16, 7 October 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)


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)


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)



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)

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)


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" [1]. Please correct me if I'm wrong. It was also entered in [2]. --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)

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)

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) 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)


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): [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. 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: [8]. 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)

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)


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)


I don't think this exists with the meaning "goad". Maybe they meant מַלְמַד ‎(malmád)? --WikiTiki89 19:18, 10 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)
As noted above, only one sense was thrice-attested. (Another was twice-attested.) The two uncited senses fail RFV entirely. This word as a whole is just a rare synonym of Grecize, so I've just relabelled it was such. Is this RFV now resolved? - -sche (discuss) 08:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Sense 1 had three citations under the original form, and should not have been deleted. But for that matter, there's the problem of the word having two very slight spelling variations and two capitalizations, all of which are used interchangeably in the literature. There are dozens of attestations for the word, but they're scattered amongst three senses under Graecicize, graecicize, Grecicize, and grecicize, which fact is being used to delete them individually, rather than combine them under a single form with redirects for the others, which was the original intention. There are plenty of attestations for three of the original four senses, but because they're split between what Wiktionary considers four spellings, we're basically randomizing the meanings between these forms, which makes no sense. P Aculeius (talk) 13:41, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Since Grecize is attested (and more common) in all of the senses, I thought that representing all of the senses in the {{gloss}} after {{synonym of}} was a good way of noting them. If you prefer that the gloss mention only the one fully-attested sense, that's fine. Note however that citations cannot count for more than one sense (unless they use a word multiple times with different senses each time, which is not the case here), as was being done here, so the second sense must be removed in that case. - -sche (discuss) 20:33, 19 November 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)
RFV-passed. - -sche (discuss) 20:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:05, 20 June 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)
This spelling gets a page of BGC hits. The spelling below gets none. - -sche (discuss) 17:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

This seems to be attested, e.g.:

  • 1965, Jacob Yehoshua, ‏ילדות בירושלים הישנה :‏: ‏פרקי הווי מימים עברו /‏, page 148:
    רק מזמן לזמן שמענו את המילים ״מזל בואינו״, מזל טוב, ״סלוד בואינה״, בריאות טובה וכוונתן לנו הקטנים, הרזים והכחושים, חולי־הקדחת, דלקת עיניים וגרענת ושאר סוגי מחלות ילדים משונות שלא הרפו מאתנו כל ימות השנה. וכשהורידו עיניהן מעל העיניים ראינו כי דומעות הן. מה נאות היו []
  • 1979, ילדות בירושלים הישנה: פרקי הווי מימים עברו, page 148
    רק מזמן לזמן שמענו את המילים ״מזל בואינו״, מזל טוב, ״סלוד בואינה״, בריאות טובה וכוונתן לנו הקטנים, הרזים והכחושים, חולי־הקדחת, דלקת עיניים וגרענת ושאר סוגי מחלות ילדים משונות שלא הרפו מאתנו כל ימות השנה. וכשהורידו עיניהן מעל העיניים ראינו כי דומעות הן. מה נאות היו []
  • 1994, צעדים ראשונים בספרדית־יהודית, page 91:
    אורח ס״מ מוסאפ' יר בתולה, עלמה, אמה סייפי מוסה דייר ׳מ ;ם' אדג י-מ מוראדור כותל סייפי מוראייה מוסר השכל ס״מ מוראל גר (לגור) ביאינ מוראר שעוונית סייפי מ ושאמה מזל-טוב מזל בואינו תאומים סמ״פ מידייוס \ בוג״וקיס רפואה, תורת הרפואה סייפי מידיקיריאה חודש ס״מ מיז []
  • 2005, נונה פלור, page 24:
    ״סנה אי רדה קסטם, מזל בואינו אי אלטו קי טנגס איג׳יקה מיה״(שתהיי בריאה וחזקה, ושיהיה לך מזל טוב), בירכה אותה אמה, כאשר פלור נשקה בחום את ידה. גם רשליקה קיבלה את אותן ברכות מאביה ומאמה, למרות גילה הצעיר. ברכה זו הייתה חשובה לכל אם ספרדייה, מאז ועד היום.

- -sche (discuss) 20:45, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

@-sche: I hate to burst your bubble, but all those are actually Hebrew. The first two are quoting the Ladino phrase, the third is a Hebrew-Ladino glossary, and the fourth has quotes a full sentence of Ladino, but not in real Ladino orthography. The longest quote in the Google Books results is (also from a Hebrew book):
  • 1934 קרית ספר: רבעון ביבליוגרפי של בית הספרים הלאומי והאוניברסיטאי בירושלים (Book City: A Bibliographic Quarterly of the National and University Library in Jerusalem)
    שלום עליכם. פארה מזל בואינו אי סיירטאס נוטאס סוב׳רי שלום עליכם ריקוז׳ידאס פור י.פ׳. [יצחק דוד פלורינטין].
    Translation to Spanish for convenience: Sholem Aleichem: para mazal bueno y ciertas notas sobre Sholem Aleichem recogidas por Y.F. [Yitzchak David Florentín].
    Sholem Aleichem: For good luck and true notes about Sholem Aleichem collected by Y.F. [Yitzchak David Florentine]. (My translation likely contains errors.)
It seems to be the title and subtitle of a Ladino book about the Yiddish writer Sholem Aleichem kept in the library in question. Ladino unfortunately does have very good resources available on Google Books. --WikiTiki89 22:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
No need to apologize for bubble-bursting; thank you for identifying the issue with the language of the citations. One mention is sufficient to attest Ladino, though, isn't it? If we regard the phrase as idiomatic (it looks like just good + luck).
Do you mean it's also the title of a book, or that all the instances are of it as the title of one book?
- -sche (discuss) 02:00, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
I meant that the entire quote that I provided is the title of a book. Although, it does seem that "מזל בואינו" within it may simply be referring to a book by Sholem Aleichem called מזל טובֿ ‎(mazl tov). As far as it being SOP, maybe it is in the literal sense, but from what I know, it was also used as a greeting. --WikiTiki89 02:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
To clarify one more thing, the first two quotations -sche posted are exactly the same text, but do in fact mention this phrase as a sort of greeting. Here's a translation from the Hebrew (some context was missing because I can not get Google Books to show me any of the preceding text): "Only from time to time we heard the words "mazal bueno", good luck, "salud buena", good health, and their wishes for us, the small, thin, gaunt, sick from malaria, pinkeye and trachoma and other types of various children's illnesses that would not stop bothering us every day of the year. And when they lowered their eyes, from the eyes we saw they they were crying. How proper were [] " --WikiTiki89 16:16, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

מאזאל בוהנו[edit]

added per the above discussions - -sche (discuss) 17:37, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

מאזאל בוהנו fails RFV. The other spelling seems to be attestable. - -sche (discuss) 20:45, 19 November 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)


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 [9] and one related to moral philosophy [10]. —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)

July 2015[edit]


... — 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)


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)

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: [11]. The term also gained usage in non-academic circles, with results on Google Images being indicative of this: [12]. Morgengave (talk) 19:07, 5 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)


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)

Yeah, I made dogged up, all dogged up when I was looking it up, didn't find any real good citations of the general verb dog up though. WurdSnatcher (talk) 17:36, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
The example sentence seems to use 'be dogged up' rather than an intransitive verb 'dog up', which would be more like "why are you dogging up in the middle of the room" (as opposed to being dogged up). Renard Migrant (talk) 20:54, 14 September 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)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 17:41, 31 October 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)
I've made the changes I and Mr Granger discussed above. - -sche (discuss) 06:57, 16 September 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)

As to the dative singular forms ending with -e I′ll quote in the following from a dictionary on the correct usage of German (“Duden, Richtiges und gutes Deutsch”):
„Die Endung -e im Dativ Singular starker Maskulina und Neutra ([…]) ist nicht mehr erforderlich und wird auch nur selten gesetzt. In festen Redewendungen und formelhaften Verbindungen hat sie sich noch ziemlich fest gehalten: im Grunde genommen, zu Pferde sitzen, zu Kreuze kriechen, im Zuge sein, zu Buche schlagen u. Ä. Fast immer ohne -e stehen Substantive, die auf Diphthong enden (dem Bau, dem Ei), und mehrsilbige Substantive, die nicht auf der letzten Silbe betont werden (dem Frühling, dem Ausflug). Immer ohne -e stehen Substantive auf -en, -em, -el, -er (dem Garten, dem Atem, dem Gürtel, dem Lehrer), Substantive, die auf Vokal enden (dem Hurra, dem Schnee), die Kurzformen der Himmelsrichtungen und der danach benannten Winde (von Nord nach Süd, vom West getrieben), Stoffsubstantive, die ohne Artikel stehen und von einer Präposition abhängen (aus Holz, in Öl), und stark flektierte Fremdwörter (dem Hotel). In den übrigen Fällen, in denen das -e fakultativ ist, hängt seine Setzung vom Satzrhythmus bzw. vom rhythmischen Gefühl des Schreibers oder Sprechers ab: dem Kind[e], im Haus[e], in seinem Sinn[e], auf demselben Weg[e], auf dem Land[e], im Raum[e].“(Dudenredaktion, unter Mitwirkung von Peter Eisenberg und Jan Georg Schneider (ed.): Duden, Richtiges und gutes Deutsch. Das Wörterbuch der sprachlichen Zweifelsfälle. In: Der Duden in zwölf Bänden. volume 9, 7th, completely revised edition, Dudenverlag, Mannheim 2011, ISBN 978-3-411-04144-2 (CD-ROM-edition), headword »Dativ-e«.)
“The ending -e in the dative singular [form] of strong masculine and strong neuter nouns ([…]) is not required anymore and is only used rarely. In fixed idioms and formulaic collocations it is still being used: [examples] etc. Nouns ending with a diphthong ([examples]) and polysyllabic nouns that are not stressed on the last syllable ([examples]) almost always do not take a dative singular -e. Nouns ending with -en, -em, -el, -er ([examples]), nouns ending with a vowel ([examples]), short forms of nouns indicating directions and of nouns of the winds named after them ([examples]), nouns denoting materials that are used without article and that depend on a preposition ([examples]), and strong declined borrowed words ([example]) always do not take a dative singular -e. In the remaining cases in which the dative singular -e is optional, the putting [of the -e] depend on the phrasal rhythm and the writer′s or speaker′s rhythmical sense, respectively: [examples].”
So to mark such forms as “archaic” in general is a bit misleading since it strictly depends on the noun whether it can take an -e or not. The form -buche in this specific case is allowed according to the official regulations above-mentioned. — Best wishes, Caligari ƆɐƀïиϠ 17:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
"Allowed", yes, but "almost always without -e" since Wikiwörterbuch is a polysyllabic noun that is not stressed on the last syllable, like Frühling or Ausflug. And if this form, which even "by the rules" is hardly expected to exist, is also unattested in actual usage, it should be deleted. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi Aɴɢʀ, thanks. Okay, a deletion is fine with me. Since I'm not familiar with this wiktionary, can you tell me where the best place is to ask for corrections in the German declination/conjugation templates? On each talk page of the template or in the Beer parlour or elsewhere? As I mentioned above, marking the dative singular -e as generally "archaic" is misleading. That need to be changed. I found also some other issues that I would like to address with regards to these templates. — Best wishes, Caligari ƆɐƀïиϠ 14:54, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd say the Beer parlor at first, since the talk pages of the templates may not be being watched by everyone interested in the issue. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. — Caligari ƆɐƀïиϠ 15:36, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

So Wikiwörterbuch needs a clean-up, as it still mentions dative singular "dem Wikiwörterbuche".
Maybe the declension template should be changed, getting a parameter like "dat-sg" with options like "only without e" (short maybe -e), "with e" (short maybe +e), "with e, but uncommon nowadays" (short maybe +eu or simply e).


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

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


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)
Merged senses 2 and 3 (fear of giving birth to a malformed child and to a monster) since "monster" is the obsolete medical term for a malformed child; it's the same thing. Equinox 21:49, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Tiny Tim[edit]

Discussion moved to WT:RFD.


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)


  • 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)

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

five second rule[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 [[13]], [[14]], and [[15]] Kiwima (talk) 21:04, 29 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)


Discussion moved to WT:ES.


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)

RFV failed. Entry deleted. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Doněcká lidová republika[edit]

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

RFV failed. Entry deleted. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Volksrepubliek Donetsk[edit]

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

RFV failed. Entry deleted. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:48, 17 September 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)
@Smurrayinchester: Thank you. The La Presse and Le Monde citations both look good to me, so I've added them to Citations:République populaire de Donetsk; however, the La Dépêche article has « En fin de matinée, barricadés dans les locaux de l’administration, les séparatistes ont proclamé sous les vivats une “république populaire de Donetsk”, comme le montre une. » (“…the separatists proclaimed to cheers a ‘people’s republic of Donetsk’…”, emboldenment my emphasis), which is a common, rather than a proper, noun. We need one more citation, dating from the 17th of July 2014 or before.
I don't doubt that these languages each have at least one name for the Donetsk People’s Republic; however, in the same way that there is no grammatical reason why the English name could not be “the People’s Republic of Donetsk”, there may be no reason to assume that the prevailing names in these languages are as given. For example, it would be quite plausible for the French name to be « la République populaire donetskaise » or even « la République du peuple de Donetsk » or « la République des Donetskois ». That is why it is necessary to look at actual usage and to gather quotations. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Volksrepublik Donezk[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)

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

Λαϊκή Δημοκρατία του Ντονέτσκ[edit]

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

RFV failed. Entry deleted. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Repubblica Popolare di Doneck[edit]

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

RFV failed. Entry deleted. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Doniecka Republika Ludowa[edit]

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

RFV failed. Entry deleted. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Донецкая Народная Республика[edit]

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

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

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

Донецька народна республіка[edit]

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

RFV failed. Entry deleted. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:48, 17 September 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)

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)



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 [16]. 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: [17]. 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.


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. —This comment was unsigned.
Keep I don't see it satisfying WT:BRAND for many other products you have on Wiktionary. —This comment was unsigned.

I can't find citations in the requested language and capitalization, but:

  • 2012, Emylia Hall, The Book of Summers, page 168:
    "I'll get some traubisoda and one of those cherry cakes, and you can wish him happy birthday and show him the villa. He's never been inside, you know."

There are also some German citations on Google Books. - -sche (discuss) 21:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)


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)
A third citation to finish it up: »U ponovnom profiliranju revolucije 1948 — 1952, krležijanstvo se zaštitno akademiziralo, enciklopediziralo, strateški (iz ljudski razumljivih razloga) izdalo samo sebi zlatnu povelju liberalno humanističkih zasluga za narod i njegove vjekove.« (»In the renewed profiling of the revolution of 1948-1952, Krležianism was defensively academicized, encyclopedified, strategically (out of humanly understandable reasons) given by itself a golden charter of liberal humanist merits for the people and their aeons.«) Popović, Bruno. Tema krležiana: monografska rasprava, 1982, p.248.
Cited with the second book offered: diff --biblbroksдискашн 19:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

August 2015[edit]


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)
Read some of these pages and it will be clear to you.


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)

As a side note, is there any reason to use "humankind" in this definition and lidstvo? As a native English speaker, I find it has an awkward, standoffishly political feel to it that humanity doesn't, even while humanity avoids the gender issues that mankind summons up? My edits to humankind summarize some of the issue.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Bare "humanity" is ambiguous since "humanity" can also mean "the quality of being benevolent", but "mankind" is also polysemous and has gender issues, as you note. What about translating the terms as "humanity (the human race)"? (Btw, I don't find anything unusual about "humankind", and judging from Google, plenty of native English speakers use it, e.g. it's the title of a PBS documentary on humans.) - -sche (discuss) 21:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Humankind is rarer then mankind; looking at the N-grams, it never hit half of mankind's usage, and mankind is on an upswing (as of latest data in 2008) and humankind is on a slight downturn. (I'd compare it to chairperson versus chairman, where chairperson has been stable for a couple decades, and chairman has dropped a lot (presumably to unmeasurable chair), but not for chairperson.) humankind seems more common, and it strikes me as less artificial, when it's talking about humans, Homo sapiens, and not people. E.g. "Humankind first arose on the planet 200,000 years ago" and not "I want to buy humankind a Coke!".
Yes, "humanity (the human race)" sounds great.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't know any reason why "humankind" should be used in the definition instead of "mankind" or "humanity", and defer to native English speakers for what sounds most native and natural. It might be more appropriate for the purposes of translation to define the 2nd sense thus: "man (mankind; humanity)", to emphasize that "man" is probably the most suitable translation for this sense.
The sense seems to exist as a separate one, as in "člověk je mírou všech věcí" (man is the measure of all things) or "člověk míní, pánbůh mění" (man proposes, God disposes). It seems to be the sense of "man" defined in en:wikt man as "All humans collectively: mankind, humankind, humanity" and exemplified by "Whether modern, industrial man is less or more warlike than his hunter-gatherer ancestors is impossible to determine". The same distinction applied to word "man" is in Merriam-Webster between 1a and 1b[18]. Therefore, I do not think that the distinction between the uses of "člověk" in "támhle jde nějaký člověk" and "člověk je mírou všech věcí" should be abolished as separate senses. I also checked Mensch in Duden; they seem to have the mankind sense or some such as sense 1, and the sense referring to an individual as sense 2. Czech dictionaries PSJC and SSJC (now in člověk) do not seem to draw this distinction, but that seems to be a matter of a different lexicographical tradition more than anything else. I do not think there is anything to attest; the uses like "člověk je mírou všech věcí" are in widespread use. The question is whether to draw the distinction in the various manners of usage the way the English dictionaries tend to. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:17, 3 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)

I went ahead and made it an "alternative spelling" of banjolele, same with banjo ukulele and banjo uke. I don't particularly care which one is considered the main form, if someone wants to change it go ahead. I did find one use of the spelling banjo ukelele so that's fine IMHO, I'm not sure it would meet CFI but it was the main page for years, I'd rather not get rid of it as there could be links to it. And ukulele is a weird word that no one ever spells right. WurdSnatcher (talk) 14:06, 20 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 "geek chic". Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree. Not sure about slangy "cool" within a definition line, either. Equinox 18:48, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
The use of geek chic to mean the social desirability of geek culture is definitely attestable:
  • 2010, Vicky Oliver, 301 Smart Answers to Tough Business Etiquette Questions, ISBN 1616081414, page 196:
    Do you want to sound like you're on the cutting edge of geek chic? Of course you do! There's no reason for Geek to sound like Greek anymore.
  • 2014, Aeriell Lawton, Killer Cure, ISBN 1304721493:
    He was a new breed of scientist and/or technology developer. That Rite likes to think of as (geek chic). This was the age of humanity. When the power of a man's brains were worth more than the power of his muscles and Rite could tell Brian Fillmore was taking full advantage of his newfound affluence, because although Rite was still very sure that Mr. Fillmore was holding on very tightly to his hard-core geek status.
  • 2014, Rhonda Wilcox, ‎Tanya R. Cochran, ‎Cynthea Masson, Reading Joss Whedon -, ISBN 0815610386, page 463:
    In an age when geek chic has come to define mainstream pop culture, fevv writers and producers inspire more admiration and response than Joss Whedon.
Also with a hyphen:
  • 1999, Guy Maddin, From the Atelier Tovar: Selected Writings of Guy Maddin, ISBN 1552451313, page 112:
    Ghost World's anagrammatically named Enid Coleslaw (Thora Birch) is a proud geek-chic teenager who fiercely fends off conformity in her generic American city by posturing herself through a series of arcane fasion and music tastes, and by deriding anyone who falls to match her genious for creating an outre persona.
  • 2009, Brian Scott Mathews, Marketing Today's Academic Library, ISBN 0838909841:
    The name of our department was to become Distribution Marketing, a decidedly unsexy label that seemed to lack the geek-chic of my prior roles.
  • 2010, Elizabeth Hazel Paulson, 98 Ways to Find a Great Guy, ISBN 1602399425, page 40:
    If you're looking for an IT man with an untouched bank account and a great big basement in his parents' house, and you don't mind if he sometimes wears a cape, Comic-Con is your geek-chic paradise.
Although I agree, with Equinox, that the definition is too slangy. I have not found anything yet to support the meaning of social desirability of gadgets. Kiwima (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense of two senses:

  1. "Contraction of ne mote ‎(“may not”)."
  2. "To butt; to push with the horns."

The English Dialect Dictionary, which sometimes has helpful pointers to uses, only has one citation (useless to us) of another dictionary for "push or gore with the horns". Btw, I also just removed some senses which failed RFV twice and yet were re-added twice without sufficient citations. - -sche (discuss) 01:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I found one usable citation for the meaning to butt or push with the horns: [[19]].


Protologism? SemperBlotto (talk) 07:58, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I can find a lot of hits on Google news. For example [[20]], [[21]], [[22]], and [[23]]. Kiwima (talk) 05:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


- -sche (discuss) 02:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

The OED (which, incidentally, this entry is a copyvio of) gives only one ModE supporting quotation, and the actual spelling used there is health, which may need an additional sense if anyone besides Michael Drayton used it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:18, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
This was taken direct from Century, which is public Leasnam (talk) 15:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Hathi has a scan of this page in the OED; it was published 1901, so it's PD in the US, and the editor was w:James Murray (lexicographer), so it's likely PD in the UK, though life+n on a work like a dictionary can bite.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:21, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


Tamil. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Lolol (Mapudungun)[edit]

Curiously, the Mapudungun section was overlooked (the other L2's that I couldn't cite were tagged a while ago). If anybody comes up with Mapudungun resources, #Pichilemu also has a Mapudungun section undergoing RFV. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:24, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


Not suspect in and of itself, but contributed by a user who knows no Akan and often violated CFI. I can't find an Akan dictionary at the moment that includes an entry for "geography" (and since Akan is a macrolanguage, I'm not sure what exactly to look for), but I can try to find a physical one later if nobody else figures this out. An easily retrieved online Twi dictionary gives asasesɛm, for what it's worth. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


farrand (and the other spellings)[edit]

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

    • 1756, William Hamilton, A New Edition of the Life and Heroick Actions of the renoun'd Sir William Wallace, etc.:
      Likely he was, right fair and well farrand, Manly and stout, [...] Leasnam (talk) 18:25, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
  • It's easy to cite as an adjective in Scots, especially in the phrase "auld-farrand" ("sagacious, prudent", according to Jamieson's Dictionary of the Scottish Language):
    1603, Robert Chateris, Scotish Poems: The three tailes of the three priests of Peblis. The palice of honour. Squire Meldrum, page 5
    Syne in ane hal, ful fair farrand, He ludgit al the Lords of his Land.
    1820, Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine, page 659
    Od but she'll find he'll lead her an auld-farrand hallowmass rade
    1822, John Scott, John Taylor, The London Magazine, page 10
    But as I was saying, mony a happy night have I spent at the hearth of Lyddalcross  ; but for every night of howff and shelter have I rewarded him with some cannie auld-farrand tale.
    1897, Lord Ernest Hamilton, The Outlaws of the Marches
    (Scottish English?) You appear to doubt me, friend; but see to it that you yourself can show a clean record, for an I find aught against you, by my faith you shall swing as high as any, for all you 're so big and weel-farrand.
    (Definitely Scots) No but what she 's weel enough, though maybe just a wee thingie pauchty and dry-farrand, but t' ither yin!
No really English looking hits. I can't find any evidence for it being used in Newcastle in the last 150 years, so even if it did exist in England at some point, "Geordie" is the wrong term anyway. Changed that to Northumberland. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:13, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
  1. 1660, Dickson, Writings:
    • A sore matter for a sinner to be corrected, and yet to go light-farrand under it. Leasnam (talk) 15:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


From what I was able to research, this is a list-only word. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:02, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


All the hits I find are from dictionaries --A230rjfowe (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


After 9 years without being editted, I reckon this is just found in dictionaries --A230rjfowe (talk) 21:23, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


google books:"beeld|beelds of" turns up only Dutch; "a beeld" turns up only mentions of the "bield / shelter" sense, with one exception: the citation you can see at google books:"thou art but a beeld". google books:"no beeld" turns up a use of "'Why no' beeld a new hoose here" where it's Orkney (eye?) dialect for "build". - -sche (discuss) 06:10, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


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


Slovak. Is this real? --DPMaid (talk) 09:59, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


Slovak. Is this real? kábel is real. --DPMaid (talk) 10:15, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


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


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


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


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

have fun[edit]


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

It was a good faith addition by User:Tedius Zanarukando, but I agree that the sense belongs (if anywhere) to the full phrase he had in mind, not to the "have fun" entry. The words can be used as a euphemism, of course, but so can "enjoy yourself". Dbfirs 13:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I've never, ever understood "blondes have more fun" to mean "blondes attract the opposite sex more". Just looks like a total error. Can't hurt to give it 30 days I suppose. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I thought it meant that; you know, Gentlemen Prefer Blondes and all. What do you think it means? Equinox 02:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it just means blondes enjoy themselves more. Even if sense 2 does belong (and I don't think it does), it needs to be rewritten so as not to be heteronormative: some of us prefer having fun with the same sex. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 05:14, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


Slovak. Probably does not meet WT:ATTEST. --DPMaid (talk) 08:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


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

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


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

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


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

sexos orales[edit]

Spanish plural. Not many hits. A few more with SafeSearch turned off, however I didn't dare look at most of them. --A230rjfowe (talk) 19:58, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


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


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


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

  • Commonly in use as a nonce word, but I can't see any evidence of a consistent meaning:
One hit meaning "belief that humanity may become like a god"
I believe someone (God) already exists who has figured it out, and just needs humanity's cooperation. You don't think that someone yet exists, but you do think that because we "are an ingenious species" that maybe "we'll find a way out" on our own.I am what I call a general theist. You are on the verges of what I call pretheism.
One hit that seems to have something to do with messianism:
Check up pretheism, they have some good arguments
One hit meaning "beliefs of the pre-religious era"
The same goes for a hypothetical prereligious era, which should, perhaps, rather be referred to as pretheism (or pre-animism even, since animism is often seen as an older, sometimes pretheistic type of religion).
One hit meaning "belief that god is thought rather than being":
This schema also and at once illustrates the division of the Hegelian theism of absolute self-consciousness into the atheism of Sartre (for whom the idea of God is significantly the unrealizable human value) and the pretheism of Levinas (for whom the idea of God contests itself in the form of the thinking otherwise than being)
(Although in the text, there is a hyphened linebreak in pre-theism, the index shows that this is a single word)
pre-theism gets a few more hits, but still nothing relevant or consistent. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:03, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
  • I note that pretheistic is well enough attested, referring to a point in society preceding the development of theism (see, e.g. 1997, Sarah C. Humphreys, Cultures of Scholarship, page 69: "Though not jeopardizing the human status of its practitioners, however, the lowest, dream-related form of animism was categorically pretheistic in Tylor's scheme, merely furnishing the ground upon which gods would later develop". bd2412 T 14:29, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
    • But that's not how it's now framed. There ought to be a posttheism/pretheism comparative pair, instead of what is presently there. Pandeist (talk) 05:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

gaddi kutta[edit]

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

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

lagerene, lagerenes[edit]

These are not accepted forms of lager in Danish. See DDO [24], [25]. Moved from RFC. Donnanz (talk) 08:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Then how do you explain google books:"lagerene"? Is that a different language? (Same for google books:"bestilledes" for the section below.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:14, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
After looking at those sources I would discount most of them, hardly any for lagerene are in Danish (some are Norwegian actually), and for bestilledes they seem to be rather ancient. You would be better off doing research on Google Danmark IMO. As they are not accepted current spellings in Danish, Bokmål or Nynorsk, they could be misspellings, a problem I come across all the time when researching Norwegian words on Google Norge. Donnanz (talk) 09:20, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Old spellings are still acceptable when marked as such. "All words in all languages". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
So you've got an old Danish dictionary tucked away in your library somewhere? I found some evidence to support your theory in the Historisk Ordbog 1700-1950 for bestille [26], but it's unhelpful for lager, only giving the indefinite plural [27]. As for passive forms of verbs such as bestille, dictionaries don't usually list them and they have to be checked individually for actual usage. Donnanz (talk) 12:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
On second thoughts, bestillede may have been just the (optional) simple past form, with the past participle being bestillet, in line with usual practice. Compare with bestilte and bestilt. Donnanz (talk) 13:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
You just claimed it was an old spelling, I'd imagine Metaknowledge assumed you were telling the truth. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I assume Metaknowledge is quite capable of reaching his own conclusions. Donnanz (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
@Donnanz: RFV is evidence-based, not dictionary-based. It is based on WT:ATTEST. We don't go by dictionaries, except for less documented languages (LDL); we go by actual use that we can find. Dictionaries are not evidence; your finding a would-be word in an Ordbog is not finding evidence. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
In a case like this I feel that all evidence should be taken into account. If you don't accept it that's fine by me, and you are quite welcome to carry out your own research. Donnanz (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

bestillede, bestilledes[edit]

These are incorrect forms of bestille in Danish. See DDO [28]. Moved from RFC. Donnanz (talk) 08:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Note to closer: See discussion above. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

milk factory[edit]

Really? SemperBlotto (talk) 13:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

[29] [30] (spam) [31] [32] [33]

[34] [35] --Romanophile (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

So, have you decided, yet? What’s it going to be? --Romanophile (talk) 13:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like an amusing but fairly transparent metaphor. I can't help thinking they would both pass RFD if nominated as they don't meet the requirement to be unidiomatic of "its full meaning cannot be easily derived from the meaning of its separate components." Renard Migrant (talk) 16:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


Were pineapples grown in Europe at the time Old Italian was spoken? DTLHS (talk) 20:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

What is Old Italian? Seriously, it doesn't have ISO 639-2 code (apparently treated as part of Italian (it)), so there's no standard for when Old Italian was spoken. Unless others think we need an Old Italian language here, it should be merged to Italian and RFVed based on that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
The only definition of Old Italian I could find was our own mainspace dictionary definition of it (Old Italian), which I copied to WT:About Old Italian. - -sche (discuss) 18:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
That seems idiosyncratic; I was under the impression that we used languages as defined by ISO 639-3 codes unless there was a clear consensus otherwise. It also seems pretty late; Dante is generally consider the birth of modern Italian.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:01, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
It's apparently attestable in modern Italian; http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=coo.31924000340749;view=1up;seq=31 is a 1915 cite and http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?field1=ocr;q1=ananasso;a=srchls comes up with scores of hits in Italian documents that look on topic. I hate to try and cite in a language I know nothing of, but it seems like a pretty easy pass as an Italian word.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Pineapples wouldn't have needed to be grown in Italy, only known there, but even that does seem to be a stretch. English use of pineapple in reference to pineapples (rather than in reference to pine cones) is said to date from the mid 1600s. If it entered Italian around the same time, it postdates the end of Old Italian. - -sche (discuss) 18:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
@GianWiki Do you have any references for this, or for the Old Italian language in general? DTLHS (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
It really is best to discuss introducing new languages without an ISO 639 code before doing it. We do need a reason to cut off Old Italian from Italian, and have criteria to tell one from the other. We do have Old Portuguese of course, which is analogous because it doesn't have an ISO 639 code. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
I would prefer that ==Italian== be the language, but with an "obsolete" label. Dante is certainly known as the father of modern Italian, but most native Italians have a real struggle to read his text. For an English comparison, it is easier than Chaucer, but more difficult than Shakespeare. And I'm not convinced that he was writing in Italian, just the Tuscan dialect that turned into modern Italian. (My Italian teacher once said that we should aim at "la lingua toscana in bocca romana" - the Tuscan language with a Roman accent), SemperBlotto (talk) 07:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
There's a discussion at Wiktionary:Requests_for_moves,_mergers_and_splits#Category:Old_Italian_language. Easier than basically the easiest major Middle English author, and harder then the earliest major Modern English author; that's basically saying if we used the same standards we do for English, he would be right on the line.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:27, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
RFV-failed. The general discussion of whether or not to have "Old Italian" continues on WT:RFM. - -sche (discuss) 08:49, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:26, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

It has three quotations now. Yurivict (talk) 10:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Evidently a joky word: glossed as rare and humorous. Do the citations pass use-mention distinction? Equinox 17:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't pass CFI. Two of the citations added by Yurivict are not CFI-compliant. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
It does pass CFI, just barely. Turns out there was a single viable Usenet citation to be had and a thesis buried on page 12 of the Google results. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
The following quotation in the entry seems to be a mention: "Maritodespotism is the domination of the husband over the wife". --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Technically, it's a use, since it's still conveying meaning, however thinly. A mention would be "maritodespotism is derived from Latin" or "maritodespotism is a really pretentious word." -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 05:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Dan Polansky—the word does not seem to be conveying meaning, as the sentence is just a definition. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 13:24, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


Albanian, per Talk:droe. — Ungoliant (falai) 23:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense for second definition "pleasure" -- it's listed in the Unihan database but I can't find any other reputable online source that has this definition (plus my attempt at reading the KangXi dictionary entry using Google Translate). Bumm13 (talk) 04:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete. It probably refers to 花柳 or 花街柳巷, but it is not a sense of . — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


"An enormously congested city." Just sounds suspicious! Equinox 02:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

  • No, it is just a metaphor - see The Great Wen.
    Is it ever used outside that one fixed phrase? Equinox 21:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


"Kiks", as a noun, is claimed to mean "miss". I have never heard this used and I can't find any citations. Maybe whoever wrote this had kikser in mind?__Gamren (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Miss has some quite different definitions too. A young woman and a failure to hit. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:05, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Which is precisely why I didn't delete it immediately; maybe I just don't understand what this editor meant. __Gamren (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

law of the tongue[edit]

Rfv-sense of the agreement between orcas and whalers. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

This is fucking hilarious. Surely not between orcas and whalers but whalers and someone else (i.e. someone human). How can whales invite people on whale hunt, and why? Do foxes invite people on fox hunts? Renard Migrant (talk) 18:03, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The idea is that the orcas and the whalers in effect cooperatively hunt big whales. There is a theory that wolves evolved into dogs as a result of cooperative hunting with humans, though I prefer the theory that the development occurred as a result of wolves scavenging at middens around human settlements. DCDuring TALK 18:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
It would almost certainly be attestable from Google Scholar, but it seems encyclopedic to me. DCDuring TALK 18:49, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
I've added some citations - although I agree with @DCDuring that it seems encyclopedic. Perhaps this should be moved to requests for deletion instead. Kiwima (talk) 21:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
From the quotes it seems this "agreement" is more folkloric than scientific, but that doesn't make it less includable. Surely it can be worded to be more dictionarian and less encyclopedic. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:03, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Nobody expects a reader or hearer to understand this English term without an explanation, as the citations show. Maybe in a Maori language it functions more like a true component of a language. DCDuring TALK 12:55, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Not Maori - we're talking Australian Aborigines here. An entirely different ethnic group (just to be a pedant here) Kiwima (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
My mistake. DCDuring TALK 00:01, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
  • @Kiwima: To me, most of those citations look more like mentions than uses, for the most part, although I'd appreciate if others would judge as well. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:57, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree. All four look like mentions to me. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 17:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I've never been entirely comfortable with the mention vs. use distinction. It seems to me that the idea behind that rule is that we want to avoid the "dictionary only" type of words, that are defined but not actually used. In all of the citations I added, the phrase was introduced in a mention-type way, but it was in order to use it to describe something the author was talking about -- more of a gray area in my book. Still, I am not someone who is involved in setting up the rules, so I am quite willing for the group to decide. I am merely providing the citations I find.Kiwima (talk) 20:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
In thinking about this one, I agree that it doesn't really belong in Wiktionary - but not because of attestability. I think it doesn't belong because it is the sort of thing that belongs in an encyclopedia rather than a dictionary. The usage "law of the tongue" is WAY too local to belong in a dictionary. Wrangling about "use" vs. "mention" can be such a gray area - there are quotes that are clearly use, quotes that are clearly mention, and a whole lot that are a judgement call. Kiwima (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


Equinox 13:04, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

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

queen knight pawn[edit]

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

There are hits also for "queen knight pawn" if you filter out the apostrophe versions: [36] --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
It should be renamed to queen's knight's pawn, which is much more common anyway. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


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

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

It refers to the cosmological notion. The existence of other multiverses suggest that the "our" is not defaulty. 21:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Seems stupid. But we seem to have the same problem with universe, Universe. Defining any X as "our X!" is silly. Equinox 01:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
This is tosh, possible even "Tosh" (as it's our tosh). Delete. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Delete. Dbfirs 08:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I have no objection to defining "Universe" as "our universe", since that usage and meaning is well-attested. In various parallel universes, my user name is Choor niceguy or Choor kelpie or Choor chupacabra or Чур монстр, but in our universe, the one where you're reading what I've typed here, it's the name down in my sig. Regarding capital-M "Multiverse", I have never seen that used outside of titles and comics, and need convincing, because off-hand, the "our" doesn't make sense, being redundant. (It's entirely possible that "multiverse" is not an "omniverse" in some usages, so to speak, I have not followed this closely.) And again, regarding the comics usage, that needs to pass WT:FICTION, which is why we don't have Watcher, but WP does have Watcher. Choor monster (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: I've done some looking around, and have found only one "Multiverse" outside the comics [37]. I found this high-level reference Universe or Multiverse?: the contributors use "multiverse" exclusively. And Tom Holt, in his last four novels, uses "multiverse" exclusively. Choor monster (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • A dynamic model of the wormhole and the Multiverse model
    Superposing enough dust matter, a magnetic field, and a Λ term can produce a static solution, which turns out to be a spherical Multiverse model with an infinite number of wormhole-connected spherical universes. (abstract)
    This Multiverse landscape of solutions, which we shall refer to as the /F-SU(5)/-Landscape, accommodates a subset of universes compatible with the presently known experimental uncertainties of our own universe. (abstract)
  • CiteSeerX
    End users encapsulate tasks for the crowd in VMs that are then replicated on the Multiverse server and controlled by crowd workers via a web-based VNC connection. (abstract, probably proper noun use unfortunately, using Multiverse to name a system of operating system(s) and software.)
  • Ghost spinors, shadow electrons and the Deutsch Multiverse
    So and David Deutsch [1] makes an attempt logically to explain the phenomenon of an inter- ference of quantum particles and comes to a conclusion about existence of the parallel worlds, in all set representing Multiverse [1]. (pdf of article)
  • The theory of Multiverse, multiplicity of physical objects and physical constants
    Correct description of the Multiverse can be done only within the framework of the quantum theory. (pdf of article)
Amgine/ t·e 19:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Item 3 is a proper noun, as you note, so of no relevance here. (Google "multiverse crowd algorithms" if you want more specifics.) None of the others refer to the "our multiverse" definition, but are merely a capitalized "multiverse". We normally don't include separate entries for terms that sometimes or even often get capitalized (we have general relativity but not General Relativity). Note too that the fourth and fifth items are non-native speakers (and colleagues). Choor monster (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Multiverse as a proper noun is a well-established cosmological concept. It refers to the multiverse in which our Universe is located. Whether or not more than one multiverse can exist though (and would thus necessitate capitalization to distinguish from other multiverses) is a tetchy subject since the multiverse exists outside of our spacetime. However, the capitalized form should still be kept since it refers to a specific place, even if that place is unique (and outside of "placeable" space). Multiverse (capitalized) refers to the specific location of our Universe, whereas multiverse (uncapitalized) refers to the concept of multiple universes. Nicole Sharp (talk) 05:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
    • This is why I placed the RfV in the first place. What usages of "Multiverse" can somebody cite where distinguishing "our" (hypothetical) multiverse from all the other (hypothetical) multiverses is part of the writing? I only get the impression that some people like capital-M, some do not. Choor monster (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

speech is silver[edit]

Rfv-sense: "speech is valuable"

I have always met this phrase only as a part of the proverb "speech is silver, silence is golden", never separately with the meaning "speech is valuable". Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

I see some citations independent of the entire phrase, but they are invariably referencing it in some way. I would redirect to the full proverb. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
OK, I agree with the redirect. If there are no objections, I will do it soon. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


English. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:19, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment: with the removal of "well-known work" as part of CFI, more than just nonce words are to be arnosacrificated. Choor monster (talk) 15:35, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
    Does this occur in a well-known work? — Ungoliant (falai) 15:41, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
    See the citation. I personally consider all of Pynchon "well-known", but I'm presumably in the minority there. When I added princessipality, I did so confident that the one Pynchon citation was sufficient, the others I found were bonuses. I'll point out his WP article is a level-4 vital article. (Shakespeare and Joyce are level-3.) I note that Hugo and Proust are level-4, do we RFV le mot de Cambronne? Choor monster (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
    Even if being in a single well-known were still sufficient (and it isn't), that cite would be for arnophilia, not for the combining stem arno-. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
    Yes, when I added this I considered that ‘arnophilia’ was too rare (it's Pynchon's own coinage), but that perhaps it counted as evidence towards the prefix. Though even that seems quite uncommon. There are some web hits for ‘arnophobia’, ‘arnomorphic’ and similar one-offs, but perhaps nothing durably archived. Still, it seems a shame to remove what appears to be helpful information. Ƿidsiþ 07:46, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
    The web hits I got were actually for carno- or plain old scannos. Choor monster (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
    I've never heard of Pynchon and if it's 2006 it's not like I wasn't born or anything. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:02, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Even the Pynchon citation is very mentiony, immediately followed by a definition, comparable to a lot of "phobia" citations that are just long-form wordlists. - -sche (discuss) 07:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any such comparison. Pynchon's is a fairly standard use and mention, making good sense if the definition part is omitted and you know the coinage. The wordlists with definitions are nothing but mention. Choor monster (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I think three once-attested nonce words using arno- should be sufficient to attest that it has been or is productive and is included, though it may merit rare and literary labels. DCDuring TALK 15:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with that. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


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

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

rosqueta da parafuseta[edit]

Ungoliant (falai) 15:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

rosqueta da parafuseta[edit]

Ungoliant (falai) 15:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

mola da grampola[edit]

Ungoliant (falai) 15:11, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


"With regard to paranoia." Equinox 00:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


Does this meet WT:ATTEST? The entry now has two quotations, of which "2008, Author: penfold" is not in permanently recorded media. Searches: google books:"drivellous", google groups:"drivellous", drivellous at OneLook Dictionary Search. Oops; the Usenet search suggests it is attested, but is the definition accurate? For instance, "your argument is drivellous" does not suggest "your argument is talkative" to me but rather "your argument is very bad", of or pertaining to drivel--senseless talk; nonsense. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:45, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Note we have also drivelous; google books:"drivelous", google groups:"drivelous", drivelous at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
Merged into drivelous. Thanks. Yurivict (talk) 12:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)


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

Cited? -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 20:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
We could probably quibble over the individual forms (how many -ing, -ed, etc.) but I think this is a good adequate set. We should still consider the "alternative forms" at the lemma, though, e.g. "necro bump": is this a verifiable form, or just someone's arbitrary idea of a different way to write it? Equinox 23:02, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
My experience is that verb inflections and plural forms of nouns don't require individual attestation. Not unless they don't follow standard English grammatical rules. As for superficially-different alternative spellings - i.e., solid, hyphenated, spaced - I don't think there's any agreement. I've seen things pass RfV with two cites of one type and one of another (e.g., two solid, one hyphenated), but I've also seen stuff get deleted even with five cites because said cites were spread between solid, hyphenated, and spaced forms. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 23:46, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
This is a commonly-known term now. While it didn't seep through the book writing process yet, it is easily recognized, and liked by Internet forum lurkers of all kinds. Yurivict (talk) 02:45, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


One use in Google Books, three mentions in GB, Google Scholar and Usenet. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

True, plenty of hits on Google News for homoflexible, but none for homoflexibility. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).


RFV of two senses:

  • (now Ireland, Britain regional) To complain, lament.
  • (now Ireland, Britain regional) To pity; to comfort.

The hits I see mostly trace back to the same two (Middle English) works, or look like Scots ("She eddicate him weel, as if she meaned him to follow some genteel wark; but when he grew to be a big lad naething wad content him but he maun gang to sea. The mistress wadna hear tell o't, for he was the licht o' her e'e, and nae"). Others are using the "intend" sense ("and he could not think he really meaned him any ill"). But there are some very old ones I can't be sure of the meaning of, and they might be using this sense:

  • 1589 March, Carmichael against Earl of Angus, in The Decisions of the Court of Session, volume 17:
    The Earl of Angus having meaned him by a supplication, that albeit he claimed interest to the property of the lands, yet he ought not to have been prejudged in his privilege of regality, []
  • The Register of the Privy Council of Scotland (probably Scots, but it shows the transitivity/reflexiveness of the verb):
    Whairupoun the compleaner haveing meaned her selffe to the Lords of Privie Counsell

Century defines this usage as "bemoan", btw, which does seem like a more accurate gloss than "complain", "lament" or "comfort". - -sche (discuss) 03:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


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


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


Rare non-native-speaker error for "microscopically"? Equinox 16:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

In a basic Google search "microscopically" beats "microscopely" by 5000 to 1 in frequency, which makes it only twice as frequent as "microscopicallly" (3 l's). In Ngram "microscopely" is not found at all. All BGC hits are the kin of "microscope, ly..". In the quoted article both spellings are used once, in almost identical sentences. I don't know whether we have any criteria for commonness of misspelling, but this surely does not look like one to me. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:20, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


This is by an IP who's very good at coming up with new ways to get things horribly, horribly wrong, and it seems bogus, but I have no way to check.

Japanese Wikipedia and Google searches just yield the female given name 歩子 (most often read "Ayuko"). Denshi jisho just gives the name, with four readings: Ayuko, Ayumiko, Fumine, and Poko (the last of which sounds very unusual). Unless the editor can come and substantiate this somehow, it'll go. Interesting to note that w:Hoko was just edited today with this same definition, by the same IP and another IP, presumably by the same editor. Aperiarcam (talk) 02:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Yep. Same idiot, two different IPs. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Also, the sense line that points to this in the hiragana entry:


  • Idiocy extirpated. At least from these entries. Including the WP article.
I'm somewhat impressed; where does this person even get such whackadoodle nonsense? Are they just making it up, whole cloth? Are they grossly misunderstanding a reference work somewhere? It baffles me. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 04:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Would it be possible to handle this user with a filter like abuse filter 40? Take a look at it and my comments on it (respond there, to keep the workings of the filter private). - -sche (discuss) 04:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
My guess is that this started out as an incidental detail in some anime or manga story, and some random word or phrase that happened to be coincidentally associated with it. Our IP apparently misinterpreted that detail as a basic feature of Japanese culture, and the random text as the name for it in Japanese. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


Any takers? (Wikipedia link removed - no such article) SemperBlotto (talk) 07:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Àwọn Erékùṣù Fàróè[edit]

Yoruba. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: adjective. Attributive use of the noun? I can’t imagine someone saying “this programming is systems” in the same way one can say “this code is object-oriented”. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I would say it's purely a noun modifier, although it can be incorporated into adjectives such as systems-related. Can it be moved to system, or delete the adjective heading and place under the noun plural entry? Donnanz (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Just put "sometimes attributive" on the existing plural noun. Equinox 16:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's the right way to handle it. Actually, the singular could also be used attributively, but there's a long, long, long list of nouns for which this is true. -- · (talk) 17:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Well all English nouns can be used attributively, with no exceptions! So all of Category:English nouns plus the ones we don't have yet. PS would not even bother with a context label, even though attributive use of plurals of nouns is pretty rare. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
I think the context label is a good idea—it seems surprising that English speakers typically say "systems engineer" and "systems programming" rather than "system engineer" and "system programming". As Renard Migrant pointed out, attributive use of plural nouns is unusual—compare "computer engineer"/"*computers engineer" and "network programming"/"*networks programming". I think it is worthwhile to point out this unusual usage of "systems". —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like usage notes to me. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I'd be happy with that too—just as long as we point it out somehow. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 19:45, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


To remove ivy. Equinox 17:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Well, here's one (hyphenated), although I'd probably be more inclined to remove the entry than the ivy. -- · (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
This section of wall, rebuilt and de-ivied, stood 20ft high.
  • Funnily enough I found a reference here for deivying as a noun [38], but maybe it should be discounted. Donnanz (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
    It's not English for a start. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


Slang for "chaos". No hits for "total choss" in G.Books. How else to search? Equinox 02:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

  • I have come across this (and even used the term) but am having trouble verifying it. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

deep web[edit]

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

Doesn't have to be. Purplebackpack89 14:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Zero hits for the term, in quotes, in Google Ngram viewer. (ordinary Google search is not case-sensitive) SemperBlotto (talk) 14:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
That's weird, cuz when I browse through Google Books, I get a mix of "Deep Web", "deep Web" and "deep web". Purplebackpack89 14:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Google Ngram Viewer stops at the year 2000. So we need to see your hits - presumably later. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:13, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Well, there's your problem...the concept of deep web/Deep Web/deep Web is primarily a post-2000 concept. Purplebackpack89 14:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
It's nobody's problem. All you have to do is supply the citations. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
p.s. That 2013 quote is just attributive use of the noun. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:23, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I disagree. Purplebackpack89 14:47, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Actually, Google Ngram Viewer goes up to 2008, you just have to set the end date to that (or to a later date). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:26, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be comparable, no, but it does have to be adjectival to be an adjective. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
What we have now is two citations that are clearly nominal. Remember any noun can qualify another noun. Literally, any. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


Bag for collecting dog or cat faeces. Google Books only seems to have the insult, at a glance. Equinox 15:48, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I've heard and said it, but that's just because I empty a garbage can and run cleanups at our local park/dogrun. I would NOT claim "widespread use". DCDuring TALK 17:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
What's the bag for collecting dog and cat faeces called, then? If it's not an obvious word like "shitbag", there should be an entry for it. --Hekaheka (talk) 17:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
@Hekaheka: it's called a poopbag, confusingly enough. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Thx. --Hekaheka (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


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

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

mix it up[edit]

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

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

lightning in a bottle[edit]

Rfv-sense: "Stored electricity, as in a capacitor"

The two purported citations are not of the term in question. They are of lightning and in a bottle, where in a bottle is adverbial. To make this clear: "I went home in a taxi." is not valid attestation of home in a taxi. DCDuring TALK 15:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Agree. If you "catch a fish in a net", you are not catching the entire fish-in-net object, but using the net to do the catching. Equinox 16:37, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Neither of them seem to support the definition that's in question. So I consider the grammar question moot. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:29, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

evolutionary theory[edit]

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

Surprisingly, this may actually be used; I'm not sure if I'm interpreting it correctly, though. See google books:"is an evolutionary theory". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
IMO, most of the citations don't support the either the sense under challenge or RfDed sense, though they may support SoP definitions or an idiomatic sense not yet provided. I would certainly need to see specific citations that purported to support the challenged sense. It should be clear that the use of "evolutionary theory" in all the social sciences is not very closely related to the use in biology. Many of the uses would seem to be efforts to associate some social theory or author with the success of "the" biological theory of evolution. A definition for these might be "A theory resembling the biological theory of evolution." DCDuring TALK 20:59, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Added three quotes. Theories evolve, they are mutable. I think one quote is solid but the other two might be better in a sense like DCDuring wrote above. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 00:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


Discworld city; needs to pass WT:FICTION. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


abusivenesses isn't the real word, not used in books or anywhere online. Exists only in some word lists circulated online. Yurivict (talk) 04:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


Not used in books. Only few uses online. Yurivict (talk) 05:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I've added one quotation from an academic journal. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 11:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "A positive result or consequence."

I can't think of any circumstance where it would specifically mean a positive result ("poor outcome", "negative outcome" and "bad outcome" are all common colocations), but I'm ready to be surprised. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I suppose if someone says "What an outcome!" that would imply a positive result. In fact I note result gives us a circular definition ("A positive or favourable outcome"). Not sure I agree with either def. Keith the Koala (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
"Result" meaning "positive outcome" I can see: you might say a doctor "tried various medicines to cure the patient, each time without result", when you mean each time the result was 'no change' (the medicine didn't cure the illness). I'm not familiar with "outcome" being used that way. - -sche (discuss) 18:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
In the UK, "result!" on its own implies a favorable outcome. It's informal, I'd use it like "I got her number before I left. Result!". Renard Migrant (talk) 14:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
As far as I know, 'positive' is not inherently part of the definition. There may be times when 'positive' can be assumed from the context, but that comes from the context (the sentence, paragraph or even several paragraphs) not the single word 'outcome'. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

September 2015[edit]


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

It is a well-known FORTRAN/COBOL instruction that newcomer C happened to copy. Any cites for the verb are likely to either be errors or jocular.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Looks like GOTO might meet CFI as a verb, but the two lower-case cites just look like typos or scannos where the space is missing. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
The programming sense is sometimes verbed: [39] [40] [41] Also, "Goto" refers to a popular kind of telescope, and the name has also been verbed: [42]. Choor monster (talk) 14:56, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Is the noun nominated as well? Renard Migrant (talk) 14:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
No, noun wasn't nominated. Thanks, I am removing the rfv tag then. Yurivict (talk) 10:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


Also in Illyrian (see #adur above). I don't think a mythology text can serve as a linguistic reference. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:18, 1 September 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: adjective: Of or pertaining to the tenor part or range.

The example sentence he has a tenor voice strikes me as nominal, not adjectival. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

This is an RfD issue, not an RfV one. How do you explain phraseology like "tenor horn", "tenor trombone", "tenor saxophone", "tenor clef" or "tenor drum"? Tenor as a word works the opposite way from the way you're alleging. Purplebackpack89 04:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I, as a native speaker who has spent a fair amount of time in musical situations, as well as the lemmings, strongly disagree that such a use is nominal. I would say that "tenor voice" and all the examples PBP used are evidence of widespread use of the adjectival sense. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
A few citations of tenor behaving like an adjective:
  • 1962, Frank Howard Richardson, For Parents Only: The Doctor Discusses Discipline
    Many a star athlete has very little hair anywhere except what he wears on top of his head, and a voice that is absolutely tenor.
  • 2009, Richard Smith, Can't You Hear Me Calling: The Life of Bill Monroe, Father of Bluegrass, Da Capo Press (ISBN 9780786731169)
    Sometimes Charlie would sing notes that were more tenor than original melody, forcing Bill to sing a high baritone-style line.
  • 2012, Lily George, Captain of Her Heart, Harlequin (ISBN 9781459221239), page 173
    The door swung open, and a masculine voice—a little more tenor than Brookes's bass tones—called, “Brookes, come in. Do you have your colleague with you?”
  • 2015, Michael J. Senger Sr., The Connection, Lulu Press, Inc (ISBN 9781257217854)
    Kahn was not a big man and he had a voice that was a little more tenor than most preferred.
Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
Since nobody has objected to the last four citations, I am placing them in the entry. If this RfV passes, I will likely create adjective senses for soprano, alto, bass and maybe baritone, as if this is verifiable, those likely are as well. Purplebackpack89 13:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
To answer the original question, "[h]ow do you explain phraseology like "tenor horn", "tenor trombone", "tenor saxophone", "tenor clef" or "tenor drum"?" using the noun, 'tenor' (like car door does not justify car#Adjective). However I don't dispute Smurrayinchester's citations. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Buprestis alemanica[edit]

Linked to from Buprestis. I would expect two ns (Buprestis alemannica) based on alemannicus, but I can't attest either form. - -sche (discuss) 22:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't know yet about the taxon, but a search at the Index of Organism Names finds three taxa (Rhynchonella alemanica, Rhynchonelloidella alemanica, Terebratula alemanica) spread over 8 taxonomic acts (publications) with alemanica and 12 taxa (Berdeniella alemannica, Calocoris p. f. alemannica , Corticarina alemannica, Nodosaria alemannica, Oblongarcula alemannica, Oblongarcula cf. alemannica , Paracypris alemannica, Reinecheia alemannica, Rhymogona alemannica, Rhymogona montivaga alemannica, Siliqua alemannica, Worthenia alemannica) with alemannica. I didn't check the other genders. DCDuring TALK 23:48, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
"†Buprestis alemanica Heer 1879 (jewel beetle)
Insecta - Coleoptera - Buprestidae
PaleoDB taxon number: 312164
Alternative combination: Ancylocheira alemanica
Full reference: O. Heer. 1879. Die Urwelt der Schweiz, Zweite Auflage 1-713 [page 384 per Buprestis at World of Jewel Beetles]
Belongs to Buprestis according to C. L. Bellamy 2008
See also Heer 1879"
So presumably Bellamy 2008 and Heer 1879 use the name. I didn't find the Heer document at Biodiversity Heritage Library. DCDuring TALK 00:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
These Scholar hits are for the alternative (original) combination: Ancylocheira alemanica, but don't look independent. DCDuring TALK 00:27, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I conclude that the one-n spelling alemanicus is attested, but that the taxon in question is not, by Wiktionary standards anyway. DCDuring TALK 01:03, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
I forgot about this discussion. Here's the relevant page in Heer, which shows the original combination, complete with a single n. That proves the single n to be the correct spelling according to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. The ICZN allows for emendation to match correct spelling of real-world names, which doesn't apply here, but even then there are cases where formerly-correct spelling variations such as pensylvanica are un-amendable- if it wasn't wrong at the time of publication or it wasn't a name, the original publication governs. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Once a matter is in RfV, only attestation or "widespread use" will save it. I couldn't find attestation for the RfVed term and, for Wiktionary, a term does not inherit its attestation from its ancestors. I am reasonably sure that many of our longer Hyponyms listings of species on genus, etc. pages include many species names that are not attestable by our standards. I have tried to avoid adding such lists, especially when none of Wikipedia, Wikispecies or Commons had pages for most of the members. That a name conforms to Code standards just makes it more likely that it will eventually be attestable by our standards and uaeful to future users. DCDuring TALK 17:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Superficially, it seems that the original combination might be attestable and the current name not, though I suppose it might be called a derived term of the original combination. DCDuring TALK 17:20, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I think the big problem is that this is an extinct taxon, so it won't show up in field guides, etc. Plus, the new combination is only 7 years old, which hasn't given it much time to appear in journal articles. Buprestids have more of an amateur following than most of the beetle families (many of them are quite spectacular in appearance), but this is still a very small pool of people who are even aware the taxon exists, let alone have anything to say about it. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
That doesn't seem to me to be such an uncommon situation. Such situations and others like it would seem to make species-level entries in many families probably unattestable. In some phyla the same would be true even at the genus level. DCDuring TALK 03:49, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


Is there such verb? No uses in literature. Yurivict (talk) 09:28, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

There was, in Middle English. Our entry seems to be a carbon copy (and copyvio) of the OED entry, which gives:
  • ?c1225 (▸?a1200) Ancrene Riwle (Cleo. C.vi) (1972) 247 Þe wrecche best selden ed stertet.
  • c1275 (▸?a1200) Laȝamon Brut (Calig.) (1963) l. 2128 He æt-sturte [c1300 Otho a-steorte] in-to are burie.
  • c1220 Legend St. Katherine 699 Tu schalt sone atstirten [v.r. etsterten] al þe strengðe of þis strif.
  • ?c1225 (▸?a1200) Ancrene Riwle (Cleo. C.vi) (1972) 273 We þolieð saule uuel forto edsterte flesches uuel. Vorziblix (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I believe we normalize this as atsterten with the final -en suffix. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks, I replaced obsolete with archaic, and removed the rvf tag. Yurivict (talk) 23:52, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Not a copyvio; the early parts of the OED are in the public domain, in the US and as far as I can tell in the UK as well.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:13, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I have readded RFV tag to the entry since this is not cited in modern English, only in Middle English, right? We seem to treat Middle English as a separate language; see e.g. WT:AENM, example entry forbus, and Category:Middle English lemmas. In order for atstert to be kept as English rather than as Middle English, we need appropriate quotations, right? A quick look at Category:Middle English verbs suggests Renard is right to point out atsterten would be the lemma for Middle English. Does the creator User:Leasnam have quotations showing use other than Middle English? --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Here is the OED scan: https://archive.org/stream/oed01arch#page/542/mode/1up --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


Rfv all noun senses (except "selfish person" sense)

This article has a massive number of noun definitions that I simply cannot find verification of anywhere. "What a bogart", which appears in several of the examples, doesn't even appear once in the entire Google Books corpus. A couple of Google Groups for the "selfish person" sense (and some for "an act of bogarting", which might be the only noun definition that isn't in there), but that's it. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

(Amazingly, all this has been in the entry virtually untouched since it was created in 2004) Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Slough of Despond[edit]

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

  • ... and may need moving to lowercase (as in the example sentence). SemperBlotto (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
    I think there is use outside of the work; search for "sloughs of despond" in G.Books. Equinox 23:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • slough of despond at OneLook Dictionary Search. DCDuring TALK 02:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
    I've created and cited an entry for slough of despond. It would be easy to cite the challenged entry as well as that form is used in allusion to Bunyan or in discussion of his famous work. If we wish to apply a tougher standard than we do for more favored authors, cites not in such works can be found also. DCDuring TALK 03:26, 5 September 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: the English sense "(physics) The speed of light as a unit of speed, exactly 2.99792458 × 108 m/s." This is defined as a noun, distinct (but apparently derived) from the translingual symbol sense. This would presumably need citations of the form "a c" or "the c", which seems unlikely. -- Liliana 19:43, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Why does it need that type of citation? Why wouldn't "e = mc2" be a citation? or "greater than c? DCDuring TALK 03:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I would understand those to be using the translingual symbol and not a separate English form. Equinox 03:45, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
That just says that we need cites in other languages. I'd be surprised if we couldn't get them in every language in which physics is taught. DCDuring TALK 03:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand your argument... Equinox 18:45, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
If x = y, don't x and y have to be nouns or pronouns? Conversely, since c is equated with "the speed", and "speed is a noun, doesn't c have to also be a noun? Purplebackpack89 04:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Not in the context of equations, which aren't grammatical sentences. -- Liliana 08:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
No it would be possible to use c as a symbol rather than as a noun; 'greater than c' is debatably a use of the symbol c, not a noun c. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:22, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
But in the phrase "greater than c", c must represent something that is a noun. Purplebackpack89 19:17, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, isn't this a lot like the drive to change "initialism/abbreviation" headers (e.g. km for kilometres) into nouns? Why don't we do that with symbols? Equinox 19:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


WT:COMPANY says: "To be included, the use of the company name other than its use as a trademark (i.e., a use as a common word or family name) has to be attested." Somehow I don't see it coming for this entry. -- Liliana 09:28, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Keep; stop removing lexicographical material. The cited policy is not supported by consensus: 1) Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/CFI and company names, 2) no argument for excluding company names was ever presented other than that they are not words, in the same vein that given names (Peter, Martina) are allegedly not words. In general terms, attesting quotations are at Citations:Verizon. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:30, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Citations are just using it as a company name. (But do people ever talk about "my Verizon" meaning their mobile phone?) Equinox 02:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
That's fine. Citations of "gold" using it just as the name of a metal would be also good enough. We do not need to show that "gold" is used in a way from which it is not obvious that gold is a metal. Same for New York, Atlantic Ocean, and Betelgeuse. Anyone remembers those "useful" RFV nominations like that in Talk:Xenophanes? Fortunately, they were stopped via Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2010-05/Names of specific entities. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Enforce the rule. If you want to try and get that clause removed from CFI be my guest (I don't like the way it's worded much either) but it is there. Dan Polansky as the number #1 enforcer (or attempted enforcer) of rules I don't think you can just duck out of rules when you don't like them. Also that vote is from two and a half years ago so I'd discount it just for that. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Don't know how you arrived at the idea that I am somehow "the number #1 enforcer" of "rules". A quick glance at e.g. Wiktionary:Votes/2014-11/Entries which do not meet CFI to be deleted even if there is a consensus to keep suggests otherwise. The only "rule" I am trying to enforce is not even a rule, it is a principle. It is the principle of consensus. It is on this principle that the "rule" on company names that got into CFI without discussion and consensus should be ignored. I do not share your obsession with statutes and other "rules" not supported by consensus. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:27, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Amended. I do try to ask people to abide by a host of principles or "rules" other than consensus. Whether I am "number #1" I do not know, but I am not sure it matters. Here I invoke the principle of consensus as one that is above an unvoted-on regulation; I think I have been pretty consistent in this over the couple last years. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2012-02/CFI and company names is actually a vote to try and change a rule, which was voted down by a majority (bear in mind votes on Wiktionary can also be voted down by a minority) so surely posting that link is self defeating. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
The vote was my attempt to have CFI reflect consensus. If it passed, CFI would have accurately stated, for company names, that "A name of a specific entity must not be included if it does not meet the attestation requirement. Among those that do meet that requirement, many should be excluded while some should be included, but there is no agreement on precise, all-encompassing rules for deciding which are which"; that is so since company names are names of specific entities. The vote shows the state of consensus or its lack at the time. If you draw from the vote the conclusion that the controversial part of CFI was ever supported by consensus, you are wrong in that. If you think that it deeply matters that the vote was for removing the part rather than keeping it, as for what the consensus on the matter actually is, you are wrong in that as well. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Getting back to Verizon specifically, it seems to me that the citations given are inappropriate, and that this should be moved to rfd, where I would vote to delete. -- · (talk) 03:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
    @·: What is the rationale for removing Verizon, together with the potential pronunciation? Again, referring back to the controversial part of CFI is not a rationale; the controversial part itself needs a rationale, and close to none was provided for it. --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:06, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

digital inception[edit]

I've tried to clean it up. Seems like a protologism. Can't even see anything much on the Web. Equinox 02:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

I could find two citations: [[43]] and [[44]] Kiwima (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
And here's a third [[45]]


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


By same IP as above; seems to be an alternative form of Zwanni, but, again, likely unciteable. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


Esperanto. It looks to me like this word was coined by John C. Wells so that he would have a translation for callipygous for his English-Esperanto dictionary. Aside from that dictionary, I can't find any hits for this word on Google Books, Google Groups, or Tekstaro. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 13:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


This only seems to exist on personal webpages, blogs, Facebook, and the like. Is this a hot word, or is it likely to evaporate as quickly as it's appeared? Chuck Entz (talk) 15:04, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

smallpox blanket[edit]

Looking through hits at Google books, I can find literal uses of this term, but not figurative or idiomatic uses (and the idiomatic sense is the only sense given in the entry). -- · (talk) 02:30, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I only found and added one quote that compares tourism to a smallpox blanket. But, even that is a stretch. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry @BoBoMisiu, but that's still a literal, not figurative, use. -- · (talk) 06:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
@Talking Point: when I added the quote, I was thinking a conceptual metaphor – reliance → smallpox blanket – like I wrote, it was a stretch. The usage I saw in searches was all literal sense SOP. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:02, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


I was adding the Japanese entry for this but I noticed this English entry which says "(sumo) a party held in each heya after a honbasho" but that doesn't seem citeable for me so I'm putting it up for RFV. Nibiko (talk) 11:18, 8 September 2015 (UTC)


I could only find two uses of this word with this spelling. Oddly, laminarisator is better attested, so it can be moved there if it fails. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I've added three quotations, from a patent, a master's thesis, and an academic journal. I'm not sure whether the master's thesis is durably archived, though. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 15:27, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
Theses are considered acceptable as citations because universities generally retain printed copies of theses submitted by students. This was discussed here. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 20:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


Attestation needed.--Cinemantique (talk) 18:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Just a note: this is the transliteration of Latin crapula (or possibly English, or Finnish). Mentioned a lot in various forums, and not at all in the books. Yurivict (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2015 (UTC)


For the "pillar; cryptomeria" sense that comes from the Unihan Database. None of the other online Chinese dictionary sources that I checked mentioned either of these words as definitions associated with this character. Bumm13 (talk) 07:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "Half"?

Citations don't seem to support this meaning. Leasnam (talk) 02:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

  • Yes, the citations show the normal usage - e.g. "twice as thin" is the same as "half as thick". SemperBlotto (talk) 07:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • It passed RfV once already. See Talk:twice. Do you have specific problems with specific citations or with the closing of the RfV? DCDuring TALK 12:50, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand why that RFV was closed as "passed". I agree with Leasnam and SemperBlotto that the current citations are not adequate. The first and third quotations seem to support sense 4—"twice as slow" means "slow to a doubled degree", and "twice as dumb" means "dumb to a doubled degree". I'm not sure about the second quotation, because I don't fully understand what it's saying.
Maybe some confusion arises because, for example, speed is usually measured on a scale where higher on the scale means faster—often we talk about speed in terms of mph or kph, so doubling the speed means making it twice as fast. But when English speakers use the adjective "slow", they are using a different conceptual scale, where higher on the scale means slower. (At least that is what I was taught in my semantics class.) That is why "twice as slow" means a lower speed. The word "twice" still means "to a doubled degree"—it's just that the conceptual scale is not always the same as the scale that we usually use when we have to assign numbers to things. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 13:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
This seems to me to be an RfD matter, rather than an RfV matter, though we may as well try to resolve it here.
I don't quite see how most uses of this type are "proscribed and nonstandard" and specifically not the three citations given. I do think the 'degree' definition encompasses most of the usage that the narrow-mindedly quantitative find objectionable, including the three citations given. There may be some usage that is more widely considered objectionable, but the definition in question doesn't accurately capture any such distinction. I don't think that we should include simply erroneous usage as a proscribed definition.
Any comments on the type of usage some object could appear in Usage notes, which could refer folks to Suppes, Luce, Krantz, and Tversky's Foundations of Measurement (1972) for some thorough prescription in this area. DCDuring TALK 13:53, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
  • See Talk:twice as small for a parallel past discussion and a source for the proscription. Choor monster (talk) 16:04, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
    I don't find on that page any basis for claiming that there is anything worth proscribing. If you can accurately characterize exactly which collocations are usually valid uses of the degree sense and which are usually invalid, you can see if you can come up with an acceptable usage note. If the best we can do is "sometimes proscribed by some people", we should leave it alone as we are providing no usable information. There are numerous uses of "twice as small" in edited works at Google Books, most apparently with native speakers as authors. DCDuring TALK 16:31, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
    The proscription comes from the fact that it's BEV, as asserted by Orr in her book. Choor monster (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. After reading your comment on that page, I think I understand what the second quotation is saying—it's a pun between the "two times" sense and the "to a doubled degree" sense. Still no support for the "half" sense, though, as far as I can tell. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 16:59, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
"Half" certainly isn't a substitutable definition in cases like twice as small. What would half as small mean? It certainly doesn't seem to have the same meaning as twice as small. This would also be an argument for deletion in an RfD. DCDuring TALK 17:18, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
As the earlier discussion made clear, it was inserted to provide a home for the "twice as small" meaning "half as big", because apparently half of us think the phrase is an illogical idiom, versus another half who think it's transparently SOP. It's really a snow-clone, and a Usage note would certainly be better. Choor monster (talk) 17:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I think the non-substitutable definition is an indication that the intention was not accomplished. I wonder whether anyone can characterize accurately any proscribed sense, that is not in fact is an instance of the valid degree sense. DCDuring TALK 18:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Proscription occurs both when the proscribers know what they are talking and when they are just being snobbish. Choor monster (talk) 19:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
I am quite sure that most users assume that Wiktionary is putting its weight behind the proscription when the definition bears such a tag, even if they don't know what proscribed means. DCDuring TALK 19:32, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Nonsense. If we were proscibing it, we would write "wrong" rather than "proscribed". --WikiTiki89 20:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
If we were doing it, it would have a good sound effect too (
) — or would we do that in IPA? DCDuring TALK 20:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
In IPA, I believe that would be either ʙ̺ or r̼, the linguolabial trill. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:59, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Mr Granger that the previous RFV-closure was in error; none of the citations support the sense "half". It's theoretically possible that "twice" might mean "half" — maybe someone has remarked that "John has 4 cows but I have 2 cows, twice as many as John". But "twice as dumb" seems to be meant as an insult, "two times as dumb", not as a compliment, "not as dumb". - -sche (discuss) 08:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I know, why was it passed? Twice as dumb means two times as dumb, not half as dumb. Would three times as dumb therefore mean a third as dumb? Easy delete as uncited. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
"Twice as dumb" means "half as smart". As has been mentioned, but apparently to no effect, then, now, and forevermore no doubt, some people think this is perfectly transparent, some people think this is inherently illogical. Choor monster (talk) 12:31, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I can see that though I absolutely don't understand it. If twice as large makes sense, why would twice as small not make sense? If you know what twice as means and you know what small means, you know what twice as small means. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:52, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Using the same logic, wouldn't 'smaller' mean 'bigger' and 'smallest' mean 'biggest'? You see why I'm struggling so much? Renard Migrant (talk) 13:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
No, I don't get it. "smallest" is the "superlative" of "small" - the most small. "Twice" is like "most" in that is implies a greater quality - so if the quality is "small" then twice that is even smaller. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
If "twice as dumb" meaning "half as smart" causes us to need to define "twice" as "half", why doesn't it cause us to need to define "dumb" as "smart"?
The supposedly "inherently illogical" nature of the construction is a red herring. As I pointed out on the linked-to talk page, "three times as dumb", "four times as small", "a hundred times as stupid", etc are all attested, i.e. there's nothing unique about "twice". - -sche (discuss) 02:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
This is a dictionary project, not a logic project. Why do people say "a friend of mine" not "a friend of me"? It doesn't matter, our job is to record usage, not analyze it as right or wrong. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • The usage seems entirely clear; twice, in "twice as cold" or "twice as dumb" does not mean "half". (Lexical Semantics (1986) by D.A. Cruse, page 212, has a discussion on expressions like "twice as cold", but the context pages aren't showing up on Google Books.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
The important point is that whatever logic or illogic there is, it's not a lexical property of any one term: it has to do with how comparison of negative quantities is mapped by the human mind. It doesn't matter whether you say "twice as small", "200% smaller","two times smaller"- it means the same thing. If you start changing the ratios, it continues on in the same direction: "two and a half times as small", "thrice as small", "fifty times as small". In the other direction, "half as small", "one quarter as small", "one tenth as small", "fifty seven twenty-ninths as small" the change is analogous. One can quibble about whether "twice as small" really means "half as big", or means "half the difference from normal size", but that's more a characteristic of small, if anything. I would suggest that a usage note at twice and similar terms might be helpful, something to the effect of: "using this with terms of negative degree such as 'small' or 'thin' may be confusing for some people and should be avoided if clarity and precision is important". Chuck Entz (talk) 19:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I seem to be late to the party here, and I agree that the citations that were there fit more correctly into the "doubled degree" meaning. Phrases like "twice as few" and "twice as less" are easy to find, however (I added a bunch of them), and they are harder to argue as being doubled in degree or extent - you really are talking about halving the count or quantity there. Kiwima (talk) 05:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
    The citations you added are all still using the "doubled" sense. As noted in the previous RFV, "twice X" entails double the quantity or intensity of the quality X: "twice as good" is "double the intensity of 'good'", "twice as few" is "double the intensity of 'few'", "twice as small" is "double the intensity of 'small'". And as pointed out above, the use of multiplication terms (rather than division terms) to multiply the intensity of qualities like 'few' is not specific/lexical to "twice"; one can also speak of "ten times", etc. - -sche (discuss) 06:39, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
I think "(usually with "as", of a specified quality) Doubled in quantity, intensity, or degree." covers the range of usage nicely: raise twice the money (double the amount of money), turn twice as slowly (double the intensity of slowness), be twice as thin (double the intensity of thinness), etc. - -sche (discuss) 23:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Btw, note that the same construction occurs in other languages; in German one can in practice say "doppelt so dünn", "doppelt so jung oder doppelt so alt", etc (despite the claim by W. G. Klooster in The Structure Underlying Measure Phrase Sentences, citing Bierwisch (1967), that one theoretically cannot). - -sche (discuss) 01:30, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Resolved, IMO: RFV-failed / covered by a sense that more accurately conveys what's going on, recognizing that in "twice as thin" etc (a) "twice" does not lexically mean "half", and (b) "twice" can be replaced with any other count, e.g. "thrice", "three times", "ten times", etc. - -sche (discuss) 01:32, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Tangential Comment and Correction I cited Orr Twice as Less for source that the usage is BEV, and thus proscribed in standard English. I have found my copy, and I had forgotten the context. Orr was discussing the fact that BEV lacks "as ... as" constructions, and that it is quite unfamiliar to many who when asked to "translate" standard English that had such constructions, came up with responses that were all over the map. Said responses naturally enough included peculiar "twice as less" usages. As a completely artificial situation, there is no prescriptive inference to be drawn. Choor monster (talk) 14:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


Watch out, I think we've got another phobia editor. Equinox 20:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Does [this] count? Kiwima (talk) 05:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Technically, it looks like we've got the same phobia editor [as before]... the one who also likes Islamic terminology... - -sche (discuss) 02:47, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Added 4 citations to entry. But, now that it is verified, what is the procedure? --Sonofcawdrey (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
    Websites come and go (offline), and aren't considered "durably archived" per WT:CFI. (Various archiving sites have been suggested, but those generally also allow whoever currently owns a site to request that all archived material be removed, and so don't solve the problem.) We need citations from books (Google Books is a good place to look for those), magazines or newspapers (Issuu is a good engine for searching those, though NB some things in it seem to be e-publications), journals (Google Scholar), or — because of its robust, de-centralized archiving — Usenet (accessible via Google Groups, but note that Google Groups also indexes non-durable non-Usenet things). Unfortunately, there don't seem to be any such citations (unsurprising, considering that it gets only a few thousand raw Google hits). - -sche (discuss) 22:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

flush out[edit]

Created as an erroneous form of flesh out; however, Usage note at flesh out says not the same. Are there 2 "flush out"s?? Leasnam (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Flush out is a completely different term (not sure it's idiomatic but it's definitely real) as in "the flush the alcohol out of your system". Even if it were citable as a typo, why keep it? We don't have haev as a common typo for have, so why have this? Just delete it. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Isn't there a hunting term flush out meaning something along the lines of scaring birds out of bushes? Or is that also just [[flush]] + [[out]]? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:16, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Renard that the definition under challenge is simply wrong, in the sense that most speakers wouldn't use the expression and some might view someone using as either a moron or simply deficient in English language skills.
It's not limited to hunting, nor is it limited to the physical world. Some phrasal verb dictionaries, like AHD's have it. The etymology of flush is extra confusing in reality and even more so as we present it. Sadly the possible senses of flush used in flush out are distributed among the four etymologies we show. Some seem SoP, others not so much. I think that flush out merits an entry because the figurative senses of flush out do not use a common current definition of flush. More literal, physical senses seem to me to be covered by {{&lit|flush|out}}. DCDuring TALK 01:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


RFV of the Kalenjin, Kamba, Kikuyu, Luhya, Luo, and Meru sections. All of these sections were added by Razorflame (who does not seem to know much about any of them) in a single edit. Google Books doesn't reveal any hits for "Naija" in an African language except for one in Hausa and a bunch of scannos for Igbo Naịja. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


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


Rfv-sense "fun, fabulous, tasteful; fashionable."

These are all stereotypes of gay men, but that doesn't automatically make "gay" a synonym of "fashionable", any more than No Sex Please, We're British makes "British" a synonym of "sexually repressed". The two citations given both seem to refer to gay men (the Lewis Black quote specifically refers to "queers") – are there are any hits where it doesn't mean "homosexual"? Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:28, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

With a fair bit of digging, I found the edit where this was introduced. I've left the user a message but he/she has no edits since 2013 so I'm not optimistic of a reply. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
RFV-failed. The usex "her decor is quite gay just in time for the new season" looks more like the "gay old time" (joyful / festive) sense. The two citations just seem to mean homosexual, as noted above:
  • (Can we date this quote?) Robin Williams.
    ‘We had gay burglars the other night. They broke in and rearranged the furniture.’
  • 2000's, Lewis Black.
    Maybe there's a group of gay bandidos. They travel from village to dell. And as night falls, they travel to that cul-de-sac, where only one house stands. And in the window, you see a family, just setting down to their evening meal. And these queers... these queers... don their black hoods, and matching pumps, very tasteful.

- -sche (discuss) 17:32, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


I can find very few legitimate citations for this word. The "prosperity" meaning is propagated throughout dictionaries, but I can find no examples of its actual usage. There was a request for definition on a second meaning related to botany, but after looking at every citation in google books, it is clearly just the f/s ambiguity in old texts and the word in every case is really fecundation. I DID find two actual citations for the word: One as a synonym for secondment: *

1951, Philadelphia Orchestra, Programs, page 404:
Both of these eminent musicians, at first inclined to dismiss Lord Berners as a talented amateur, soon came to realize that he was a talent to be reckoned with, and enthusiastically contributed to the secundation of his career as musician.

and one as a protoneologism for killing every other one: *

2006, F. J. W. Hahne, Critical Phenomena, ISBN 354038667X:
This process of eliminating spins is usually called "decimation" although "secundation" might be a more appropriate term in view of the fact it is every second spin that is "killed off" rather than every tenth one (from which Roman disciplinary procedure the word derives!)

. In any case, not enough to keep the word. Kiwima (talk) 08:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The 1951 quotation looks to me like it fits the challenged sense. I found two more quotations—the first one seems to support the challenged sense, but I'm not sure about the second one.
  • 1906, Thomas Ryan Stone, Frontier Experience[46], page 12:
    There must be a prior detruncation of the truculence and inurbanity of some of its divisions to obtain the optimity of society and secundation.
  • 1870, John Bruce Norton, A Selection of the Leading Cases on the Hindu Law of Inheritance[47], page 55:
    However, as a son is produced from secundation without the recital of holy texts from the Veda, but a son is perfected by the recital of them...
Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 13:22, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
That second one looks like fecundation to me - especially when read in context. Kiwima (talk) 04:31, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
I would agree if it were written with an f/ſ, but it is clearly written with an s. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 12:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
The context leads us to expect "fecundation" and leads "secundation" to make no sense, the work is on Hindu law and seems to be working from or transcribing other documents, which could have had "ſ" (and for that matter some of the authors, of the cases at least, probably didn't speak English as their primary and/or native language and so they may have misread/mis-entered "f" where they meant "ſ")... I think it's likely the writer of the Selection either misread a source document with "ſ", or simply made a typo. - -sche (discuss) 21:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

flag jacking[edit]

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

  • Comment: There are HuffPost and CNN articles pertaining to this phenomenon. Not sure how to turn that into the durable URLs on this topic, but there is information out there. Purplebackpack89 13:14, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
All the references in the Wikipedia article are clickbait based on a YouTube video created as viral marketing for a travel website. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 19:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
@Cloudcuckoolander, are some of them durable links, though? Whether the origin of the article was grassroots or astroturf is irrelevant; if it is used enough, we can still have it. Purplebackpack89 12:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

flag jack[edit]

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

So? Just because there's no BGC hits doesn't mean it's unattestable. Purplebackpack89 11:59, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
He never said it was, he just said it wasn't on Google Books. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant Maybe not here, though he did blast me (unnecessarily, IMO) on my talk page for creating these (even though some were created by User:IQ125 and not I). Purplebackpack89 16:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

flag jacker[edit]

No BGC hits for singular or plural. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


"(Singapore) Please Stay Indoors". I think this is a joke, based on the other PSI (Pollutant Safety Index) and the fact that Indonesia's slash-and-burn deforestation sometimes causes smog over Singapore. Equinox 15:42, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


Esperanto for the sacred site in Islam. As far as I can tell, the word Kaabo is used (though rarely), but I can't find any uses of "Kaaba". —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 13:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

It breaks the rules. For those who do don't know, Esperanto nouns end in -o and adjectives end in -a. However We do have Atena and Afrodita. Because we go by usage rather than hypothetical rules. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Esperanto female names frequently end in -a; the Duolingo course, for example, has Adamo kaj Sofia as their two characters. I can see why the proper name of Kaaba might also bend the rules, though of course it all comes down to cites.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)


Latin adjective meaning "bittersweet". Neither in Lewis & Short nor in Gaffiot. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 19:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

I get the impression that this is a specific epithet only, and doesn't actually occur in Latin. Can you confirm or contradict this, DCDuring and/or Chuck Entz? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 20:14, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't have my Late Latin wordlist with me and won't have access to any print reference I own until Wednesday. I do know that Dulcamara is an obsolete genus name synonymized with Solanum (per WSp) and that it is now proposed as a section of Solanum (per WP).
Note also that dulcamara is plausible as an adjective as WSp has Agaricus dulcamarus. But in its application to Solanum dulcamara, it does not agree with Solanum (neuter). DCDuring TALK 00:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
If you look at the relevant page in Species Plantarum, you'll see that it cites references that predate Linnaean nomenclature, including this from 1623 (see XII). It looks like dulcamara was a name for the plant in some pre-Linnaean works, and Linnaeus used it as a noun, in apposition, rather than as an adjective. I was able to find a discussion in Latin of the masculine form dulcamarus here, but I don't know if I want to take the time to translate it to see if it's relevant. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @DCDuring, Chuck Entz: Thanks, guys. I managed to track down dūlcamārus on page 442/1 of Louis-Marie Quicherat’s and Amédée Gaston Daveluy’s Dictionnaire Latin-Français: Nouvelle édition, revisée, corrigée et augmentée par Émile Chatelain (42nd ed., 1899). It cites T. Maccius Plautus’s Cistellaria (1.1.71), Pseudolus (2.4.1), and Truculentus (2.5.35), which make three uses from the Old Latin period. Given the New Latin usage, I think it’s safe to give the adjective a Latin (la) entry. Re Solanum dulcamara, can we assume that Dulcamara was originally a generic name substantivised from the adjective (perhaps in elliptical use for planta dūlcamāra, “bittersweet plant”), which was then used, instead of the adjective dūlcamārum, as a noun in apposition in Solanum dulcamara by Linnaeus (per Chuck’s analysis)? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 08:44, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Judging from use in Spanish and Italian, we can't rule out dulcamara being a vernacular name in many vintages of Latin, including Vulgar Latin. The combination in a plant of bitterness and sweetness" seems to be an easy-to-observe phenomenon. Combined with the presence of the term in modern Romance languages make it is hard for me to believe that the term dulcamara or something very similar wasn't used to refer to one or more types of plants among Latin speakers. DCDuring TALK 12:59, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
I would hesitate to use the term "generic name", which is a very Linnaean concept. It's true that Bauhin sometimes used binomials of a sort, but in this case it looks like simply a name for the species, and not one he made up himself. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
@DCDuring: Well, with regard to the Italian dulcamara, none of these three sources:
  1. dulcamàra” in Ottorino Pianigiani’s Vocabolario Etimologico della Lingua Italiana (1907–1926)
  2. dulcamara” in Il Sabatini Coletti: Dizionario della Lingua Italiana (© 2011)
  3. dulcamara” in Vocabolario Treccani on line
cites a preformed Latin etymon like *dūlcamāra. Il Sabatini Coletti’s entry includes the text “a. 1828”, which abbreviation may expand to “anno 1828” — a date of first attestation? That would certainly be consistent with the fact that dulcamara’s second sense (“charlatan doctor”, “quack”) derives, according to Vocabolario Treccani, from the character “Dr Dulcamara” in the 1832 opera L’Elisir d’Amore. I don’t know any etymological resources for Spanish, so I can’t comment on the Spanish dulcamara. Could Wonderfool help with this? He seems to contribute a lot of Spanish content.
@Chuck Entz: Please forgive my anachronistic interpretation.
 — I.S.M.E.T.A. 02:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
WF doesn't do much etymology- it would lower the all-important edit count. As for Spanish sources, the most authoritative (and usually the most complete) one is the DRAE. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: Bookmarked; thanks. I wish we had a date of first attestation for the Spanish dulcamara. Since the Diccionario de la lengua española cites the preformed Latin dulcamāra, I'll see if I can find some feminine nominal uses. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 12:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
This use:
  • 1784, Johann Gottfried Otto, Dissertatio de usu medico dulcamarae, main title
looks nominal to me. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 13:00, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

desu as a purportedly English term[edit]

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

The good news: the definitions are accurate, and the term is used in certain restricted (chiefly online) communities. The bad news: I can't figure out for the life of me how to find cites. BGC gives up naught I can find, nor does rec.arts.anime.misc on GGC. Looks like a job for... @Cloudcuckoolander! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:34, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
(*looks up into the night sky and sees the Cite Signal*)
(*climbs in Citemobile and rushes to RfV*)
So I was able to cite the second sense. There were just enough viable cites to be found in rec.arts.anime.misc, but they were buried among instances of romanized Japanese. I also took the liberty of converting it to an interjection, since it definitely wasn't functioning as an adjective. Not sure about the first sense. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 06:47, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
The desu in English seems a particle rather than an interjection. In all the citations, it is used at the end of a sentence. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 10:47, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Can anyone cite the adjective sense? The interjection examples are all clear cases where desu is being used precisely because it's a Japanese term, in a kind of code switching. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
    Code switching is subtly different. Probably a majority of uses of desu in this kind of context are grammatically incorrect if you translate the sentence to Japanese, because a copula isn't needed or suru would be used, or whatever the issue may be. The use of desu has new rules: it indicates Japaneseness (or really weeabooness), and its new syntactical rule is that it goes at the end of a sentence, sometimes preceded by a comma, regardless of whether the sentence is complete or a fragment. That's a lot different from code switching by bilinguals, which is a purely social phenomenon that preserves the original semantic and syntactic metadata for words used as much as possible even when switching languages. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
As I understand it, code-switching is when people who fluently speak two languages blend both during spoken conversation, as is the case with "Spanglish." It's the unconscious byproduct of being bilingual, and thus thinking in more than one language. Whereas "desu" is a deliberate borrowing of a Japanese term by English speakers. It's selectively plucking a specific word out of Japanese and inserting it into English sentences. That doesn't require fluency in Japanese to do. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 20:40, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Thank you both for the cogent explanations. I am convinced in this case. I think it's worth noting that code switching does not require fluency, merely familiarity; that said, the changes in how desu is used in English utterances vs. Japanese utterances appear to be significant enough to warrant recognition that EN desu != JA です.
I would still like to see the adjective sense cited. This usage is more linguistically interesting to me, as a clear innovation in use and meaning, and not just copycatting. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 00:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)


Welsh for "screenshot". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:26, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


Doesn't seem to be attested in running Latin text. We generally require three independent uses for New Latin terms. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


New Latin again. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:35, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


New Latin, as above. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)


Latin. I don't think this word occurs at all, be it as a noun form or a verb form. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Normally we don't require citations for every inflected form of a word, but rather include entries for inflected forms if the word is attested at all. Is there any reason not to do so in this case? —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
@Mr. Granger: Well, we have a convention of treating them as "innocent until proven guilty", but surely they're not exempt from WT:CFI, right? — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
My understanding was that all inflected forms of a word are considered one unit, and that three citations (or one citation for LDLs) of any inflected form of a word are considered to attest the word. If we instead require three (or one) citations for each inflected form, then many words that have passed RFV should have failed: genophobe, for example, doesn't have any citations of its lemma form, but its RFV discussion was closed as passed.
I have seen this stated explicitly before, for instance by User:Ruakh in Wiktionary:Tea room/2012/June#o dinosaur! when he explained why we have an entry for internacionalizabais even though it is probably unattested. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 00:49, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The only reason I can see for RFVing an inflected form is if there's reason to doubt it's correct, based on the existing forms, e.g., if the form in question has a first declension ending even though the -a in the nominative is due to the word being a borrowing from an Ancient Greek third declension neuter, or if it's impossible to tell from the existing forms how the word is actually inflected in that part of the paradigm. While the letter of CFI doesn't prohibit rfving inflected forms for other reasons, it would be a really bad idea: with few exceptions, just about every Latin or Ancient Greek word has unattested forms somewhere in its paradigm, and we use automated templates/modules for inflection tables. Do you really want to have a redlink or an empty cell in the inflection table because it just happens that there are no texts that use the ablative plural for a given word? Chuck Entz (talk) 01:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
As Mr Granger says, most of us consider inflected forms to constitute one lexeme, although 1-3 users oppose this and suggest infeasible alternatives. As I wrote in 2013 about German, and as Ruakh agreed: if an adjective isn't attested in the comparative, we should say it's incomparable, but if it's merely that I can only find 2 citations of mitternachtsblauen as the neuter mixed genitive form of mitternachtsblau, I'd still list it in the inflection table. It'd be prohibitively hard to do otherwise; a user would need 156 citations to attest one table, an understanding of German grammar to know which of the 26 homographic slots each citation of mitternachtsblauen supported, and different tables for every combination of missing slots. And as Chuck Entz pointed out and I agreed, marking individual forms of valid paradigms as invalid would mislead more readers in a more harmful way than not marking such forms. Someone who was learning German and was about to use an adjective foobar could turn to Wiktionary to double-check that the ending on a neuter adjective in the nominative after ein is indeed -es and not -e (as it would be after das). If we told them foobares was not attested, I think the odds are slim that they would grasp that that signified only that at the time some Wiktionary users checked, insufficiently many books using the word in that case had been digitised by Google. I think the odds are better that they would conclude that they had to use some other form, and thus they would end up writing something ungrammatical."
Further up this page you can find Angr expressing the same view re kar. Unless dulco is only used actively and the entire passive conjugation doesn't exist, or there's a reason another form would be expected as the second-person plural present, I'd close this (since the lexeme is attested). - -sche (discuss) 03:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
On one hand, when I cite an Esperanto word, I'm glad I can worry about citing one lexeme instead of several different predictably-inflected forms. On the other hand, Esperanto has the neatness of an artificial language; can we trust that Latin or Ancient Greek were really that predictable? For example, with English, the plural form is is almost always predictable, but there's a substantial body of words where the predictable form is not the one used. I don't know that one rule covers everything; there are cases where we have complete certainty and there are cases where we have a strong pattern that has a number of clear exceptions.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
AFAIK, there is no consensus as for whether to exempt inflected forms from attestation; maybe we should add that statement to CFI so it accurately reports the state of discussion. It is certainly easier to ignore facts and evidence and rely on regularities of inflection to automatically create pages. Applied to Czech and extended to archaic sections of the inflection tables, this would lead to creation of loads of forms that, for modern speaker, look bizarre, since they combine a modern lemma with an archaic inflection. I hope that this approach will not be extended to derivation using highly productive suffixes such as -ness. As an option, I proposed to keep unattested forms but mark them as hypothetical, but that was claimed to be impractical. I do not deem it impractical: one could take a particular comprehensive corpus, collect all forms from it, and then mark every inflected form that is not in that collection as hypothetical. The hypothetical label could then be removed once it is confirmed that the form is attested; the attesting quotations would not need to be placed to Wiktionary, only reasonably unique identification of the locations where the attesting quotation are actually found. Let me note that the result of this discussion does not change the fact that we pool attestations of inflected forms to support a lemma entry, even if the lemma form itself is unattested; that is a fairly separate issue. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
De facto we tend not to RFV these. For a couple of reasons that I can think of. One, because it would leave inflection tables with unexplained red links. Two, the amount of time you'd need to even attempt to cite all of these. Dulco on its own has about 100 forms, imagine trying to cite all of these, and that's just one verb. And of course right now all our attesting is done by humans (not bots) so the number of person-hours would be enormous. It would run into the thousands very quickly. Imagine how long it would take to tag all these entries by hand, never mind the actual citing. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:28, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Regarding old inflections + modern stems, one thing we could do is identify entire sections of conjugation tables that are in general no longer used, and create tables that don't include those entire sections. This would be in line with how we use tables that only show singular forms on words that aren't used in the plural, and how only older Latinate German words which have vocative + ablative forms (and not newer words which don't have such forms) list such forms. Striking individual forms, e.g. striking only the masculine singular mixed declension dative superlative but not the masculine singular mixed declension accusative superlative of some German adjective because the former only got 2 (or 0) BGC hits while the latter got 3, would be a different matter, one which I think would be impractical and inappropriate for reasons already outlined. - -sche (discuss) 18:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


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

Obviously this is Old Latin, but it appears that Cicero used it once (Epistulae ad Atticum —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


Specifically: Adj. Of or relating to the Miami-Illinois language. A noun form "the Miami-Illinois language" I wouldn't have batted an eye at, but stuff like this is rarely if ever adjectives.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:46, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

We recently discussed the issue of whether language names are also adjectives at Wiktionary:Information desk/2015/August#Modern Greek & PoS, coming (as is usual around this place) to no conclusion whatsoever. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 12:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay, but there is no entry saying this is a language name. We just have it listed as an adjective.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


Sense - to do with words etc.

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


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

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


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

  • Comment: On the first page of BGC, there's not much hope for the current definition, but a couple citations for what appears to be a participant in logic experiments. The logic-related term appears to have been coined by Charles Sanders Peirce. Here's a quote related to the logic term:
    • 1933, Charles Sanders Peirce, chapter ..., Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce[48], ISBN 0674138015, page 4.432:
      It may be considered as the expression of whatever must be well-understood between the graphist and the interpreter of the graph before the latter can understand what to expect of the graph.

Purplebackpack89 13:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

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


A former North African currency? I can't find any reference to it. Presumably the two senses have different etymologies (unless North Africa once used male breasts as currency, which seems... improbable), so if it is real, it should be under a separate etym header. WurdSnatcher (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

I've added three quotations. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:51, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! I split the etyms up, but of course I don't know where the currency comes from. WurdSnatcher (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Reminds me of a joke I saw. She sends him a text saying "would you like to see mahboob?" "Oh yes" he says. She sends back this. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:46, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
  • Seems to be a rare scanno (or the equivalent done by a human ignorant of the spelling), and therefore should be deleted. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


Definition: mussel

This seems to be a nonce word in a Walt Whitman poem, which is present in innumerable editions and in various anthologies:

Fascinated, my eyes reverting from the south, dropt, to follow those slender windrows,
Chaff, straw, splinters of wood, weeds, and the sea-gluten,
Scum, scales from shining rocks, leaves of salt-lettuce, left by the tide…

Every other hit on Google Books that I've been able to find is either a direct quote or a mention. Nowhere have I seen it defined or used in a context that would show what it means, and certainly nothing to support the definition given, which makes no sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:51, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I found a single citation that predates Whitman. However, I think the definition is in error, and it simply means "gluten from the sea". I found a quote from Whitman's notebooks where he seems to be listing synonyms for sea slime in preparation for writing the poem ‑ "ooze — sea- ooze; gluten — sea-gluten; sea-scum; spawn". The sticky, slimy properties of the chemical gluten (and fibrin, which was formerly also called "gluten") were well understood even then, and the Latin name does mean "glue". Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:25, 23 September 2015 (UTC)


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

I can, but only in French. (and one blog entry). Perhaps, if I add proto-photon, someone can create the French entry and link to it. Kiwima (talk) 20:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
This looks like argot. It looks like one guy's idea, I removed one quote that failed verification and both remaining source are from the same person. I also removed the dead synonym link to paleophoton which seems to be fictitious. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:53, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Also, it should be noted that the quotes for the physical particle actually use the form proto-photon, with the hyphen. Kiwima (talk) 03:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Snow Queen[edit]

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

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


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

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


Tagged but not listed.SemperBlotto (talk) 08:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the definition. I added a couple cites that might point to more than one definition. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 09:06, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
I added three cites for the original meaning (one of which was one found by you, @Metaknowledge ). I also found another one for the sense of a quickie, which I added to the cites page. Everything else I saw looked like a scanno or an elision of "fuck let" In uncitable texts, I find another meaning, most likely a synonym for a sexually available woman or girl. Kiwima (talk) 18:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
The 2010 quotation looks to me like a typo or scanno for "fucklet's": "Shit/fuck—let's try." By the way, it would be helpful if you provide page numbers or links, or both, when adding quotations—it is hard to verify the quotations otherwise. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 19:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Right you are, my bad. Kiwima (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
Cited three senses. Could not cite the fourth sense ("quickie"). -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


A word that smells strongly of tingo and has zero BGC hits? Hmm... —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Cited two senses. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


The only English uses I can find are an adjectival one (which I placed on the citations page) and one in The Superior Person's Third Book of Well-bred Words which is IMO a "made-up example[] of how a word might be used" and hence invalid per CFI.
The term does, however, seem to be attested in French and German. - -sche (discuss) 02:44, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "a mischevious child". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:51, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

  • This is yet another dodgy entry from the same anon. All his contributions need looking at. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:59, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Managed to find two cites. Appears to be a genuine thing, but extremely obscure and/or a flash-in-the-pan trend in the early '90s. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I think it's a variant of pornobilly, which is more citable. WurdSnatcher (talk) 22:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I found a third hit. However, all the hits I can find (for both pornabilly and pornobilly) refer to the same band (Buck Naked and the Bare Bottom Boys). I suspect that they were the only "pornabilly" band to have existed. Smurrayinchester (talk) 06:10, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


Esperanto. I can't find any uses on Google Books, Google Groups, or Tekstaro, and the word is not in any of the three Esperanto dictionaries I use. If it passes, the definition should probably be rephrased. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


Supposedly Spanish meaning "hot chick" or something. Seems to be a nonce term. --Zo3rWer (talk) 08:09, 26 September 2015 (UTC)


Well, I can see some typos for "a theologist", but are there any citations to support this definition? SemperBlotto (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure of the sense, but google books:"atheologists" shows that this is very easily citeable. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
I've changed the definition to "A scholar of atheism" as the previous def was open to interpretation.--Dmol (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Cited. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 20:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


Esperanto for Spider-Man. I can't find anything on Tekstaro, Google Books, or Google Groups. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 20:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

As we don't have Spider-Man we shouldn't have this. I always thought fictional characters were banned unless they carry a meaning beyond their being fictional characters. --Hekaheka (talk) 00:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


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

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


This Swedish entry has languished at WT:RFC#Apples, but I've decided to RFV it so that its fate can be sealed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

This place is in French-speaking part of Switzerland. Should the language simply be changed to French? We have plenty of small towns in many languages. --Hekaheka (talk) 00:05, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Yes, the French can be cited easily, so that would be appropriate, but I thought I'd give the Swedish a chance first. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Almost every town or place X is X in Swedish, Finnish or almost any Latin-alphabet language. I have followed the rule that I only add a Finnish entry for a foreign placename which is not X in Finnish. Admittedly, it is a rule of my own, but still it makes a lot of sense. --Hekaheka (talk) 16:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Allright, every rule has an exception. Some really important places such as New York have a Finnish entry in order to show the declension. But Apples? --Hekaheka (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


I'll give this one the benefit of the doubt. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:20, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

  • It's totally wrong. For a start, it's an adjective, not a noun. The definition uses the word itself without any explanation. Also, it is from a user who repeatedly adds total rubbish. I would either just delete it or, even better, replace it with a proper adjectival definition. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:36, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I have converted the definition to an adjective. It seems to be rare, but used in a small number of related papers. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I added a second cite that is unrelated to that cluster of papers found by SemperBlotto. Kiwima (talk) 06:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


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

  • More crap from the above user. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:38, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
Found two cites. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 07:07, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
I don't know whether this counts, and if it does, how to go about formatting the citation, but it appears with that sense in the title of a series of films: [[49]] and a song called Fuckabilly Boogie. Kiwima (talk) 06:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: “virtue” and “benefit; profit” (Portuguese). — Ungoliant (falai) 18:28, 28 September 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: disgrace; dishonour. No use, appears to have been invented by Nathan Bailey in his dictionary. DTLHS (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I can find two cites with this sense:

  • 1806, Oliver Oldschool, [Port Folio], page 316:
    Alas! he fears my lacerated coat, And visage pale with frigorisic want, Would bring dedecoration on his chaise.
  • 1927, Nancy Cox-McCormack, [Days in Spain], page 51:
    There under the hungry eyes of his mistress, who witnessed all from the Mirador, Pedro, to his dedecoration, put into action the awful declaration, "I am El Rey Justiciero."

And a third which is questionable:

  • 1893, [Speaker - Volume 8 ], page 439:
    In any case it is vulgar, and in its small way, as a dedecoration of Caswall's little treatise, is as sad a case of the confounding of things essentially different as I have seen for a long time.

Kiwima (talk) 05:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC)


Only in dictionaries. DTLHS (talk) 04:07, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

It appears that Bailey was the author of a certain tome entitled An Universal Etymological English Dictionary, so Category:Requests for quotation/Bailey may contain other dictionary-only terms. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
It definitely does. We should probably try to cite all of them. DTLHS (talk) 04:32, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
  • English section should probably be a {{no entry|[[Appendix:English dictionary-only terms]]|lang=en}} job. Although I believe there could be a valid French section. Ƿidsiþ 11:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
    That awkward moment when you have often used a word that Wiktionary declares dictionary-only… —JohnC5
Since this is an obsolete word, it may be worthwhile to look for strings like fefsitude, feffitude, fe(situde and feßitude, because Google Book’s OCR system doesn’t read ſ properly. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:40, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
I already did. Nothing came up. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:47, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense - "reciprocal temperature". Is there such a thing? SemperBlotto (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

It looks like they're using sense #5 of reciprocal: "contrary or opposite". There has to be a better way to phrase it, though- anytime someone starts a definition with "a technical name for...", I get nervous. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Based on the relevant Wikipedia article (Thermodynamic beta), I actually think they are using the mathematical sense of "reciprocal". If I understand correctly, coldness is the reciprocal (multiplicative inverse) of absolute temperature. Garrod's Statistical Mechanics and Thermodynamics should provide one citation. This book seems to be using a similar sense, but I don't know enough physics to be sure if it's the same. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 02:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
Castle et al in 1965 were perhaps the first to point out the more fundamental nature of reciprocal temperature (in the mathematical sense of 1/T). They went to the trouble of having the letters in the font for temperature inverted, although one still had to speak the awkward phrase "reciprocal temperature" when encountering it. In physics, we commonly apologize about more specific "technical definitions" for words like work, power, etc. even though vernacular uses cover a much wider range of meaning. By the way, that 1972 Springer book (linked above) by Ingo Mueller might be an interesting find as it predates Garrod's text by more than 20 years. In that context, I'll check to see what prior uses are cited by Garrod. Thermochap (talk) 11:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
  • We do define similar concepts from other fields of physics in the same way (conductivity is "reciprocal of resistivity", slowness is "reciprocal of velocity"). However, it can't be from the 1995 textbook, since I can find hits on Google Scholar as early as 1966. Really, it's just the obvious name, and I'd imagine many scientists have independently invented it as a nonce word. Smurrayinchester (talk) 11:41, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
I've added a few citations to the inverse or reciprocal temperature definition. There are likely prior ones as well, plus I'm not sure about my formatting. Thermochap (talk) 12:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Resolved: RFV tag to be removed by the nominator. Thermochap (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

In fact, the RFV tag was removed by User:Thermochap, so I have restored it until an administrator or experienced user closes the discussion. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 20:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

I am indeed not an experienced user. Thermochap (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

October 2015[edit]


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

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

Recorded also in Macquarie Dictionary online -- Australiana2 adjective → Aussie (def. 2). [Australi(an)1 + -ana common Italian ending]. Where Aussie def 2. is defined as: Also, Australiana (of a pizza) having bacon and egg as a feature in the topping. Though, defined there as adjective rather than noun.Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:48, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Are restaurant menus, as a form of print media, considered "durably archived?" Some menu citations from the Australian National Dictionary can be found here. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 19:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


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


No usage (what does "full of heaps" mean anyway?) DTLHS (talk) 16:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Appears to be dictionary only. In OED, but only cited to a 1727 dictionary. SpinningSpark 23:33, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


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

Added one bad citation (the sentence is a thesauric list of synonyms for "old"). That's all I found. Equinox 15:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
[Here] is another citation; it's a dictionary, but it is using the word in a definition, rather than defining it. Kiwima (talk) 18:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Not what I was expecting this word to mean at all. I figured it was a rendezvous over a Starbucks grande. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:13, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
There is a "Leo's Grandevous" in Hoboken, named for just this reason. Equinox 19:19, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


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

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


Seems to be the name of a flavour of ice cream. --Zo3rWer (talk) 11:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I've added seven citations. Three of them appear to support this sense or something similar, and the other four clearly represent a different meaning, so I've added {{rfdef}}. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 13:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
This one and this one suggest any wild berry is a "wildberry". This uses it as a synonym of a plant otherwise called the pinit (earlier in the same doc called a wild strawberry). This one seems to be using it to mean any kind of wild berry, as opposed to a farmed variety. WurdSnatcher (talk) 16:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


No usage. DTLHS (talk) 21:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


Found a single usage. DTLHS (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Added two. One is deliberately using obscure words for comic effect. Equinox 21:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
I found another cite, making for a total of four citations at Citations:tumulosity. Here's an interesting article confirming that the wordy 1906 Frontier Experience book was intentionally written as a joke. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

ヌーブ, ぬーぶ[edit]

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

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


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

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


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

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


Also needs cleanup if real. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I added two citations. There was one already there, but that one looks more like a mention than a use to me. Kiwima (talk) 19:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The 2011 Harvard Crimson article is several pages long, and there are two uses on the second page. I also found a 2014 journal cite on Google Scholar, making a total of four cites. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 20:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

baixo (Portuguese)[edit]

Rfv-sense: casualty

Ungoliant (falai) 15:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


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

See Ancient Greek φάλαινα ‎(phálaina), alt form of φάλλαινα ‎(phállaina) ("whale, moth, monster"), related to Latin balaena ‎(whale), cf. baleen whale. I don't know quite how to sort this out. DCDuring TALK 00:54, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
To start with, we don't have Ancient Greek sections in either of those entries. As far as I can tell, the one with the double letter is the original form, but it has been displaced by the later form with the single letter, which was also borrowed into Classical Latin, except the "ph" changed to a "b", for some reason. I think we're dealing with two different, but homographic words in Ancient Greek, with only the one meaning whale making it into Latin. The one meaning moth is used in taxonomic Latin, giving rise to the obsolete generic name Phalaena, and appearing in compounds such as Phalaenopsis. Even if this spelling exists, it should be changed to an alternative form of balaena, which was the only form common enough to have descendants among the Romance languages. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
So far I've only been able to find this and this. Note that both are discussing Ancient Greek word use in Ancient Greek texts. This is a mention in an English footnote that seems to say that phalaena is found as a variant in one manuscript that contains a fragment of a Latin text. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


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

Multiple archives to w:Internet Archive. -- Cirt (talk) 23:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
The w:Internet Archive backs up the links so they will never be dead-links. -- Cirt (talk) 23:21, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
  1. I just read the relevant portion on what it means to be durably archived at WT:ATTEST.
  2. WT:ATTEST specifically says: "Where possible, it is better to cite sources that are likely to remain easily accessible over time, so that someone referring to Wiktionary years from now is likely to be able to find the original source. As Wiktionary is an online dictionary, this naturally favors media such as Usenet groups, which are durably archived by Google.".
  3. Google is seen, therefore, to be a reliable company to back up hyperlinks = "durably archived".
  4. Why is the company Google being given higher preference than the w:Internet Archive ?

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

The Wayback Machine isn't considered durably archived—see #rickrollear above and Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2012/March#More on the Wayback Machine for a longer discussion. As I understand it, the reason Usenet is accepted is more than just Google—see #parcelcopter above as well as the Beer parlour discussion. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 00:16, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. Wiktionary:Beer_parlour/2012/March#More_on_the_Wayback_Machine seems to suggest Wayback Machine is okay for the Citations page. -- Cirt (talk) 00:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

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

  • Update: We now have on the Citations:Polandball page = three (3) Usenet cites in Polish language, three (3) Usenet cites in French language, and three (3) Usenet cites in Italian language. Hopefully this is now sufficient to keep this page from being disappeared from this site? Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 00:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
They would be fine for French and Polish entries, but an English entry requires English cites. If the English cites were stories that had appeared in print, but were also on the internet news service, that would work. Unfortunately, the ones you've included so far seem to be strictly online- even the one that's produced by staff from a print newspaper. As for the "Polandball Book", I'm not sure what it is, exactly. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Krakow Post is in print and online. -- Cirt (talk) 02:40, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm the one who added the "Polandball Book", and I think it counts as a legitimate English-language usage - it is a book of Polandball comics, it is durably archived (even has an ISBN), I'm not sure about any of the other citations. Kiwima (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Kiwima (talkcontribs), your help is most appreciated. -- Cirt (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure: it seems to be some kind of internet-only print-on-demand kind of thing. I don't know enough about ISBN's to know if durable archiving is part of the process. At any rate, all of the ISBN sites I checked had no trace of the book. I was sincere when I said I don't know what it is, exactly- it may be durably archived or it may not be. Someone who knows more about such things will have to sort it out. As for the Krakow Post, it looks to me like the online content is independent of the print content, though I'm sure there's a great deal of overlap. If it had been in the print editions, I would have expected something like a byline with date of publication. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
The Krakow Post article was written by journalist Steven Hoffman. -- Cirt (talk) 22:28, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  1. Update: Added languages French, Italian, and Polish.
  2. With three (3) cites each entry, to posts on Usenet via Google News Groups archived links which satisfy WT:ATTEST.
  3. Please see DIFF.
  4. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 01:31, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


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


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

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


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


Rfv-sense: "A work of art by Pricasso" (not Picasso, but Pricasso, with an r). —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I checked the page Picasso which I modeled this after. The page Picasso has the same "work of art by" entry. The page Picasso has no citations to back up that example. Why is there a double standard being applied here? -- Cirt (talk) 23:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
If someone were to challenge Picasso, it would end up here, too. It would be impractical to verify every single entry without cites, so we only do it when someone expresses a doubt. Most of us have seen or heard references to "a Picasso", so no one has bothered to request verification. I can't say that I've ever had occasion to see or hear such a reference to "a Pricasso", so I don't see anything wrong with requesting verification- whether the rfv is a good idea or not, there's no double standard involved. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:41, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Chuck Entz (talkcontribs), you make very good points. I have seen and heard people referencing "a Pricasso", multiple times. :) -- Cirt (talk) 23:43, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


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

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


As above. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:04, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

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


Rfv-sense "in a wordish manner". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


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

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


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


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

Cited? -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@Cloudcuckoolander: I see that deskelizar still has no cites. Did you mean to post that comment in #antiracialize? —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 21:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, thanks for catching that. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


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


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


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

law school[edit]

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

Sure they do - try googling "has a law school" and you will find lots of hits with that meaning. I even find a few with "provides a law school". Kiwima (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
In "has a law school" the "institution" definition is a perfect fit. One would be hard pressed to find a law school that did not have its own institutional identity, which is why the four OneLook dictionaries that have possibly independent definitions only have the single "institution" definition. I am not sure what citations can be found with verbs that tend to collocate with program and not institution. Offer and provide are such verbs. There must be others. DCDuring TALK 23:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
While I see your point, if you look at the citations I added to the entry, they speak of a university having a law school. In these cases, I would think that the institution is the university and the law school is a program or division of said institution. Kiwima (talk) 00:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but by the second definition, that would make the university a law school. Harvard University has a law school: Harvard Law School. Harvard University itself isn't a law school. Now, one could say: "The high-paying job definitely was worth all those years of law school." That would seem to refer to something other than an institution, but I'm not sure. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Law schools have separate deans, faculties, courses, degrees, admissions, mailing addresses, etc. I don't know what else it would take for it to be an institution. Note that no other OneLook dictionary finds it necessary to have two definitions. I am still open to citations incompatible with an "institution" definition.
"All those years of law school" is a lot like "All those years of consulting". I don't think we would want to define "consulting" as "employment as a consultant." DCDuring TALK 01:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The reason I nominated this, I guess, is that the word "program" sounds off to me. A program is something that is written up and organised. Isn't a law school something much bigger than that? ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

risorgimento as a common noun[edit]

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

It is listed in the Unabridged Merriam Webster as a common noun, and I don't remember any requests for citation - perhaps I didn't get a notification? Aryamanarora (talk) 02:40, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Maybe Meriam-Webster made a mistake. I don't think somebody can say "England went through the period of risorgimento", but they could use the word "renaissance" in the same context. I can't find such use in any book (when it is used for anything but Italy and not without the capital letter). Yurivict (talk) 03:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
It does have two quotations that mention risorgimento out of the context of Italy. Link Aryamanarora (talk) 03:16, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


"The knot which one with long hair usually develops on the back of the head after long periods of intercourse, specifically the missionary position" -- I would like some verification of this one. WurdSnatcher (talk) 20:44, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Good catch. It's been there since May 2010. DCDuring TALK 23:35, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Make that March of 2006. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Seems like a bad joke. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Ha! It was Wonderfool who added that sense. --Zo3rWer (talk) 13:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I did spot this in 2011 but having never heard of the word I didn't want to RFV it. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Actually, I have heard this used several times, so it does exist. The def above is worded weird though. Its more akin to bedhead ‎(hair messiness resulting from sleeping), but this is from the other activity. For example, if your parents come home, they might know what you've been doing if they see that you have fuckhead. Leasnam (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

> <[edit]

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

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

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


A Jabberwocky nonce word, but also one that I reckon falls under WT:FICTION. Note to closer: If this fails, it should probably be moved to an appropriate appendix rather than deleted outright; if nothing else, it is the etymon for Borogovia. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC) I can find a few outside of Lewis Carroll:

  • 2007, Whitley Strieber, 2012: The War for Souls, ISBN 1429919914, page 346:
    Here were fields of swabe and borogrove and orchards full of trees heavy with lascos and spurls and nape.
  • 2013, Michael Hiebert, The Hyperbole Engine: Collected Stories of Adventure, ISBN 1476138265:
    Proudly beaming, Amabelle said, “It is a borogrove!” I knew I'd heard that word before, but it took a moment for me to remember it was during the night while Father was delirious.
  • 2013, Andrew Harman, The Tome Tunnel, ISBN 0356503046:
    'Neat trick, I thought it was good seeing a borogrove last week, but that ...' 'You've seen a borogrove?' asked Firkin. 'Oh, yeah. It was unreal!'

Kiwima (talk) 06:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


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

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

and possibly also a type of elk:

  • Resilience in Quaking Aspen: Recent Advances and Future Needs] 1/1/2013, Paul C Rogers, C Eisenberg, & S. Clair, “[http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2441&context=wild_facpub”, Utah State University Digital Commons:
    Of specific interest is the ability of aspen's chemical defense mechanisms to repel or tolerate browsing by elk (Cervus edaphus) in the Rocky Mountain region (Wooley et al., 2008).

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

A genus should be at Edaphus, not here, and would usually be under Translingual rather than English. SpinningSpark 11:13, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
There is apparently a specific epithet distinct from the genus name. That would not be capitalized. DCDuring TALK 11:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) Your first cite to lowercase edaphus is referring to Gallius edaphus. I have no idea what that is (other than it has spicules) but we do not usually give entries for species specific names. Compare Escherichia coli and coli. The cite to Cervus edaphus is pretty certainly a scanno for Cervus elaphus (the red deer). Elk used to be considered a subspecies of C. elaphus. See the search "Cervus elaphus" elk on scholar. SpinningSpark 11:50, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I have added an entry for Edaphus, using three cites from above that seem unambiguously of the genus. DCDuring TALK 12:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


  • WT:FICTIONΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
    • The term "Mooninite" to describe Lunarians is well-used on the US television show Aqua Teen Hunger Force. wikipedia:Mooninite Nicole Sharp (talk) 03:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Please read WT:FICTION: by itself, that is completely irrelevant- you have to show usage independent of the show. This is a bit tricky, since there was an incident in Boston where some blinking Mooninite figures that were part of a publicity gimmick got mistaken for a bomb, and the authorities massively overreacted. It's hard to say whether "Mooninite" used in references to that incident are independent or not. Either way, though, the term as currently defined doesn't look like it will meet WT:FICTION. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
      • No, I can't find anything usage other than that publicity stunt. I would just delete it. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Delete per Semper. --Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Googling with -"Aqua Teen" -Boston produces some results. It will take some work to build a decent list of references though. I would say to keep it unless it is proven that the word is a fictional neologism from the show. The best way to check I think would be to search works of early-to-mid-twentieth-century science fiction (such terms were common then); my instinct is that Aqua Teen Hunger Force is not the first place the word has been used, since it is cognate with both of the more common terms of Moon and Selenite. Nicole Sharp (talk) 05:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Just -Boston -Aqua works as well. Here is a decent reference (review by AMC Networks on the classic film A Trip to the Moon), bold emphasis added:
    "In fact, despite the fact that it is so old, this film has it all: a gigantic cannon that fires a rocket ship in the spy [sic], a bevy of beautiful French girls, astronauts, alien flora and insectoid Mooninites. In a literal sense, science fiction does not get more classic than this." [50]
    Nicole Sharp (talk) 05:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "hexad"; one cite in entry but creator Smuconlaw has doubted its veracity. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

  • The one and only citation seems fairly obviously an error to me. The etymology does not make any sense. SpinningSpark 04:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've deleted the erroneous sense. Thanks. Smuconlaw (talk) 16:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


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

I found this from 2013. Kiwima (talk) 01:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Hmm - that link doesn't seem to work - here's a formatted cite:
  • 2013 August 15, Ann O'Dea, “Interview: Richard Florida - Talent loves Tolerance”, Silicon Republic:
    Author of The Rise of the Creative Class and many other tomes along similar themes, since his self-described conversion in the late Nineties, he has preached to all who will listen his doctrine of creative progress, and the necessity to ‘creatify’ even our most lowly service jobs.

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

Also, this one from 2014:
  • 2014, Richard Florida, The Rise of the Creative Class--Revisited, ISBN 0465038980:
    Every job can and must be creatified; every worker must be able to harness his or her own inner entrepreneur.

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

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


Rfv-sense "A grassy basin surrounded by mountains." Context, US. As an American, I've never seen it. If it exists, I suspect it's a specialized usage that should be clarified by quotations.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

It is in wide use about such landforms in my experience in the northern Rockies in the US, but probably elsewhere in the US West. The animated TV show South Park gets its name from such a place southwest of Denver, through which I have driven. AHD has "A broad, fairly level valley between mountain ranges: the high parks of the Rocky Mountains. I wonder if the word is of French origin.
Our definition has two elements that I question: "grassy" and "surrounded". Though the flat portion of parks can be grassy, sometimes it is more an alpine meadow with little grass. And such basins are at most partially "surrounded by mountains", since there is always an opening for water drainage.
In any event the definition would benefit from citations. DCDuring TALK 14:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I can't easily find varied citations to add to the entry, and it's not a word I would use, but google books:"high parks" (to borrow AHD's usage) shows that it is in very wide use in general. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    I have added what I think is a good definition for what was probably intended and provided five citations therefor. I don't think good cites can be found to support the elements "grassy" and "surrounded by" in the challenged definition. DCDuring TALK 23:55, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
    I think you're being too literal with "surrounded by"; it's not as absolute as you imply, I think, and a high valley would be surrounded by mountains. I thank you for the gathering of citations. I note that many of them say so-called; I think there is something we should say lexicographically about that, if it's not just a data artifact, but I'm not sure what. In any case, I think this is clearly closeable as an RFV.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    I think in a definiens some care should be taken to avoid relying on tertiary senses of words. I cannot find the sense you invoke in MWOnline which offers the following definitions of surround:
    1a (1) : to enclose on all sides : envelop <the crowd surrounded her> (2) : to enclose so as to cut off communication or retreat : invest
    b : to form or be a member of the entourage of <flatterers who surround the king>
    c : to constitute part of the environment of <surrounded by poverty>
    d : to extend around the margin or edge of : encircle <a wall surrounds the old city>
    2 : to cause to be surrounded by something <surrounded himself with friends>
    Sense 1a(1) seems to be the only relevant sense. It seems to be the only sense MW has for real spatial relationships. DCDuring TALK 01:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    It's hard to imagine any area surrounded by mountains in the completely enclosed sense. The first two uses of "surrounded by mountains" in Google Books that I could pull up a map of are Jackson Hole, WY and Mountain Meadow, UT, both of which have a creek running out of them. I'm hard put to find a better way to state that they have mountains all around them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:49, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    I know this is a hard term for which to cite less common definitions. Are either of those places referred to as parks, even in sources not valid for formal attestation? Do they fit within the definition I've cited, perhaps with modification? DCDuring TALK 11:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    The places that I know are called parks are all in Colorado: South Park (Park County, Colorado), Middle Park (Colorado basin), North Park (Colorado basin), High Park west of Fort Collins, site of High Park fire, also High Park near Cripple Creek, but one of the cites refers to such a place near Mount Rainier, in Washington. DCDuring TALK 12:29, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


Two definitions:

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

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


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

  • Mainly in Call of Duty games, but it can be done in most first-person shooters. (So, let's say it's related to a precise genre of video games.) I'll edit the definitions later - it can be used as a noun or a verb, so I thought it was relevant to mention both; what can I do to improve the definitions, though? Sik666 (talk) 11:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
    @Sik666 What they want you to do on this page is find quotations of usage of the word in "durably archived sources" (eg books and magazines). SpinningSpark 13:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
A related term is noscope, which (I believe) is to rapidly turn and fire on an opponent without taking time to aim. Equinox 15:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Equinox no-scope actually has its own page (although very brief and incomplete — I was thinking of completing it in the near future). @Spinningspark For quotations, I'll search for examples; seems like the definitions have been improved since the creation. Sik666 (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Edit: Added a quote. Also, I've added an alternate meaning to the noun. In my opinion, "quickscope" originally meant "a quick look through the scope" and became "a rapid kill (done by means of a quickscope)" over time, as a metonymy. I'm all ears if you find a way to regroup those two meanings or disagree. Sik666 (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Sik666 added a quotation using quick-scoping, I added two using quick-scoped and one using quickscoping, so at least the verb quick-scope is attested.
I also found [51] (uses quickscoping) and [52] (uses and quotes quick scoping, quick-scope, quickscoping and quick scope). I’m not sure they are durably archived. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
— Most of the sources are forums and boards which tend to be very unconsistent. Some websites specialized in video games used various spellings of quickscope, but I doubt we can find more reliable quotes as of now. The RFV can be closed (unless someone has something to add?). Sik666 (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


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


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

háček language[edit]

I failed to find this phrase outside wiki. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Googling "haček languages" comes up with a bunch of results, which feels like it's a plural-only term for attestablion-wise. However, it could be a singular in the conversation "what language is X?" -> "some haček language". AliHautala (talk) 13:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


Definition #1 'office'. In its previous state it seemed to imply that bureau could mean "a building or room where clerical or professional duties are performed" as well as just an administrative unit of government or organization that provides information. Some of the translations are still for this meaning of "a building or room where clerical or professional duties are performed" but I have never heard bureau to mean this and I was unable to find any dictionary or citations which reflected this definition of bureau. If it does exist, then the translations are fine, but the definition needs tweaking as "office" on its own is a useless definition. Tulros (talk) 12:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

The previous definition gets support from bureau in The Century Dictionary, The Century Co., New York, 1911, so search in the 19th century and earlier might be fruitful.
Webster 1913 has, after a first def as "Originally, a desk or writing table with drawers for papers",
2. The place where such a bureau is used; an office where business requiring writing is transacted. DCDuring TALK 17:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm getting plenty of book cites of the sort "he/she went back/returned to the bureau". Sometimes this means returned to that employment, but there are also many that plainly show the bureau is to be considered a physical location.[53][54][55][56]. SpinningSpark 22:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Of the links you present, the last yields me no visible text, the third refers to a "Bureau" that is clearly referring to the name of an organization, the second fits the bill, and in the first most of those visible seem to refer to a piece of furniture, with one referring to the name of an organization. Thus, I find but one citation that should grace the definition in question. DCDuring TALK 03:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, you are right, they are not as good as I first thought. The one you can't read is "He returned to the bureau and opened a different drawer." A case of expectation bias I think. SpinningSpark 10:41, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


Make into zouk music. Nothing much even in Google. Equinox 16:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I've added four quotations. One of them uses the word in quotation marks, but it is still a use rather than a mention. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 20:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

competence porn[edit]

Please add attesting quotations meeting WT:ATTEST to Citations:competence porn. The entry is deleted, and if no attesting quotations are added, it will stay deleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:11, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

That's not how RfV is supposed to work. Entries/definitions are kept until the RfV discussion is closed as fail. The top of the page says RfV discussions are supposed to be closed after a month, but in practice they often stay open for months, presumably to allow time for someone in our relatively small editor pool to answer the call to hunt for cites. This shouldn't have been deleted – especially not when the term's existence is backed up by multiple newspaper and magazine citations listed on the citations page (many are uses, but they prove that the term exists and is likely attestable). -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The backlog on both patrolling, which is a fairly urgent necessity, and RFV, which is somewhat less urgent, cause the needful speedy deletion of pages that appear to be protologisms. Occasionally our judgement may fail, and that's why an RFV like this is the right way to go. So yes, this is suboptimal, but it's an acceptable solution to a problem of unwieldy scope. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:02, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
@Cloudcuckoolander: I guess I agree with you; the entry should ideally be undeleted. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
I restored the entry per above comments. Also, I was confused as to what "competence porn" was supposed to mean, for purposes of attestation. Now I know, apparently: "(criticism) the modern moniker for entertainment featuring competent characters carrying out difficult tasks with high aptitude". --Daniel Carrero (talk) 10:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


"A Discordian prank." I searched for "played a jake" in G.Groups and found only one match, probably a typo for "joke". Equinox 13:16, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Read about the Great Spam Jake here: http://web.mit.edu/dryfoo/SubG/spam-jake.html
Also, here are some books that use both "jake" and "Discordian": https://www.google.com/#q=discordian+jake&tbm=bks Khemehekis (talk) 05:09, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Seems to be always capitalised Jake. Equinox 18:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Hmmm. Then maybe we can move the definition in question from jake to Jake. Khemehekis (talk) 01:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I have extended the definition to explain what the prank is (sending a lot of letters or parcels to somebody). I agree we might need to move it to capital J, when we have the requisite citations. Equinox 01:22, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Here are several good citations: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/discordian$20jake Khemehekis (talk) 04:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


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

Apparent nonce word only used by George Chapman, so it comes down to whether he is "notable" enough. Equinox 18:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
Remember, notability was struck down by vote, so that won't help here. Looks like Appendix:English nonces is its final home. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Having ten feet; decapodal. DTLHS (talk) 18:37, 17 October 2015 (UTC)


Looks like a typo (perpetradora is the feminine form) – Jberkel (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

smooth sailing[edit]

Meaning "sex without a condom". Added by User:Mr Poos, who only ever did this page. I don't see any actual uses on google books, or even on the web. WurdSnatcher (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)


Esperanto for stalker. I don't see anything on Google Books, Google Groups, or Tekstaro. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 00:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


Esperanto for marshmallow. This is in John C. Wells' English-Esperanto dictionary, but nowhere else on Google Books as far as I can tell. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 00:41, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Relating to economy in any other sense. What does this actually refer to, specifically? I have no idea. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I've added four quotations. Maybe the sense would be more clearly phrased "Relating to an economy or economics." —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 03:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I'd consider that sense of economical to be archaic. It is no accident that the one cite from a native speaker is from 169 years ago and the other three are apparently from non-native speakers. DCDuring TALK 16:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Good point. I've added the label "archaic". —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 21:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. I've always thought "economic" could never mean "economical", but I suppose it might have originally at some point in time. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


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

Yes check.svg Done, I've added three (3) citations. Mr. Granger (talkcontribs), it would have been appreciated if we could have discussed, and researched this, together, at the entry's talk page, rather than you choosing to escalate. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 03:49, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the quotations, but none of them support the challenged spelling. All three are of the spelling "pile on", not "pile-on". —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 03:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to exclude spellings in search results. Searches even in quotes for "pile-on" reveal numerous results for "pile on", and I don't know how to exclude one or the other. Can you help me, Mr. Granger (talkcontribs), please? -- Cirt (talk) 04:14, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
While we're at it, how common is the hyphenless spelling compared to the hyphenated spelling for the noun? I'd expect the noun to be usually spelled with the hyphen and the verb to be usually spelled with a space. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 09:51, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
@Cirt It's true that Google Books search ignores punctuation. You might have some success searching for "pileon"—sometimes Google Books mistakenly joins the two parts of a hyphenated word. In some cases the hyphenated form of a word is used in different contexts from the form with a space (such as gamma ray vs. gamma-ray), in which case you can filter using those contexts, but I don't know if that will work in this case. Beyond that, you might be able to find some hyphenated results just by looking through a lot of results with spaces until you finally come across one with a hyphen. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 13:02, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
That is helpful, but not encouraging, thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 16:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Try using COCA at BYU. AFAICR they make the distinction we need and either could be considered a durable archive or take their material from durably archived sources. DCDuring TALK 16:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


Annoyed or agitated? I've never heard it and don't see any use of it, but it sounds like the kind of thing that could exist. Anyone know of it? WurdSnatcher (talk) 04:16, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I've added four quotations. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 13:24, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
Thanks! All four appear to be British, so I marked it as such. WurdSnatcher (talk) 14:46, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


Per WT:FICTIONΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:22, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


Esperanto for female bat. I can't find anything on Tekstaro, Google Books, or Google Groups, though there's some interference from Latin and Romance languages. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 21:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


Esperanto for male bat. Nothing on Google Books, Google Groups, or Tekstaro. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 21:30, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


Esperanto for female Pharisee. Nothing on Google Books, Google Groups, or Tekstaro. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 21:32, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


Esperanto for female squirrel. I can't find anything on Google Groups, Google Books, or Tekstaro. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 21:34, 19 October 2015 (UTC)


This word seems very rare, though a few attestations do exist. Bu193 (talk) 12:43, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I can only find one use [57], which seems to have the meaning "the property of being a happenstance". —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 12:50, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I would have just deleted it. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


Esperanto for female baby rabbit. Nothing on Google Books, Google Groups, or Tekstaro. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 12:54, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Back to the Future Day[edit]

Meaning: "October 21, 2015." Really?

BTW, I've found a couple of random single-use alternative meanings:

  1. A day to celebrate past accomplishments. [58]
  2. A day to relive 1955 life. [59]

--Daniel Carrero (talk) 12:56, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

  • Today is the day that they jumped forward to in the film. I don't think it deserves a dictionary entry though. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:07, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
@SemperBlotto is there any policy or guideline to support deletion of this? I doubt it. Purplebackpack89 13:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
See [60]. I think that it’s okay to keep as a neologism or hot word. --Romanophile (contributions) 13:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I think there are citations for it for 2014 and before. Consider this Google search set between January 1, 1985 and October 21, 2014. Purplebackpack89 13:12, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) I had deleted it as a Wonderfoolism. I can get it back if you think we need it. SemperBlotto (talk) 13:14, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
@SemperBlotto Bad move to delete something in the middle of a discussion. I think you should recreate it and instead nominate it for deletion. The CFI basis for deleting it is weak, particularly since there's not much in CFI about holidays and observances. Also, being created by Wonderfool is not in and of itself a reason for deletion.Purplebackpack89 13:16, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I hate to agree with Purplebackpack, but yes, I think that speedying it was a bad idea. This locution is definitely used by quite a few people. --Romanophile (contributions) 13:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
Restored. Would you like to give it a decent dictionary definition? SemperBlotto (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't see anything particularly wrong with the current definition; if I was changing it, I'd just move some of the words around in the current definition. Purplebackpack89 13:23, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I edited the definition. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
It could go to RFD though, since we don't have black cat appreciation day, world cat day and so on. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


Esperanto for crucifixion. There's nothing on Google Books, Google Groups, or Tekstaro, and the standard terms are krucumo and krucumado. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 12:59, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


Esperanto for "close a window". Esperanto generally avoids consonant clusters like this, and in any case I can't find any uses on Google Books, Google Groups, or Tekstaro. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 13:05, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


Esperanto for squirrel meat. Nothing on Google Books, Google Groups, or Tekstaro. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 13:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


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

I did a quick Google Books search ("the Mannlein" | "a Mannlein" | "Mannlein are") with and without umlauts, and there appears to be very limited use in English. I'm not sure though how many are true uses, and not German words in English, or mentions... Leasnam (talk) 16:30, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
Added some cites. Leasnam (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


Another problematic Illyrian entry that needs to be attested. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:15, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

"Attested in Hesychius". Who's that? See w:Hesychius. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure w:Hesychius of Alexandria is meant, but that doesn't a) help prove that this is Illyrian and b) support the existence of this entry, because that attestation would be in Greek script. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

redheaded Eskimo[edit]

- -sche (discuss) 02:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Looks legit to me, but with a hyphen:

  • 1986 April 5, “""”, The Washington Post:
    "It's a red-headed Eskimo," legislative parlance for a narrowly constructed bill that applies to only one person or company.
  • 2004 February 18, “""”, The Baltimore Sun, page 4B:
    The legislation is what those around Annapolis call a "red-headed Eskimo" -- a bill designed to aid just one person, business or interest.
  • 2014 March 16, Barry Rascovar, “Rascovar: Legislators refight the Holocaust and endanger Purple Line”, The Maryland Reporter:
    That kind of one-company discrimination (a “red-headed Eskimo” bill in legislative lingo) is blatantly illegal under state and federal contracting law.

Kiwima (talk) 00:28, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Is it just a coincidence 2/3 of those are about Maryland? Maybe it's a regional term. though I guess that's so close to DC, any political terminology specific to MD would probably move to DC pretty quick. WurdSnatcher (talk)
I suspect that is no coincidence - Everything I found was Maryland or DC. My impulse would be to move the entry to a hyphenated version and mark it colloquial. Kiwima (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


I looked for blends in Latin, and the only one that we have appears to be a protologism. --Romanophile (contributions) 16:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Nice catch. I can't think of any attested blends, come to think of it. This one certainly isn't. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:58, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
Latin tends to be considered an archaic language, and blends are largely a modern phenomenon, probably normalized by the 20th century. If Latin required a new word, it was usually dealt with more traditionally: using affixes. It used to be that blends were rare, but since Latin and Ancient Greek have declined, blends have become a much more common alternative as a quick and easy method to invent a new word. Classical authors would probably consider them ridiculous and pathetic. --Romanophile (contributions) 10:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Well, Oxbridge didn't exist as a concept until the modern era, and it would be a Latinization of the English (which is itself a very Oxbridge thing to do). There a couple of unusable web hits ("et in Oxbrigia") but I can't find any CFI-compliant cites. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


Esperanto for con artist or swindler. I can find one quotation that appears to support the definitions in the entry and one that I'm not completely sure about, but that seems to simply be using the word as a derogatory term for "merchant". —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:33, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


Esperanto for conwoman or female swindler. I can't find anything on Google Groups, Google Books, or Tekstaro. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Esperanto for "a female fragment of someone or something which passes". This might be morphologically possible in theory, but it's hard to imagine a situation where it would be used, and I can't find any uses on Google Groups, Tekstaro, or Google Books (though there is some interference from Spanish). —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

fire drill[edit]

No idea why this idiomatic usage was given two different senses for what seems like one. ---> Tooironic (talk) 08:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

El Aiune[edit]

El Aaium[edit]

Ungoliant (falai) 15:41, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


Esperanto for young female squirrel. Nothing on Google Books, Google Groups, or Tekstaro. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 00:52, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

RFV-failed. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


Esperanto for young squirrel. The only thing I can find on Google Books, Tekstaro, or Google Groups is this. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 00:54, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


Esperanto for young female bird. Nothing on Google Books, Google Groups, or Tekstaro. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 22:35, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

without a hitch[edit]

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

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

The usual usage uses hitch ‎((informal) A problem, delay or source of difficulty), for which the usage example is: The banquet went off without a hitch. ("the banquet went smoothly.")
IMO, the correct definition is SoP, though a good candidate for collocation space. DCDuring TALK 09:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
  • I created the most commonly used definition. Purplebackpack89 13:16, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
They user who created this had a knack for finding idiomatic phrases that we were missing, but they made up their own definitions- this entry is typical of their body of work. They were warned about dubious content, they persisted, they got blocked. Sad, but unavoidable. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:01, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
"Completely unplanned and unexpected" is the challenged sense, remember. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Indeed. How is this sense used? I can't think of how. ---> Tooironic (talk) 11:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
My instinct is it's just a user error, created by a user who didn't know what it meant. But since I have no evidence of this, I say wait the full 30 days. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (1993) doesn't list this, but it has 'without a hitch' in an example sentence under 'hitch'. RFD sounds not unreasonable, though I don't know if I'd support it or oppose it. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


This is definitely attestable as an uppercase German noun, but this entry claims it's a lowercase English one. All I've been able to find are things like "G: Pockholz", that is, listing it as a German translation. I'm not sure why they decided to create an unattested English form when we don't have a German entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: pure MDMA. Some American misspelling of molly, I guess? Ƿidsiþ 09:54, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

man child[edit]

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

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

number three[edit]

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

To rhyme with wee/pee? Anyway, can't find it (I tried various Books searches e.g. "need a number three"), and found at least one source suggesting there's no such thing: "Better they think she had to go number three than something so odd that it didn't even have a number." Equinox 16:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Number one means you need to pee. Number two means you have to poo. Number three is numbers one plus two. It’s more urgent than either one or two alone. —Stephen (Talk) 04:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Stephen, just, I don't have any evidence. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
This is in exactly that sense, but it's not a durable source. SpinningSpark 19:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
My mum used to have a little poster that said, ‘If you do number one, or number two, don’t forget to do number three: wash your hands with soap and water.’ (Paraphrased.) --Romanophile (contributions) 11:48, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
According to What's Your Poo Telling You?, it means diarrhea. However, this says that the third reason one might go to the toilet is masturbation. SpinningSpark 19:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I reckon that "number three" lacks a set cultural definition, but instead is applied to anything that seems logical in conjunction with the set definitions of numbers one and two; it might refer to urgency (Stephen), sequence of events (Romanophile), or intensity of activity (diarrhoea/masturbation). (FWIW, "diarrhoea" is the sense that I used as a child.) One or more of these may prove to be citable, but overall they are largely independent or semi-independent neologisms, hence the wide range in semantics. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I know we can't use this, but this morning I asked an ex-paratrooper what he though going for a number three meant. Without any prompting he said it means "polishing your rocket" (he had to be semi-polite because his wife was within earshot). On that evidence, it would seem that the masturbation meaning is widely known in the military, although not something that will be written down too often. SpinningSpark 13:41, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I laughed so hard at "polishing your rocket" that I had to go for a number four! AliHautala (talk) 13:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

  • [61] 2005, Globe and Mail, Catherine Seton
    • Obviously the Toronto slogan should be "COTU," which stands, of course, for "Centre of the universe." However, in all seriousness, I think a Canadian campaign, with the self-mocking aspect abundantly clear, based on "COTU" could be funny.
  • [62] 2007, Pelican Parts, coldstart
    • Fall Fun Run!!! - Toronto area or aka 'COTU'
  • [63] 2013, Bruno 54
    • Is Toronto the COTU?
  • [64] 2008, Eh Mac, FeXL, New Toronto tax on cars, motorbikes rolls out
    • How do the denizens of COTU feel about this?
  • [65] 2012, Urban Toronto, Lenser, Do we know what Toronto's slogan is?
    • In another forum I used to frequent, I frequently (and always in jest) called it the COTU. Seemed appropriate, given the derision Toronto often receives from many Canadians.
  • [66] 2010, Hack the Bone,
    • And so begins my Toronto-centric relocation. To my Doha readers, I apologize for the shift Hack the Bone is about to take. It can’t be helped, I’m moving back to the CoTU (centre of the universe).

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

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


Added with no definition, I can find no good cites - what is the point of this entry? Kiwima (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Speedied. We can't "verify" a blank entry. Next time you could use the speedy-deletion template on the entry. Equinox 19:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
What if the entry for nothing was blank? SpinningSpark 02:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Then the reader will achieve enlightenment. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 02:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


Esperanto for "close a door". All I can find on Google Books, Google Groups, and Tekstaro is this use of pordofermite, but I think it must be a compound of pordo + fermita + -e rather than an inflection of pordofermi. It certainly doesn't match the definition in the entry. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 22:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


Esperanto for bratty girl. Nothing on Google Groups, Google Books, or Tekstaro. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 22:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Is ashtray a poker term?[edit]

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

It's in List of playing-card nicknames, and plenty of ghits here. In any case, Wiktionary isn't limited to terms appearing in Wikipedia; if we can cite it, we can include it. Keith the Koala (talk) 09:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Or if it's real, add it to Wikipedia; it's a wiki. Not a proper noun by the way (that doesn't really even need saying) but I say cite it first and fix it second. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


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

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


Esperanto for female soldier. I can't find anything on Google Books, Google Groups, or Tekstaro. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 13:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)


Esperanto for flatulence. I can only find one use, which seems to be of a different sense. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 13:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

November 2015[edit]

wood ear[edit]

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

Even worse, at 木耳 the Chinese and Japanese entries contradict each other on the species on the same page. But this is why we have scientific names, because common names have different meanings in different regions. SpinningSpark 01:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Popular names are often based on gross features, so that many species having those features can share the name. Pictures are a big help in such cases. DCDuring TALK 04:32, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
If more species share the name than I think it needs to be specified which species they are. Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Or is it possible that the name refers to the whole genus? Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
We can check wood ear at OneLook Dictionary Search. Merriam-Webster[67] has a broader definition that mentions the genus and then singles out A. auricula and A. polytricha. oxforddictionaries.com[68] only covers Auricularia auricula. AHD[69] only mentions the genus. W:Auricularia suggests there are 28 species. For translations that only match a particular species, a dedicated translation table can be created even if the definition remains on the genus level, IMHO. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
The reason our entry is confusing is because usage is confused. Theoretically, wood ear should be Auricularia auricula-judae and cloud ear should be Auricularia polytricha, but there are plenty of references that don't recognize the distinction, or get it backward, so I doubt most English speakers have a clue what species is referred to by the term.
Although there are lots of species of Auricularia, wood ear is only used in the context of Asian cooking and medicine, which narrows it down to A. a.-j. and A. p., except for some people in the US who gather a local species under the impression that it's A. a.-j. Another name I see a lot is black fungus.
A. a.-j. is known in Europe by the rather unpleasant name of Jew's-ear, which is associated with some pretty nasty Medieval folklore. I notice that a lot of references leave out the "-judae" in the specific epithet and refer to it as Auricularia auricula- probably to avoid those associations.
As for the original languages, I suspect that 木耳 can be used generically for both species, but 雲耳 refers specifically to A. p. I wouldn't be surprised if there were regional variation, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


Equinox 11:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Nine hits on Google, none of them usable. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 19:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)


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


This misspelling is apparently used in this 17th century work, but other than that I can only find mentions [70] [71] [72] [73]. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 13:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


Esperanto for Superman. I can only find one durably archived use, which uses the capitalization superviro. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 22:26, 2 November 2015 (UTC)



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

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

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

Does it meaning kills of Islamists or of Muslims? Best to attest it first and then figure that out. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Also ought to be capitalised. Equinox 16:05, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Islamicide just didn't sound right to me. I wondered if the actual word was Islamocide. A Google search turned up a Twitter trend and little else. Purplebackpack89 21:21, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
If it's a valid word, then it'd be Islamicide, although usage would vary as to whether it should be capitalized or not (Webster's usually says "often capitalized" for words like this). It's based on a Latin root, like homicide, patricide, regicide, etc., all of which use the genitive form of the noun of the thing being killed, never the thing doing the killing. In this case, the assumption is "Islamus" = Islam or Muslim. Neither Cassell's nor Bantam gives Latin equivalents; Vicipædia gives "Islam" and "Religio Islamica" for "Islam" and "Musulmanus" for "Muslim". So technically "Islami" should be the genitive for the religion, but not for Muslims. Not sure what the reasoning is for "Islamophobia", but it could just be an arbitrary coinage. At any rate, as "Islamicide" it has to refer to the religion itself, rather than its practitioners. A Google search turns up blogs and t-shirts, rather than reputable news sources, which seems likely as it's the Muslim equivalent of someone shouting "kill the Jews!" Unless some examples of its use for its literal meaning occur in reputable sources, I would say we should delete it. But it clearly doesn't mean what the sense being RfV'd says; that'd be "Musulmanicide". And in either case, it'd be killing of Islam or Muslims, not killing by Islam or Muslims. If people invent a word that means something other than what they intend it to mean, and use it to say the opposite of what it would have meant had it been formed correctly in the first place, and nobody except some bloggers and their readers are using it, then we don't have a legitimate definition. P Aculeius (talk) 14:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
There's virtually nothing here relevant to descriptive linguistics. It means what it means. If we don't have sources acceptable to CFI, we have nothing to say about it, and if we do and they mean the opposite of what you think it should say, it might be worth a note that -cide in English usually means killing of the prefix, not killing by the prefix. The idea that one needs a degree in Latin to coin new English words should by now be considered risible.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I didn't say you needed a degree in Latin. I don't have a degree in Latin. I wasn't even a particularly good Latin student. But I know a thing or two about how words are formed, and knowing even a little bit about Latin is important if you're going to figure out how to form words using Latin. It's not necessary to argue ad hominem or air trendy anti-linguistic prejudices in order to make a valid point here. If you're interested in working collaboratively to produce a dictionary for everyone, leave your ridicule at the door. P Aculeius (talk) 03:39, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
I didn't ridicule you; I criticized you. If I wanted to ridicule you, I would tell you your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries. Nor did I use ad hominem. You are labeling standard linguistics of the 20th and 21st centuries as "trendy anti-linguistic prejudices", and that is problematic in collaboratively producing a dictionary based on those principles.
These words were not formed using Latin. They were formed using English. That is how words are generally formed in the 21st century by the speakers of English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
You wrongly attributed something to me and called it "risible". So you are ridiculing what I said, and me for saying it, despite the fact that I didn't say it in the first place. The fact that you needed to do so, and dismiss what I said about the meaning as only "what I think it should say" is what makes it an ad hominem attack. And it's certainly not "formed using English". We don't have a word "Islami" in English, or "Islamo" for that matter. Nor do we have a word "cide" in English. You don't go out and caedas people in English. We don't commit mancide or womancide or fathercide or kingcide or racecide. These are Latin roots, formed using rules for Latin. You can't ignore those rules because you have a poor opinion of Latin, or ignore the meanings of those words just because some people use them ignorantly. No matter how many people say "dog" when they mean cat, cat does not become a definition of "dog". If you want to make a word without using Latin, then call it "Muslimslaughter", but even then it still means that Muslims are being killed, not doing the killing. P Aculeius (talk) 20:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • The etyma can be Latin, while the word formation process is purely English -- which would explain things like polyamory (rather than polyphilia or multiamory). For that matter, when it comes to new words in English that include Islam, I don't think Latin or Latin's word formation rules necessarily have anything to do with the actual derivations -- which would explain things like Islamophobia.
Also, remember that Wiktionary is descriptivist -- the project aim is to describe words as they are used (and formed, etc.), not as they should be used (and formed, etc.). This is why we have an entry for brung, among others, even though this is widely thought of as "bad English" or "not a word". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:38, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
And yet, words derived from Latin roots are normally formed using Latin rules, which is why it's "homicide" rather than "homocide" and "patricide" rather than "patercide". "Polyamory" doesn't even pretend to be a proper word; it was coined on the internet, and only constant repetition has resulted in its addition to the lexicon. I'm not arguing that Wiktionary shouldn't cover words that don't have a legitimate etymology, but rather that where a form that follows the rules exists (Islamicide), it shouldn't be rejected in favour of one that doesn't (Islamocide). But there's still the question of the word's meaning, and the meaning of a word is derived in large part from the elements that make it up. And the word "Islamicide" literally means "killing of Islam", not "killing of Muslims", and certainly not "killing by Muslims". If some people misuse a word because they don't understand what it means, that may be the basis for a usage note, but it shouldn't give rise to a definition that's the opposite of the word's actual meaning. inflammable isn't defined as "incapable of burning", no matter how many people think that's what it means. It has a usage note instead of an alternative definition because people get confused by it, but it never meant "incapable of burning", no matter how often it's misused. P Aculeius (talk) 01:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Your examples of “words derived from Latin roots” actually derive as whole terms from Latin: homicide and patricide are not examples of English word formation using Latin roots, and are thus irrelevant analogies for the formation of modern English islamicide, etc. And re: polyamory, Merriam-Webster notes a first appearance of 1994, which is a bit early to be an internet coinage. More importantly, what is a “proper” word by your judgment? I really think you've mistaken the goal of the Wiktionary project as being prescriptive in saying how words should be spelled and used. The stated goal is instead to be descriptive in saying how words are spelled and used. I think a big part of your frustration here is caused by unmet expectations. You might benefit from reading WT:NPOV, particularly these two paragraphs:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please read these two documents, at least. They go a long way towards explaining the hows and whys regarding this thread above and other users' responses to you. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:02, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
My points, which you conveniently ignored, were not that "only proper words should be included" or that "words that have some vague relation to Latin must always and forever adhere to all the rules and regulations of Latin grammar", neither did I complain that "you people don't adhere to the standards of Wikipedia!" What I've been trying to say repeatedly, and apparently without any effect, is that (1) you can't arbitrarily pick and choose the "right" form of words based on how you feel that they ought to be spelled, when there are perfectly clear examples to guide you and which support the spellings currently in use; (2) the rules of Latin are not irrelevant when discussing the formation of words using Latin roots, nor is it laughable to suggest that we look to Latin in order to figure out why the word and closely related words take one form and not another, and (3) you cannot have a collaborative discussion when people reply by ridiculing ideas and opinions with which they disagree, and instead resort to name-calling!
This is not a question of mismatched expectations. If you can find a Wiktionary policy that says "it's okay to ridicule opinions with which you disagree," or "personal attacks are encouraged on this project," please link to it here. Meanwhile, if your contention is that being "descriptivist" means that a word is defined as whatever mean when they say it, then inflammable and other words that are commonly misused should gain new senses as a result. Mrs. Malaprop would be delighted. P Aculeius (talk) 18:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
Prosfilaes may not have been very diplomatic about it, and used an exaggeration when talking about "a degree in Latin", but, on substance, I have to agree with him. English is what English speakers speak, not what makes sense based on understanding the normal morphological rules- see irregardless, for instance, and terms such as pea and adder, which were mistakenly formed from pease and nadder.
As for inflammable, both the standard sense and the proscribed sense are derived from perfectly valid application of the rules: Latin has two prefixes with the spelling in-, one mean "into" and the other meaning "not". It's strictly a matter of historical accident as to which one ended up as the one we use today. In fact, the entry is an exception to our normal practice: we definitely should have a "not flammable" sense, with a "nonstandard" or "proscribed" label (if we can find usage of it, of course).
As for the question at hand: my impression of what little durably-archived usage I could find is that it seems to be a series of one-off coinages by people who needed a word to express what they meant, and who vaguely remembered the element -cide in words such as homicide, and patricide (which have "-i-") as meaning "killing", without remembering all the details of its proper usage in word-formation. What we have to determine here is whether there's enough usage to show that the nominated sense exists in the real world. It seemed close enough to be worth checking, given the other serious problems with the entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
  • “Meanwhile, if your contention is that being "descriptivist" means that a word is defined as whatever mean when they say it, then inflammable and other words that are commonly misused should gain new senses as a result.” → Precisely. You are correct on both counts: words mean what people use them to mean, and words gain new senses (and lose old ones) over time as a result. This is basic lexicography.
Re-reading this thread, I don't see anyone directly attacking you. I do see you directly attacking the Wiktionary community, and the underlying basis for your attacks, as best I can tell, has to do with your belief that some words are “proper” and other words aren't. For the sake of your own happiness, please either disabuse yourself of that misconception, at least with regard to Wiktionary, or please leave: attempting to contribute here without understanding or accepting the project's ideals of lexicographic description will only lead to disagreement and disappointment. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
I think taking offense at "The idea that one needs a degree in Latin to coin new English words should by now be considered risible" is hostile to communication here; certainly Wiktionary plays a little rough socially. It's an attack on an idea, which you followed up with attacks on people!
The "correct" spelling of island is iland. Someone in the 16th century looked at isle and Latin insular and inserted a silent s into a word of Germanic descent, with origins in Old English igland, cognate to Dutch eiland. Should we "correct" it in Wiktionary?
The rules of Latin are useful when talking about words formed from Latin roots. Islamocide isn't; it's formed from Islam + o + cide, where cide is an English suffix, and o is tossed in there because -cide words usually have a vowel in there. To say that it must be killing of Islam is silly; compounds just aren't that regular. To say that it should mean the killing of Muslims is not unreasonable, and may be worthy of a usage note, as that is a violation of the most natural English meaning. But if people who use it consistently use it to mean killing by Muslims, that's its definition.
If words like awesome (which "really" means "awe-inspiring"), silly ("good, blessed") and tubular ("in the shape of a tube") can gain new definitions, so could inflammable. I doubt that people are reliably using inflammable in a way that they mean and are understood as meaning not flammable, but that's a matter for its own discussion if someone wants to argue it does.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
If you reread what I wrote, I said that I was accused of saying something that I didn't (that you need a degree in Latin to coin new English words), and calling what someone says "risible" is insulting (especially if they didn't even say it). So is describing a perfectly valid opinion "totally irrelevant" merely because you disagree with it. And when you accuse someone of "silly snobbery", that's pretty insulting too. I don't need to be called "ridiculous" or "totally irrelevant" or a "silly snob", and it's no use saying that it's only what I'm saying that's "ridiculous, irrelevant, silly snobbery". The implication is that I'm a ridiculous, irrelevant, silly snob for saying it. And that's what makes this so hard to discuss meaningfully.
You'll also note that my point about "polyamory" was that it's a completely arbitrary coinage, and far too new and irregular to be a model upon which to decide whether "Islamicide" or "Islamocide" is the right form. It's a strange back-formation form the adjective "polyamorous", a Greek-Latin hybrid. How did it acquire a 'y' at the end? Because the first person in the chain that led to it being treated as a word decided it ought to have one, presumably on the model of "polygamy". Yet no other words formed from 'amor' use such a form. 'Amory' doesn't exist anywhere but in this arbitrary word. It's not a good example to use when debating how other words should be formed.
Please consider that the entries in the category "English words suffixed with -cide" consists almost entirely of words of Greek and Latin derivation, and almost without exception use Greek and Latin rules to join the first and second element; nearly all of the words with Latin first elements use Latin genitives, ending in -i; nearly all the ones ending in -o are Greek; and the entry under discussion already uses -i, not -o, which makes sense if the underlying assumption is that whatever is intended (whether Muslims or Islam itself) would have a Latin form Islamus rather than a Greek Islamos. It's also noteworthy that, as far as I can tell, none of the terms listed mean "killing by the thing in the first part" (although I noticed a nonce usage of "autocide" to mean "suidide by means of crashing a car"). They pretty much always mean "killing of the thing in the first part." I think it's a valid opinion that a common misuse of a word should become a usage note rather than a new definition. I don't demand that you agree with me, and I won't call you silly for disagreeing. But I don't think I should be ridiculed for pointing any of this out, or thinking it worth considering. P Aculeius (talk) 01:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Again: "debating how other words should be formed" won't necessarily tell us how they have been in reality. Equinox 01:58, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm not the one who raised the question of whether it should be "Islamocide". The entry is already at "Islamicide". My point was that there's no linguistic basis for changing it to "Islamocide", because it would normally be formed with an i-stem; and nobody seems to be suggesting that "Islamocide" is a regular or preferred form, so without clear evidence supporting "Islamocide", the entry should stay where it is. P Aculeius (talk) 05:23, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
The only basis on which to decide which form to prefer, "Islamicide" or "Islamocide", is based on evidence from quotations. Linguistic bases and personal opinions are irrelevant. So let's stop arguing about irrelevancies and start doing research on which forms actually exist in the real world. I am finding very few citations of either form. --WikiTiki89 15:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

blame Canada[edit]

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

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

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


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

I'm going to try and find some citations for it. Just a note: I created the Pokémon sense of XY and other entries for abbreviations of Pokémon games today. Apart from XY, they are: RBY, RGBY, GS, GSC, RS, RSE, DP, DPP, HGSS, BW, BW2 and ORAS.
Other abbreviations for video games I found: LoL (League of Legends), FF (Final Fantasy) and MOO (Master of Orion). --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
Note: Probably some of those are attestable in the form "Pokémon GSC" (with the word "Pokémon") in a way that meets WT:BRAND. I'll try to confirm that later. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 11:13, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
WT:BRAND doesn't really apply here, since these aren't the actual titles of video games, but rather fan-created shorthand for the titles of video games. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


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


I doubt this is citeable, and it's explained in the text. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Isn't there a special page for these famous literary hapax? Should go there. Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:08, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


Zero hits on Google Ngram Viewer. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Added three cites (one from yesterday pushes us over the one year mark!) and another sense. Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:03, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


I assume from the respective entries that the distribution of the simplified and traditional form is inverted? Korn [kʰʊ̃ːæ̯̃n] (talk) 13:51, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


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

It seems to me a euphemism, like overweight, for fat#Adjective. DCDuring TALK 18:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
I guess the thing to do is find cites where it clearly is being used as a euphemism for fat and not in its basic medical meaning, which is "suffering from overnutrition" and is covered by sense 1. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
OED cites the Philippine Daily Inquirer (15 March 2000), page 9: "Policemen who've grown uhhh, overnourished, by helping themselves to free meals at the expense of hapless carinderia owners." Smuconlaw (talk) 07:09, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
That suggests that it's worth hunting for more. DCDuring TALK 12:18, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
This search found seven apparently applicable uses, from which I have selected and formatted two, below:
  • 2013, Michael Baum, The Third Tablet of the Holy Covenant: - Page 219:
    The girls had done well but I also had to admit that the two attractive and stylish young women to whom I had barely given a second look as we were growing up, had flowered and flourished even though they looked somewhat overnourished to my taste.
The following doesn't support the euphemism tag, but supports the definition:
  • 1972, Popular Science, volume 200, number No. 6, page 18: 
    Lawn vacuums will clean up grass cuttings either as behind-the-mower units or self-propelled or push-type outfits that look like an overnourished Hoover.
DCDuring TALK 12:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)


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


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

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


Rfv-sense: "lotto, bingo." Not cited, no attestation, no example sentence to explain how the word "house" is equivalent to either of these words. Could this be confusion with the use of "house" to refer to the management of a casino or similar establishment? A "bingo hall" might possibly be referred to as a "house," but that would seem to be covered by other senses describing a business establishment or place of accommodation or entertainment. P Aculeius (talk) 06:30, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

OED: (n.) "Lotto, tombola, or (now usually) bingo, esp. as played for money (originally in the Army). Hence also applied to the organizer of the game, a winning card in which all the numbers have been successfully marked off, or the prize given for this. Now chiefly as interjection ... Cf. housey-housey, n.", and (interj.) "A call by a player in the game of 'house' ... or bingo, indicating possession of a winning card in which all the numbers have been successfully marked off." Note the variation housie in our dictionary. Smuconlaw (talk) 07:01, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
When I was very young, the game was called "housie housie". SemperBlotto (talk) 08:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I withdraw the nomination, pending a citation under this sense. Not sure what the best format would be, as I don't know which edition of OED was used, or how specific the citation ought to be. P Aculeius (talk) 16:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be better to provide quotations using the word in the above sense rather than quoting the OED directly. Smuconlaw (talk) 16:17, 9 November 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: House music. No citation, attestation, or example sentences. Do people actually say "house" instead of "house music"? And if so, how is it different from "house beer" or "house wine" or any other thing that a particular house serves up, shortened? Seems like just a generic use of the word, if that's how it's meant. Is there any evidence that it's used specifically for music in some context where it wouldn't simply be an abbreviated form of the phrase "house music"? P Aculeius (talk) 06:34, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

OED: "house, n.3 A type of electronic dance music, influenced by funk and disco and typically featuring the use of drum machines, sequencers, sampled sound effects, and prominent synthesized bass lines, in combination with sparse, repetitive vocals and a fast beat." Smuconlaw (talk) 07:03, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
Cited. WurdSnatcher (talk)
I withdraw my nomination, per the citation to OED and the examples given. Should I close this, or wait for someone else to? P Aculeius (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm slightly curious, though it's not relevant since the discussion's closed, but how did you not know this? Yes people refer to house music as house ('music' is redundant if's clear from the context). Would you rfv classical in the sense of classical music? Secondly house music literally has nothing to do with houses. It's not made in a house or inspired by a house. I mean, I'm sure there's a house somewhere in its etymology but I have no idea where. And etymology and usage are two different matters. How about rock, heard of that one? Renard Migrant (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Your self-righteous sarcasm is duly noted. P Aculeius (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
According to OED, house in the music sense is probably derived from The Warehouse, a nightclub in Chicago where the music became popular. I've therefore moved the music sense of the word into its own etymology section. Smuconlaw (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
I apologise for any offense caused, that was not my intention. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


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

Perhaps the evidence available to the contributor was limited to the context given. We can't very well limit the contributions we accept to perfect ones! Why not make the change you know to be true and let someone else challenge the more inclusive context or definition. DCDuring TALK 13:08, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Erm, I'm not following ... I don't know whether Algrif's hidden comment is correct or not, which is why I'm posting the comment here. Should we just leave the comment on the page? Smuconlaw (talk) 13:40, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
BTW, the three subsenses subordinated to the "rosary" sense (including this challenged one) are etymologically/metaphorically connected to that sense, but are not subsenses IMO. DCDuring TALK 13:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
It is my custom to put a hidden note in chages of this nateure. English fishing enthusiasts use paternosters. Fact. So I just put a little hidden note, incase some earlier editor decides to reverse my edit. It leads directly to a quick discussion such as this. and an equally quick solution -- ALGRIF talk 15:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Why not just start a discussion directly? Saves a step! Smuconlaw (talk) 16:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


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

Google scholar yielded 700 results, however some of them are capitalized. --Jarash (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm feeling extremely dubious for a few reasons. First, "central axis" seems to be sum-of-parts. But if it's not, aren't all axes central by definition? If it's an abbreviation, is it a regular abbreviation, or simply one made up by whoever needs to abbreviate "central" and "axis" for some reason? A nonce abbreviation, as it were. If it's a general scientific term or common abbreviation, then it ought to be found in a glossary of scientific terms, or at least one dealing with some branch of science concerned with items that have multiple axes (minerology, perhaps). P Aculeius (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The scholar hits seem to be for "cation exchange", "calcium halide" but not for "central axis" as far as I can tell. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
There are 954 mentions of "cation exchange" in scholar. --Jarash (talk) 12:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


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

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

  • 1943, Blackwood's Magazine - Volume 254, page 431:
    For this officer, the victim of needle-fright, invariably fainted when I was led to the slaughter.
  • 1993, WS Lambert, Hypodermic syringe with foam sponge reservoir (US Patent 5,267,974):
    An unseen needle causes no needle-fright.

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

Netflix and chill[edit]

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

This is a neologism. I found one citation from 2015. We should be able to find more in a few weeks when it's 2016. Purplebackpack89 14:19, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Unfortunately not in BYU's GloWBE corpus of texts, which may be deemed durably archived. DCDuring TALK 00:37, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I will just note that the current citation "If you invite me to 'Netflix and chill,' that’s exactly what I’m going to do." uses it in the literal sense. Maybe we should focus on improving our entry for Netflix and save the subtext for when/if it becomes an established idiom rather than just a fad. --WikiTiki89 15:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
    • To the best of my knowledge, the current definition is correct without mentioning Netflix; it supposedly originated as a euphemism intended to disguise the true purpose of the visit from the ears of people who weren't supposed to know what was actually going to happen. But I'm in no position to provide CFI-compliant sources to verify that. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
      • I always thought it originated from someone inviting someone literally to watch Netflix and chill, with the hope or expectation that one thing would lead to another. --WikiTiki89 15:59, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
        • A euphemism could be used either way, I'd think. DCDuring TALK 16:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
          • I saw something like 'at my age, Netflix and chill actually means we're going to watch Netflix and chill'. It does seem real in the Facebook/Twitter domain but I don't know if it's really justifiable as a hot word. In this case 'don't know' kinda means 'let's keep it just in case'. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • What makes the expression, either as verb or noun, Internet slang? DCDuring TALK 16:02, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Nothing. If anything, it's more text messaging slang, i.e. somebody would send a text saying something along the lines of "Hey, wanna come over for Netflix and chill?" FWIW, this Halloween, a couple I knew dressed as...Netflix and chill (she as Netflix and he as chill). Purplebackpack89 16:29, 11 November 2015 (UTC)


RFV-sense "that happens three times in any two year period" (i.e. once per 8 months). I cited the sense "that happens once every 1.5 years" (i.e. once per 18 months). - -sche (discuss) 21:56, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

If we follow the same distinction as with biannual vs. biennial and triannual vs. triennial, then "sesquiannual" should mean occurring one and one-half times per year, and not occurring every one and one-half years. It literally means the former, not the latter. But I seriously doubt that the word is ever used for its literal meaning. As with "biannual", it seems to be confused with "sesquiennial", and I suspect that nearly all occurrences of the word are intended to mean "sesquiennial". Since the literal meaning of the word is "occurring one and one-half times per year", that really has to be definition No. 1; however, I would parenthetically indicate that this usage is "rare", and for sense 2 give "sesquiennial; occurring once every one and one-half years." P Aculeius (talk) 03:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

One every 18 months IS two times every three years... It is just math. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).

Depends on whether the occurrences are evenly spaced - but you're probably right. Equinox 13:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Confused. This started as a debate over a sense of sesquiennial, but has just been moved to sesquiannual, and the original request for verification removed without ever having been resolved. With respect to the sense of sesquiannual meaning "two times every three years", I was about to post, "Delete unless there's some evidence that anyone uses the word with explicit reference to "twice every three years". Otherwise I'd consider almost as unnecessary as "occurring four times every six years"." However, the technical distinction between the terms still remains. Sesquiennial literally means "occurring one and one-half times per year," as unlikely as it seems that anyone would need such a word. I think it arises mainly out of confusion between -annual and -ennial. P Aculeius (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Went ahead and put my suggestion from the first comment into effect, at least until we resolve this here. P Aculeius (talk) 14:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
@ the "once every 18 months / 1.5 years, twice every three years" sense isn't RFVed (at least, by me); I've added citations which attested to it. It's the 'opposite' sense, "three times every two years, once every 8 months", which I couldn't find any evidence of and RFVed. (I couldn't find any evidence that either sesquiennial or sesquiannual ever meant "once every 8 months".) - -sche (discuss) 22:35, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Okay, done some checking and Google searches. I think my original comment had it backwards. "Biannual" and "triannual" are used to mean occurring twice and thrice per year, while "biennial" and "triennial" are used to mean occurring every two or three years. So "sesquiennial" definitely means occurring every one and one-half years, while "sesquiannual" literally means occurring one and one-half times per year. However, as indicated by the usage note in "biannual", the two words are frequently conflated. I also think that there are few if any occasions when anyone would want to use "sesquiannual" for its literal meaning.
My Google searches revealed mostly language-related blogs concerning the technical distinction between the two words. And of course mirrors of Wiktionary. So nothing durably archived per se on the internet so far. I'm sure that there are published mentions somewhere. But even if we can't find them, I think it's important to note the literal meaning of "sesquiannual", even if the only examples we can find of it are in fact mistakes for "sesquiennial". P Aculeius (talk) 13:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Re "This started as a debate over a sense of sesquiennial": huh? This section has been about sesquiannual from the start. The section on sesquiennial was only added to WT:RFV later, after an apparently unattested sense was added to that entry. - -sche (discuss) 20:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Whatever, these two are just confusing the heck out of me. Sesquiannual is the one that should mean "occurring one and one-half times per year," which is the same thing as "occurring three times every two years", but more literal. But I doubt anybody does use it to mean that, simply because there's no need for such a word (who plans meetings or celebrations every eight months?). So there may not be any attestations on the internet for the literal meaning of the word. Sesquiennial is the one that should mean "occurring every one and one-half years," and this is what most if not all uses of sesquiannual are probably intended to mean. Can we just straighten that out? P Aculeius (talk) 11:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


RFV-sense "occurring one and one-half times per year (i.e. every eight months)." - -sche (discuss) 22:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Moved this next to sesquiannual discussion, which originally was sesquiennial to begin with. See above, let's resolve these two at the same time. P Aculeius (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


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

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

Would the sci-fi sense be a timeline, or set of timelines? A skim of Google Books suggests that a timescape might be any given way of looking at time, or measuring events in time. It's even sometimes used in the context of scheduling business activities. Equinox 16:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
In the Benford novel, the word is used in Chapter 46, and in the 1992 Bantam Spectra paperback there is an afterword by Susan Stone Blackburn that discusses the word briefly. I would suggest a definition like "the geometry of time". This applies to the linked-to arXiv preprint above., which is introducing the name to emphasize that cosmological features of the model are derived from temporal structure. Choor monster (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

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

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

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

man down[edit]

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

I find enough cites for "to reduce in manpower":
  • 1913, Fiji. Legislative Council, Debates, page 36:
    The Hon. HENRY MARKS: We are dealing with the Supplementary Estimates, and included in the Estimates I find Mr. Mortle mans down here again.
  • 1973, Canadian Labour - Volume 18, page 10:
    The employer is usually attempting to cut out manning down on a particular piece of equipment, and they have a meeting with us to try to get some kind of an agreement.
  • 2011, Denise A. Bates, House of Bull: Book Three, ISBN 1452011672, page 392:
    These men have gotten word that the fort we left, Ridgeway, is manning down.
There is also some evidence for to intimidate:
  • 1924, George Allan England, The White Wilderness, page 160:
    A famous champion, he; super-expert in the art of "manning down" his opponent, and sometimes in the heat of battle glowing with such an ardour of excitement that he would make wide jumps, quite against every rule, and sweep off pieces wholesale.
And I found one quote to support the supplied meaning:
  • 2013, Alexei Auld, Tonto Canto Pocahontas:
    Normally, I'd psych myself out of approaching her. I looked at her, trying to find something that reinforced my manning down.
There also seems to be a meaning having to do with falconry - from context it looks like a process of reducing food intake to cause weight loss:
  • 2014, Ben Crane, Sparrowhawks: A Falconer's Guide, ISBN 1847977103:
    When taken directly from the chamber, initially Mrs Woods showed a high level of fear but when manned down, she went on to show no aggression whatsoever.
  • 1995, Association of Avian Veterinarians. Conference, Main Conference Proceedings, page 176:
    This critical period involves manning down the raptor, slowly lowering the body weight, and controlled flight training.
Kiwima (talk) 04:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I've made a citations page, found one more for the falconry thing and taken a stab at writing a def for that one, also added the manpower one. I found a second use for "to intimidate", but that's still only two. I've switched this rfv to be for the "lose courage" sense, which still only has that one cite you found. WurdSnatcher (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


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

The definition is clearly an adjective, although the example is not. As an adjective, the word can apply to anyone or anything. A junior brother, a junior daughter, a junior computer, a junior partner, a junior competition, etc. Anyone or anything younger than its companions can be described as junior, with "junior" as an adjective, irrespective of whether the people or things could also be described as "juniors" in the noun sense (and in most cases, they probably could be). It might be a clumsy way to look at it, but if the word stands on its own, it's probably a noun, but if it modifies a noun or pronoun, it must be an adjective. In the example given, "junior" is probably a subject complement, rather than an adjective modifying "she". But even if I'm right, it still doesn't mean that "junior" isn't an adjective when applied to a noun or pronoun. P Aculeius (talk) 01:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
In that particular sentence it's a noun: "she was my junior (by three years)". Equinox 01:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
The example has been moved to a different part of the entry. Could you clarify whether you're not sure that "junior" can be an adjective meaning "younger", or has moving the example rendered this RfV moot? P Aculeius (talk) 01:09, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
I added three quotes, although a better definition might be "young" or "child". Kiwima (talk) 03:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
It's a comparative adjective, meaning "younger" or "newer". I don't see "child" as an equivalent, except as a noun sense. P Aculeius (talk) 05:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


I don't think eustress is an old enough concept to have archaic forms. Equinox 07:06, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Neither the Google Ngram Viewer nor Quiet Quentin retrieved anything. Not a single occurrence of that spelling. Smuconlaw (talk) 12:11, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
All I can find is [msjanaulis.weebly.com/uploads/2/4/3/.../your_stress_release_manual.doc this], which does not count and is probably just a misspelling. Kiwima (talk) 03:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)



The α/β/γ notation isn't really clear. What I'm rfving is really finocchia - specifically, the claim that it means lesbian. Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


Kind of funny, but @Aryamanarora, please don't add uncitable Lojban. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry! I forgot about RFV - won't happen again @Metaknowledge. --Aryamanarora (talk) 16:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

en passants[edit]

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

I added 2 more. Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
They're identical copies... Equinox 23:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Whoops. Sorry, that was just a mistake. Fixed now. Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)


Per w:Hunnic language, Hunnic is supposed to have disappeared without a trace a couple of centuries before the invention of Cyrillic, and to have had only personal names and three nouns attested- so where did this come from? Chuck Entz (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

... Let alone have reconstructed pronunciations. And even the attested words are controversial (one of them could even be Proto-Slavic). I suspect the editor is making this up, or confusing the name of another language with Hunnic. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Maybe this is the same guy who was adding translations of modern concepts in Gothic and some barely-attested Italic language. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
No, this one smells like a Pan-Turkist to me Chuck Entz (talk) 03:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


As above.Chuck Entz (talk) 03:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


As above.Chuck Entz (talk) 03:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


As above.Chuck Entz (talk) 03:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


As above. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


As above. 03:00, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I apologise for my mistake, although I don't believe it is a mistake! It may constitute original research and there may be an unintentional conflict of interest as the words I added are from a Siberian language that the speakers call "Hunnic" and who call themselves "Huns". I totally understand the skepticism, but the deeper into the language and culture one dives, there seems to be an increasing level of "old age" to it. Of course I'm not naïve enough to think that there is no political agenda involved, as I've come across quite a lot of people particularly in Russia who claim near-mythical ancestry to legitimise their secessionist movements and such, but this seems more clear-cut than any of those.

HunnicHistor (talk) 03:06, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

@HunnicHistor Is that a modern language?? Is it known by another name? — Ungoliant (falai) 03:13, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure there is another name for it, but the people who speak it in eastern Irkutsk and Sakha call it "Hunnic". If there's a way to preserve a language, even if accomplished by mislabeling it, I think it is worth it. HunnicHistor (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

If we are to keep it we need a way to distinguish it from the Hunnic of the ancient Huns, like we distinguish ancient Ligurian from modern Ligurian. — Ungoliant (falai) 03:29, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The only Turkic language in eastern Irkutsk and Sakha that Ethnologue has heard of, and thus that has an ISO 639-3 code, is Yakut. Is it a dialect of that? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 05:18, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh! Oh... I'm so embarrassed right now. It isn't Yakut, but I see how blind I was because I didn't associate "Hun" with Attila's Huns when I added the words in the category but instead the general term "Hun". Facepalm. Thank you Ungoliant and Angr, I would at best have wasted my time and at worst uneducated people by this major miscategorisation! It definitely isn't the language of Attila and I apologise for my mistake, however as I said before, I don't know any other name for the language and that brings an obstacle... I still feel that adding the language on wiktionary is the best way for documentation and to hopefully raise the interest of linguists, but you're absolutely right that it is misleading to categorise it Hunnic despite the endonym. Perhaps an unfortunately crude temporary solution could be to include a note that it is not the extinct Hunnic language and should be recategorised with an appropriate exonym as soon as possible? HunnicHistor (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
What source are you using for these words? Remember all the words listed here have to be verifiable; for little-used languages like this one, a single mention in a published source like a dictionary or a linguistics article is sufficient. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh, that applies to wiktionary too? That's a much bigger obstacle then, because I'm not aware of any published sources - and that's a major part of the reason why I started adding words here - and the "source" I'm using is just a notebook that I used for a dictionary with the people, writing down words and notes of the language. It's my hobby to travel and document the most obscure languages and cultures, especially when they're ones with no recognition. I've been told that this is not how linguists work because it encourages hoaxes, that people will "tell you what they want you to hear" because "they will profit from it", but I don't believe that. I'm not naïve but I don't believe that people in small towns just put on a show every time visitors come and switch to a fake language and tell fake stories of their history and fake folklore. They won't accomplish anything by doing that. People say it reinforces their "separatist agendas" and brings them undeserved fake tourism and they profit from the suffering of real minorities, but I have never heard of that happening...
I also hear people say that my personal biases influence the process of documentation and that I contribute to the hoax even if it's only subconsciously because of my political views, that I support their separatist agendas because I don't support the Russian government... Even if they had separatist agendas, even if I supported them, why would it matter? Even if they used a fake language to reinforce their separatist agendas, why would that matter? They still speak it, don't they? However as I said already, I know there are minorities with active separatist agendas and some of them really do intentionally change their language for "purism" and the ignorance of the majority is powerful fuel for this kinds of groups, but I don't believe this is a case of that. The people who call themselves "Huns" and speak this language that they call "Hunnic" were really nice and they didn't seem to care about politics, they could translate any word to their language without hesitation so I can't believe they were making it up. It also seems like an old language, too much different from other languages of the region to be just a dialect of any of them and has Turkic and Mongolic features in addition to some words and grammar that don't seem like either. Many very different very little-used languages exist in Russia and neighbouring countries just like everywhere else, and I believe their documentation is important even if it is done by non-professionals, even if it is "dubious" or "supporting separatist agendas".
If wiktionary is not the appropriate form for this, what would be? I have even thought about registering on forums used for constructed languages to get the languages on the Internet but haven't out of respect for the people who speak them because they probably wouldn't want to be associated with such autistic teenagers. HunnicHistor (talk) 19:17, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
@HunnicHistor: I don't know what a better place would be, but as it stands, we have no way of ascertaining whether this is a real language or merely your conlang. As it seems that you cannot identify this language with the (effectively exhaustive) Ethnologue list and there are no sources, it cannot be distinguished from a falsification (assuming, of course, that it is not a falsification) and is inappropriate for Wiktionary. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
The appropriate way to do it would be to become a graduate student in linguistics at an accredited university, learn there how to do fieldwork in such a way that it does not encourage hoaxes, and publish your results as your dissertation. Work that is peer-reviewed and published under your own name and under the auspices of a reputable university will always be considered more reliable (and not just here at Wiktionary, but everywhere) than work made available by "some dude on the Internet". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I could never get anything published or I would have done so concerning everything already a long time ago. I've tried, once, twice, again and again but finally I realised that it isn't about me; there isn't anything I can do to get anything published because the problem is not mine to fix. I can't change the world, I can't change the perception that those who "belong" to it have of it. Why do you think war, famine, drought, hatred, earthquakes, floods, dictatorships, rape and murder still exist? And why do peace, plentitude, flourishing, love, stability, equality and happiness exist? They're all a part of the world. All the languages that are, used to be and will be spoken in the world are a part of it, too. If you want to change the world, to destroy the parts of it that you don't like, you can try but you will fail. Do you know why? There will always be more more than less. Parts may vanish, but they will never be destroyed. Languages may die with the people that speak them, the cultures become forgotten, but the essence lives on and it will be reborn; culture and language are not personal possessions. You can kill a culture, you can silence a language, you can monger as much genocide as you want and isolate yourself and your culture and language from the world in fear or disgust of those you don't like and their influence, but one day you, your culture and your language will die. Cover your eyes and you won't see when death comes, cover your ears and you won't hear the screams of those that die before you, cover your mouth and you won't scream when it comes. That doesn't mean you're going to live forever. As much as you and I and everyone else may hope that they will live for as long as possible and our deaths be as peaceful as possible, the truth is that nobody really knows until the time comes.
By covering your eyes, ears and mouth, you're not only blinding, deafening and muting yourself from influencing others and keeping them from influencing you, you're also isolating yourself from the influence of life and exposing yourself to the influence of death. That can have a positive impact on you or it can have a negative impact on you. The sooner you expose yourself, the larger the impact will be. You may have a long way to go, you may thrive and gain everything in life that you could ever dream of, but in death you will lose it all. There are many solutions to the problem, but only one of them can bring you the absolute despair, and that is the slow death alone in the barren scape without an exit, without knowledge yet without ignorance, and without light and without darkness, that goes on forever inside you and that you can't escape from because you've become so trapped in it that there is nothing left of you but a spot within which there is an infinity of nothingness. That's the death that comes if you lose yourself in an internal feedback loop of your increasingly intense isolation, and it's not fun. I don't want anyone to experience it, but countless people experience it all the time. The least you can do is not let yourself fall that far down, and I hope that you see the world for the beautiful place it is and life for the interesting thing it is in spite of all the gris and death.
I don't know about you but I for one consider languages to be on the positive side of the spectrum. HunnicHistor (talk) 23:47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps you should take a look at Wikiversity. I'm not very familiar with that project, but I know they allow original research, so maybe they will be more agreeable to the addition of this kind of never-before-published material. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 23:53, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I can't help escaping the impression that this is a known language with some other name that we would know it by @Atitarev, @-sche: any ideas? I've seen some references in Google Books to a West Hunnic and East Hunnic branch of Turkic, so it's not implausible that a local speech community would use such a name for themselves and their language. @HunnicHistor: could you look at the Appendix:Swadesh lists, firstly to see which of the languages there is closest, and, failing a match there, give us a list here of some of the words you know for definitions in the list? that way, we have a better chance of identifying the language at least to language family. It may even not be Turkic- it might be Tungusic, or some other family found in that general area. Looking at the words added so far to see which ones have affinities to one family or another:
  • Mongolic: хаған [xɑ.ʁɑn] (ruler)- It goes back a long way in both Turkic & Mongolic, but WP says it's Mongolic.
  • Turkic: өлм [øɫm] (death), ? ꙉүмбығ [ðʐʉm.bɨʁ] (rain)- Kazakh жаңбыр ‎(jañbır) looks closest
  • Uncertain: ꚇул [tʃʼul]| (mouth,lips, tongue)- Mongolian хэл ‎(hel, tongue) is a possibility, балꚇуум |[bɑl.tʃʼuːm] (storm, thunder), мори [mo.ri] (horse)- close to both Mongolian морь ‎(morʹ) and Manchu (Tungusic) ᠮᠣᡵᡳᠨ ‎(morin)
As you can see, this small sample is not enough to tell us much (especially without knowledge of the historical linguistics of the groups involved), though horse and ruler are more likely to be loanwords than death and rain, so Turkic has the edge here. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
@HunnicHistor and @Chuck Entz maybe you are both right. Right now I'm with a friend from Yakutia and his language is very similar. But it's called Bajir and is grouped in Bashkir, not recognised as a language. Alphabet is also different. Here is some vocabulary of his, starting with corresponces to HunnicHistor's posted:
  • морі [mori] (horse)
  • ҡаған [qaʁan] (leader)
  • өлүм [ølym] (death)
  • җамбыр [ʑambɯr] (rain)
  • ағыз [aʁɯz] (mouth)
  • ҡіл [qil] (language, tongue)
  • өмүр [ømyr] (life)
  • от [ot] (fire)
  • ус [us] (water)
  • тубраҡ [tubraq] (earth)
  • аға [aʁa] (air)
  • кізі [kizi] (human)
  • адам [adam] (man)
  • ҡатын [qatɯn] (woman)
  • бала [bala] (child)
  • тағ [taʁ] (mountain)
  • дала [dala] (plain, field)
  • урмон [urmon] (forest)
  • ағаш [aʁaʃ] (tree)
  • тэҥэр [teŋer] (sky, heaven)
  • дээр [deːr] (sky, atmosphere)
  • тәҥір [tæŋir] (god)
  • көл [køl] (lake)
  • ҡөл [qøl] (hand)
  • адаҡ [adaq] (foot)
  • өрүш [øryʃ] (river)
  • эт [et] (meat)
  • өҥөһ [øŋøh] (bone)
  • алдын [aldɯn] (gold)
  • көмүш [kømyʃ] (silver)
  • мөс [møs] (ice)
  • мөһәббәт [møhæbbæt] (love)
  • ҡөрөш [qørøʃ] (hatred)
  • доғор [doʁor] (friend)
  • дашман [daʃman] (enemy)
  • өшкі [øʃki] (goat)
  • әжә [æʒæ] (mother)
  • адға [adʁa] (father)
  • уул [uul] (son)
  • ҡүз [qyz] (daughter)
  • аҥҗы [aŋʑɯ] (hunter)
  • өйөм [øjøm] (shaman)
  • йүбул [jybul] (high)
  • цай [tsaj] (place)
  • Йүбул Цай [jybul tsai]; a mythic kingdom on top of a sacred mountain
  • былыт [bɯlɯt] (cloud)
  • діш [diʃ] (tooth)
  • ҡараҡ [qaraq] (eye)
  • ҡулғоҡ [qulʁoq] (ear)
  • ҡүн [qyn] (sun)
Example sentences.
  • Доғорлар җаҡын, дашманлар цөр җаҡын ҡадғаш. (Keep your friends close, your enemies closer.)
  • Былытларда алдынд көртэб, ҡар сээҡ бул, ҡөлдіңӿа дээрға ҡөлің жэлэб. (You may see gold in the clouds, but be careful, the sky can eat your hand.)
He says it's a Turkic language, the government however don't recognise it and suppose it's a dialect of Bashkir. I won't butt on that because I don't know anything about Bashkir and I'm not a linguist, yet. Is this the same language of HunnicHistor, and is it Bashkir? AliHautala (talk) 07:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Are you sure you're not HunnicHistor, AliHautala? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Lolwat? I don't know why you would think that? @Chuck Entz suggested it has another name, and maybe it's Bashkir or its dialect, that might be its own language. I don't speak either so I can't answer that, but my friend does so that's why I asked him to list some words. I can ask him to make an account if you want the direct source... AliHautala (talk) 19:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Wow! In Kazakh, it mean "a w:khagan". It's a Mongolian loanword.-- 15:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
I think the term "хаған" is Kazakh, a misspelling or alt. form of қаған ‎(qağan, kagan, khan). There are some hits in plain Google searches in Kazakh. Apart from Kazakh, "ғ" is used in Bashkir and Tajik but this word is neither Bashkir or Tajik. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:53, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
While I appreciate the effort and the honesty of the contributor, if this are uncitable they have to go. Just what is the proper place for them, though? User namespace I suppose. User's own website and/or blog. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:23, 18 November 2015 (UTC)


Character trait of amazing people, etc. Sounds made up. The linked Wikipedia article has no relevance at all. Equinox 21:42, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm certain it was made up by a fan of the basketball player, trying to turn him into an adjective indicating all of the qualities he ascribes to Mr. Haslem. I suggest converting this into an RfD. The contributor's documentation isn't nearly udonis enough. P Aculeius (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
It would not make sense to convert this to an RFD—the issue is not whether the term is idiomatic, but rather whether it is attested at all. RFV is the appropriate place for it. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 23:10, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
There isn't any attestation, not even a shred of it, and there wouldn't be, because the editor who added it just made up the whole entry. This isn't a dubious sense of a word, or even a dubious word. It's pure fiction, and obvious pure fiction at that. I believe the relevant policies are called complete rubbish and self-promotion under WT:DELETE. P Aculeius (talk) 02:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Is this an obvious enough hoax to be speedily deleted? That's what we did for the Microsoft definition which said 'poor, slow, unusable' (etc.). Renard Migrant (talk) 17:32, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
That's my opinion, but not having enough experience with the process, I thought I would defer to the regulars. If my interpretation of WT:DELETE is wrong, I won't do any damage. P Aculeius (talk) 18:48, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
No Google hits for uncapitalised form that I could see. Zero hits on Google ngram viewer. Deleted SemperBlotto (talk) 07:30, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: The tables in the immediate vicinity. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 23:40, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Added by an IP, probably as a joke (because of neighbourhood). Equinox 23:48, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Yep, that was me. Well found! --SimonP45 (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


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

I think that would be gallicize, although that also has a different implication. *Imagines chicken in striped shirt and beret* Delete as nonsense, and per similar discussion over "house" at RfD. P Aculeius (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I've added the other sense to this RfV under the L3 heading below to take advantage of any searching for the above sense. DCDuring TALK 14:09, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

avoid as a result of fear[edit]

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

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

Searched "he chickened" -out. Got a few hits, all of which seem to be shortened versions of "chickened out", with the same meaning. P Aculeius (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I was originally going to rfv that sense, but saw it has some use. I was curious if there are any phrasal verbs whose first component can't be a standalone verb. I guess this sorta counts since I'm sure chicken out came first, so there must have been some time before chicken was used on its own (at least 1946). WurdSnatcher (talk)
I searched for "he chickened the" on Google Books, hoping for something like "he chickened the dare". All I found was "he chickened the rest of the way out", which I think is some kind of resultative construction (cf. "died a death", "the dog barked me awake"). Eirikr is right about! Equinox 01:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I parse that more as an alternative construction to "he chickened out the rest of the way". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
What I was getting was "he chickened before he could do blah" and similar hits. Should be chickened out, but with the out omitted. P Aculeius (talk) 23:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it's actually marked intransitive. Sorry, I wasn't paying enough attention. Equinox 02:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
There's a few that look questionable to me: [74] [75] [76] WurdSnatcher (talk)
Those look like good cites. I think that the sense of chicken in question is a backformation from chicken out, ie, a different etymology. DCDuring TALK 02:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Cited and moved to a different etymology. WurdSnatcher (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Not a backformation, just elision of the word 'out'. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Omission rather. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

slide off[edit]

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

  • Sounds OK to me, keep. Donnanz (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a mistake for slip away. P Aculeius (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • It doesn't ring a bell with me...I have to admit, it sounds like a mistake for slip off (from work, etc.), which gets at least a few hits here: slip off from work Leasnam (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • To keep the challenged sense we need citations, not votes. Opinions are of value principally for their contribution to encouraging or discouraging people from getting citations. DCDuring TALK 18:47, 19 November 2015
  • How about these:
  • 1982, John Le Carré, The Quest for Karla, page 162:
    Soon as he could, he slid off to Jim's rooms to make sure he'd left nothing around that a journalist might pick on if a journalist were clever enough to make the connection, Ellis to Prideaux.
  • 2009, David Nobbs, I Didn't Get Where I Am Today, ISBN 1409066967, page 444:
    Susan and I slid off to an Indian restaurant in Shepherd's Bush, and I slid off on to the floor.
  • 2011, Lamont Z. Brown Phoenix King, ‎& Lamont Z. Brown, Between the Gates of Heaven and Hell, ISBN 1426952619, page 10:
    As Simone and the crowd praised Drew I slid off to the back hurt, ashamed, and pissed off.
  • 2013, Steven Gould, Impulse, ISBN 1429987545:
    I slid off to follow her and I heard the scrape of a board on snow.
Kiwima (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Well those don't support the given def. Something like "to sneak" might be valid, but I'm not sure. slide can mean "To pass or put imperceptibly; to slip" and those uses sound like that def + out. You can also slide away, slide by, slide past, etc. WurdSnatcher (talk)
Perhaps the definition needs refinement, but I think they are the meaning that the author of the definition was intending. If you consider it just SOP, that falls under requests for deletion, not requests for verification. Kiwima (talk) 11:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Those just look like slide + off for me. The part that makes it idiomatic is "early", but those cites don't suggest anyone is leaving early. WurdSnatcher (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
In what way do those not support the given def? To "leave without being noticed" is pretty much synonymous with "sneak off". Just for the record, I remember this a very common phrase from my youth when avoiding school/work/chores was done at every available opportunity. SpinningSpark 12:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
None of those give us any reason to think they are leaving something early. I agree that it's common, it's just not idiomatic. You can slip off, but you can also slip over, slip in, slip away, slip down, etc. WurdSnatcher (talk)
I am not arguing this point, but if that is your objection, move this to requests for deletion. It is not a question of verification. Kiwima (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The definition that I'm challenging is idiomatic. If it is real, it should be kept. The definition that you cited and that SpinningSpark is talking about is SOP. WurdSnatcher (talk)

qué será, será[edit]

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

According to the quote at che sera sera, at least one spelling of it is considerably older than the song. I don't know whether the phrase is ever used in this form in Spanish. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
"que sera, sera" are actual FRENCH words, FWIW. Purplebackpack89 15:15, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Not with the acute accent though. Equinox 15:20, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
And it isn't a grammatical sentence of French or Spanish (or Portuguese or Italian) with or without diacritics. The closest thing in real Spanish is sea lo que sea. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Is qué será será Asturian? Or Galician; googling "qué Galician" comes up with results that has acute accent, and so does "será". AliHautala (talk) 10:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


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

cack up[edit]

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

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

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


should really not be here. hardly attested anywhere. Rathersilly (talk) 18:35, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

  • Sounds like an RfV matter. bd2412 T 18:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
    • Yowza! What a massive slippery slope candidate! I just checked for citations for "Stonesesque", "Beatlesesque", Tullesque", "Oldfieldesque", "Beach Boysesque", "Beastie Boysesque", and so on, citations exist (some hyphenated, some set solid) ...there are a lot of bands in the world.--Sonofcawdrey (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
      • If they’re citable, they’re citable; I don’t see why would should make an exception to exclude adjectives relating to specific bands or musicians. I wouldn’t worry about too much gibberish being added: Burzumesque is just barely citable, even though Burzum is one of the top 5 most well-known bands of its genre. — Ungoliant (falai) 22:46, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Not an RFD issue. Take it to RFV. Equinox 03:00, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Added three cites. Okay? Want more? Equinox 03:39, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
    Thanks. I never doubted it, but I didn't feel like citing it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:42, 21 November 2015 (UTC)


I can't find any quotations for sense 3 ("Something complex that emerges when a large number of simple objects are put together"). OED doesn't contain this sense either. Smuconlaw (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

I didn't find it in any of the OneLook references, including some obscure glossaries. One had "the fulfillment of all possible capabilities in a biological system" from a dictionary of alternative medicine. I wonder whether homeopathy or something is a source for the definition in question. DCDuring TALK 17:35, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
OK, I've removed it. Thanks. Smuconlaw (talk) 10:06, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

holla back[edit]

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

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

metrica (Latin)[edit]

German dictionaries state that Metrik comes from Latin "(ars) metrica" and this from Greek "metrikḗ (téchnē)" (transcription, second part is τέχνη). That is, metrica (-ae, f.) is said to be a Latin word meaning metrics and is a short form like "grammatica" for "ars grammatica". But does "metrica" exist? - 21:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

  • The Latin adjective metricus is in Lewis & Short with more-or-less the definition that we have. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:48, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
The adjective "metricus (-a, -um)" does indeed exist. But how about a noun "metrica (-ae, f.)? (It's not in the entry metrica as it should make more sense to verify it before adding it, instead of adding something that might not exists and maybe would be removed later.) - 10:43, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
This is not an RFV matter. Trying to verify words we have is hard enough before challenging words we don't have. How do you propose we delete an entry we don't have? Any other words we don't have you'd like verifying? I'm sure I could come up with hundreds if I wanted to. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
This is an RFV matter, at least now by creating an entry for the noun metrica as this should be the way you prefer. German dictionaries which state that metrica exists include these: www.duden.de/rechtschreibung/Metrik , www.wissen.de/search?keyword=Metrik , www.dwds.de/?qu=Metrik . - 02:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


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

Barack Obama signs at his desk2.jpg
Oh right, yeah, there are two schools of thought for writing left-handed, either a mirror image of a right-hander or with the wrist curled towards back towards the arm. This is quite a good image (it says photo credit Wikimedia Commons but I don't have the file name). As far as I know it's not a meaning of the word southpaw though. Given that southpaw means left-handed. I wonder if it's just an error. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:52, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
I've added a link to the image on Commons. SpinningSpark 21:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm left-handed, and when doing "joined-up writing" I tend to write from over the top instead of from underneath the writing. It's a bit of a problem with a fountain pen when you smudge what you've written. Is that what is meant? Donnanz (talk) 11:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I assume that's what the person who cooked up this definition meant, but the question is: do people really use the word "southpaw" that to mean that, or is it a case of e-thumb-twiddling? I've never heard it used that way, and I don't see any citations for it. I suspect it may have arisen as the author's guess as to the original meaning of the word, which has now been debunked if that's the case (see current discussion at RfD). P Aculeius (talk) 13:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


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

cliff notes[edit]

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

More common as "Cliff notes" or "Cliff Notes", but citeable.
  • 2014, CP Moore, Legacy of the Gods, CP Moore (ISBN 9781506191577)
    Well, of course there's more, a lot more. But that's the cliff notes of what faces us once we find Sanderson.
  • 2012, Gary Wayne Clark, The Devolution Chronicles: Rise of the Chimera, Lulu.com (ISBN 9780985343828), page 105
    Ryker stepped forward and blurted out the cliff notes of the current crisis.
  • 2015, Jack Fisher, The Escort and the Gigolo, Lulu Press, Inc (ISBN 9781483429977)
    “If this is you being serious, I'll just give you the cliff notes of the plan for tonight,” said Ray.
Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
That's very good, and I've put that in the entry. But the sense in these cites is different from what is in the entry now: "A summary of a much longer work designed to allow a student to quickly learn the key points of the longer work". Can that sense be cited? This, that and the other (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd just stick with the broader "summary of anything"-type sense. Purplebackpack89 23:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


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

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

End of Cycle[edit]

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


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

Did your search results include this as well ? [[77]] Leasnam (talk) 16:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
The OED has half a dozen cites ranging from 700 AD to 1882, each with a different spelling, but only the 1869 one (quoting Peacock's Glossary) has this spelling. A Concise Anglo-Saxon Dictionary has this spelling (Page 337), as has Innovation and continuity in English studies by Herbert Grabes, but these are all just mentions. Dbfirs 19:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "African-American" due to edit wars —suzukaze (tc) 20:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


Unattested in DEX – only 6 hits on Google (Romanian version). Can't find the verb a supradiversifica either. Baican XXX, the user who added the word, has a tendency of making up words he believes sound good; the main reason why he was blocked from Romanian Wiktionary and Wikipedia. --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)


"State or feeling of immense superiority, but not arrogance." Seems unlikely. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 03:40, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it should just be cattishness, i.e. habit of being cattish. Equinox 04:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Can this be cited, though? I didn't come across any cites for this sense in the twenty pages I looked through gathering cites for the primary sense (most of these cites were repeats of a Garfield cookbook, which made trawling through the pages even more of a chore). -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 04:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
Ullmann created this with the summary '86000 googles'. That doesn't speak for the meaning though does it. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)


@Leasnam, I can find no evidence of this word's existence. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

That was taken from A new English dictionary on historical principles : founded mainly on the materials collected by the Philological Society, which no longer has it up online, as I see...The word was a derivative under the headword of 'Qued', 'Quede' listing as Quedly adv. [ = OFris. qua(de]liki ] wickedly ; Quedness, Quedship, evil, wickedness. Leasnam (talk) 18:50, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
It is still here [[78]] Leasnam (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
@Leasnam: That's not really useful evidence; do you have anything relevant to RFV? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
No. This is where I got the info when I created the entry. A review today will no doubt result in a deletion of the entry, which I do not contest, as it fails RFV Leasnam (talk) 19:22, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


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

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


Esperanto for male bat. Nothing on Google Books, Google Groups, or Tekstaro. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 21:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Esperanto is still a constructed language, with new words being invented by people over time as they need them, even though it is by far the most standardised conlang actually used. I would think Esperanto words belong if they make sense within the Esperanto construction frame, and vespertiĉo certainly seems to make sense. Conlangs are so different from natural languages in how they come about, my opinion would be to either not allow any conlangs or words of them on wiktionary, or to allow all of them, however there looks to be a massive double standard because any language that isn't "attested" by "verifiable sources" by "experts" will be labelled as a conlang and stigmatised and anyone who even question the dismissal of the language as a conlang will be accused of being the conlanger, as happened with all the Hunnic words added by @HunnicHistor except мори even though they're obviously some Turkic language, after which I was accused of being his sockpuppet because I asked if it's a nonstandard dialect of Bashkir that my friend speaks and insists it's a different language, not a dialect... The double standard is clear eurocentrism, it's a huge problem in linguistics; if it isn't "verified" by white people, then it doesn't exist... AliHautala (talk) 11:27, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
On Wiktionary, words in constructed languages have to meet the same criteria for inclusion as words in English, as explained in Wiktionary:Criteria for Inclusion. This is not a double standard.
We do have a double standard with respect to small and poorly documented languages like Bashkir, but it's the opposite of what you're suggesting—words in poorly documented languages have fewer requirements for inclusion than words in well documented languages like English, French, or Esperanto. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 15:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

pack in[edit]

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

I can't think of a non-SoP US football sense, but I also can't think of any other non-SoP senses - and evidently others think they can. I guess I should just pack it in as an amateur lexicographer. DCDuring TALK 20:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I think it's generally ok to remove {{rfdef}} when there are other definitions and no citations. How are we supposed to guess what the other meanings are without even evidence to look at? Renard Migrant (talk) 12:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant: Without the RfV we could be seen as asserting that there definitely is a US football definition, though we can't word it properly. Conversely, the RfV is a challenge to any US football definition. The citation search work for any US football sense is generally not too much more than for one.
An alternative is to have a comment (displayed or not?) in the {{rfdef}}. I lean toward allowing the RfV of a def line with only a label and {{rfdef}}. DCDuring TALK 13:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I've got a couple of cites from rugby (that's the same as American football isn't it? just not so much girlie protection) but I'm not sure that the vrbb is not pack plus the preposition in.
The first one is clearly just "pack" plus the preposition "in": The next sentance begins "Before deciding how to pack, ". The second one looks similar, but is not as clear Kiwima (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


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

It's tricky to say whether "fat" is exactly a distinct sense from "short of breath due to being fat", but these quotes seem to be referring purely to stockiness:
  • 1886, Samuel Laing, A Sporting Quixote: Or the Life and Adventures of the Honble. Augustus Fitzmuddle, Afterwards Earl of Muddleton
    But at length the right man came in the shape, not of a fairy prince, but of a pursy little stockbroker, Muggins by name, whom she met one winter when she went with old Lady Muddleton to Brighton.
  • 1900, H. A. Kemble, William E. S. Fales, Blue Pencil Magazine
    There stood in front of the Hotel Metropole a big, pursy fellow, picking his teeth.
  • 1980, Clancy Carlile, Honkytonk Man
    The diner's big bay windows and interior lights allowed us to see everyone in the dining room, including the lone waitress, presumably Myrtle herself, a big pursy-gut woman who looked as if she was more used to giving orders than taking them.
There are lots of quotes like this, where pursy seems to refer to appearance, but I wouldn't object to it being made a subsense or a part of sense 1. Smurrayinchester (talk) 15:41, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: exclamatory final particle

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



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

Just google for "žabar" "francuz" (with quote marks) and you'll find results that corroborate such usage. Fojr (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Can you provide evidence? I tried it and it gets tonnes of hits, but in Polish. Also Google on its own not an acceptable source. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Examples of usage with the sense "Frenchman", from the first couple of pages of Google's results : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Fojr (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Any CFI-meeting ones? Renard Migrant (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The number of occurences of that sense suggests a "clearly widespread usage". Fojr (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

sea puss[