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


May 2015[edit]


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)
RFV-passed based on Smurray's excellent citations, two of which I've typed up and added to the entry, where they join two already present. - -sche (discuss) 21:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

June 2015[edit]


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)
I have reworded the definition, and added some cites, although one of them is a bit iffy. Kiwima (talk) 00:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Is pikies actually a plural as pikey? The only citations of the "fishing lure" sense use that spelling. "seventy-leven pikey men" is arguably a chilish(?) rendering of "pike men", i.e. "pikey" itself is rendering "pike" and "men" is what carries the meaning "men" (rather than "pikey" meaning "pikeman"). - -sche (discuss) 01:19, 8 February 2016 (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)

  • @JohnC5: Can you please resolve this one? (And if you have anything to add to the section immediately above this, that would be great as well.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:27, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: I’ve cleaned up the entry some. I’m gonna need Newt’s help with an adjectival table with only singular. —JohnC5 05:25, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge, JohnC5 I didn't bother programming number distinction into adjectives, because I didn't think it was attested anywhere, and I'm still not sure that it is. This word has less of an inflection table than a disorganized collection of analogous forms of ἴα, not all of which are even certainly attested. I'm considering just putting a manual wikitable in there. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 00:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
@ObsequiousNewt, would you implement your solution? I'd appreciate that. :) 00:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm dumb. Please ignore me! —JohnC5 00:32, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Apparently resolved. - -sche (discuss) 06:39, 8 February 2016 (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)


Rfv-sense: “after (because of)” and “after, next” — Ungoliant (falai) 01:37, 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 [2] and one related to moral philosophy [3]. —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)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 02:09, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

July 2015[edit]

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: [4]. The term also gained usage in non-academic circles, with results on Google Images being indicative of this: [5]. Morgengave (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
I have added some citations that are clear usages with no quotes or italics. Kiwima (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
RFV-passed. Thanks, Kiwima. - -sche (discuss) 02:24, 8 February 2016 (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)
1522 Skelton Why nat to Court 397 Of you I wolde frayne Why come ye nat to court.
1555 Abp. Parker Ps. xxviii. 65 Theyr myndes disdayne Gods actes to frain[e].
1575–6 Durham Depos. (Surtees) 270 The said Umphra frayned the said Thomas.
1592 Warner Alb. Eng. vii. xxxvii. (1612) 181, I, musing, frain'd her meaning.
1703 Thoresby Let. to Ray (E.D.S.) Frayn, to ask. Lanc. [a mention]
1803 W. S. Rose Amadis 160 Frayn'd by the knight, they told, a beautious maid..Was borne a prisoner. Leasnam (talk) 03:12, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Cited Leasnam (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
Although several of those citations are of frayn(e), there exist editions of most of them which use frain, so the verb passes. What about the noun meaning "ash tree"? EDD (which sometimes has citations) doesn't have it, and Century''s only citation is of the Middle English Lay le Freine (where it is a proper noun, a person's name). - -sche (discuss) 06:48, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


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

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 [[6]], [[7]], and [[8]] 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)


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)

These senses fail RFV (one has a single mention-y citation):

  1. (Scotland, obsolete) a flourish at the end of a pen stroke
  2. (Scotland) the end of a discourse
  3. (Presbyterianism) a review of a previous sermon or speech
    • 1942, Education - Volume 62, page 470:
      A "purlicue," as the Scotch used to call a secondary or extra sermon, is found in the statement of T. R. Glover, which I have quoted in the London Quarterly Review for April, 1939

- -sche (discuss) 03:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The EDD has this as pirlicue, defined as "a brief resume or recital given at the close of a series of addresses or sermon of the principal subjects and points treated", with the citations:

  • 1886, Stevenson, Kidnapped:
    If you distaste the sermon, I doubt the pirlicue will please you as little.
  • 1895, Samuel Rutherford Crockett, The Men of the Moss-hags: Being a History of Adventure, page 261:
    A pirlicue which pleased them but little, so that some rode off that they might not be known, and some dourly remained, but were impotent for evil.

I can also find:

  • 1938, Patrick Reginald Chalmers, The Barrie inspiration, page 90:
    Much in the same way would a minister in Thrums, hard up for a pirlicue, never fail to find it in having 'one more whap, my freens, at the Painted Whure of Babylon.'

So I've moved that sense to pirlicue. - -sche (discuss) 02:49, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Donetsk People’s Republic translations part 2[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)

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)

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)


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)

  • Today I searched somewhat more thoroughly and found three quotations, which I've added to the entry. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 02:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
RFV-passed. - -sche (discuss) 03:09, 8 February 2016 (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)
It is difficult to find quotes that clearly mean something other than a lock on a jail door, but I think I have found enough. I also added a picture. Kiwima (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

signum crucis[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 [9]. 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: [10]. 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.

August 2015[edit]


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[11]. 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)

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: [[12]]. —This comment was unsigned.

Strangely, when I look at the actual snippet that Google Books is OCR-ing as "27 1   trampled and noted by a bull", what the book actually says is "27 1  trampled and gored by a bull". - -sche (discuss) 09:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The "may not" sense had only this citation:
  • 1590, Edmund Spenser, The Faerie Queene, III.3:
    There Merlin stayd, / As overcomen of the spirites powre, / Or other ghastly spectacle dismayd, / That secretly he saw, yet note discoure [...].

The "gore" sense had this etymology, and the alt form knoit:

Perhaps related to dialectal noit, knoit ‎(nob; projection), or from Scots note, knoit ‎(to knock), itself perhaps for *nite, from Old English hnītan ‎(to strike; thrust; push; come against with a shock; butt).
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 02:34, 7 February 2016 (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)


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? 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, 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)


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 [13], [14]. 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 [15], but it's unhelpful for lager, only giving the indefinite plural [16]. 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 [17]. 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)

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)
Agree with Metaknowledge and Mr. Granger. The following are mentions to me: "... became known as the Law of the Tongue", "... what locals call the law of the tongue", "The Law of the Tongue was that ...", "It was called the Law of the Tongue ...". There, the term does not have the burden of carrying a meaning but rather is assigned the meaning. Thus, in "X became known as Y", "X was called Y", and the like, Y is mentioned, not used. Such mentions can be helpful as an aid in meaning clarification (with care), but do not count toward in-use attestation. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:49, 22 December 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: [18] --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)

king bishop pawn[edit]


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 [19]. 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)


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)
  • RFV failed, although I must add that Pynchon is undoubtably deserving of well-known work status, were it to remain in the CFI. (And those who deny it are self-evidently uncultured swine.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
On the citations page, we have two words using this suffix: arnomancy (from a low-quality source which is just listing a bunch of -mancies), and arnophilia (from Pynchon). I can also find:
  • 1657, Jean de Renou, A Medicinal Dispensatory, page 595:
    The Neotericks have retained the old description, but not the name of these Pills: for Mesue their Author calls them [...] Pills of Cynogloss, which is neither for quantity nor quality prepollent therein : perhaps they mistake Cynogloss for Arnogloss, []
This may mean Plantago lanceolata, which is called "lamb's tongue". (Given the date, it can't mean Arnoglossum, and from context it seems to not mean Arnoglossus.) Is this sufficient? @DCDuring. - -sche (discuss) 01:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Given Arnoglossum/Arnoglossus, Arnoseris, and possibly Arnocrinum(?), does this meet CFI as a Latin prefix? - -sche (discuss) 02:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
It should stay RFV failed, by my lights. I do not see CFI-attested terms containing the prefix. Later: my bad: yes, the English prefix should stay deleted, but Latin prefix may be a different story if the above listed Arnoglossum, Arnoseris, Arnocrinum are attested. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Probably not. Arnoglossum is just the Latinization of ἀρνόγλωσσον ‎(arnóglōsson), which looks to me like a compound of ἀρνός ‎(arnós, lamb) and γλῶσσα ‎(glôssa, tongue). Not only is Arnoglossum borrowed whole, but I'm not convinced that the first part is a prefix in either language. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:56, 31 January 2016 (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)


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


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, rather than "complain", "lament" or "comfort". - -sche (discuss) 03:58, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

In Christ Dying, there's this, but it might be (meaning, or a scanno or typo of) "demean": "Henry Nicholas a German, [...] saith, c. 34 Sent.10. 'God hath [...] anointed me with his godly being, meaned himself with me, and godded me with him, etc.'" - -sche (discuss) 02:53, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
The English Dialect Dictionary has some citations of the "lament" sense, but they are unfortunately all mentions, made-up usexes from other dictionaries, Scots, and/or not this (or any single other) spelling. Likewise its citations of the "pity / condole with" sense are Scots:
  • 1791, John Learmont, Poems, Pastoral, Satirical, Tragic, and Comic, page 305:
    Thro' ilka state o' life I've ta'en a glowr, / An' find the rich as grit to mean's the poor.
  • Chambers, Popular Rhymes
    They that wash on Wednesday, / Are no sair to mean; / They that wash on Thursday, / May get their claes clean. / They that wash on Friday, / Hae gey meikle need.
It also has some citations of "complain of, blame, resent (generally or at law)", some of which are Scots but enough of which are valid that that sense seems cited. - -sche (discuss) 03:16, 7 February 2016 (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)


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.


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


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)


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)

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: [21] [22] [23] Also, "Goto" refers to a popular kind of telescope, and the name has also been verbed: [24]. 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)


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: [[25]] and [[26]] Kiwima (talk) 20:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
And here's a third [[27]]
I don't believe any of the 3 citations supports the definition: e.g. "since its 2009 digital inception" simply means "since it was created, as an online/Internet thing, in 2009". Nothing to do with marketing techniques. Equinox 22:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The third one isn't durably archived and none of them seem to support this sense, which I imagine was itself made up for marketing purposes and the person who created it is linking here from a company website or something. We get quite a lot of this. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


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

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)


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)
I don't know either way but up until now, I always thought it was just a Finnish word, haha. This is just a guess but it could be used in Russian at least near the Finnish border? AliHautala (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2016 (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)


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)


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[28], 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[29], 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)


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)


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)
Cited, except that we face the issue (mentioned above) of deciding whether the citations are using an adjective or the sense should be relabelled a proper noun.
  • 1917, Journal of the Illinois State Historical Society, page 91:
    Another interesting Illinois word is the name of the celebrated chief, which the French made Chachagouache.
  • 2004, Sandy Nestor, Indian Placenames in America, volume 1, page 61:
    PISTAKEE LAKE (Lake) Part of the Chain of Lakes, Pistakee is an Illinois word taken from pestekouy, meaning "buffalo"[.]
  • 2005, Jennifer Lee, The Illinois Confederacy of Illinois, Missouri, Wisconsin, ..., page 5:
    These words are believed to have come from the Illinois word "irenweewa," which meant "he speaks in the ordinary way."
  • 2013, Brett Rushforth, Bonds of Alliance: Indigenous and Atlantic Slaveries, page 56:
    Another Illinois word describing physical detention, kikiȣnakiȣi, meant “slave” in the seventeenth century, but in modern usage the root has softened into a meaning that suggests being detained, held up, or merely running late.
- -sche (discuss) 20:47, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
RFV-passed. - -sche (discuss) 00:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Really? I thought it was largely a settled matter: For a word that is commonly used as a noun, to be considered also an adjective is must have at least one trait of an adjective:
It must be comparable or gradable
It must be used in a predicate (doesn't usually generate clear evidence to differentiate a noun from an adjective)
It must have a sense not present in the noun.
None of the citations seem like anything that couldn't be said to be attributive use of the noun. Some have advanced arguments that would say that, if solely adjectival use preceded clearly nominal use of the word, it retains its identify as an adjective. No evidence of that kind has been introduced. DCDuring TALK 02:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for challenging the closure. (That wasn't sarcasm.) To some extent I treated this as an RFV of the sense (i.e., can "Illinois" refer to the language?), not the part of speech, since at the time of the RFV there was only one line in the entry (the RFVed line) which said that "Illinois" referred to a language. Also, in the Tea Room discussion of Sanskrit linked above, WikiTiki provides some arguments which I considered persuasive that a language name isn't a noun in citations like the ones above. For one, it doesn't seem possible to replace it with a synonymous noun or noun phrase. I am less sure of some of that argument now that I consider them again. One can say "the word is Sanskrit / Illinois / etc", but not (in the same sense) "the word is the Sanskrit language", and arguably not "the word is Sanskrit language" (but I now realize one can use the attributive noun phrase "the word is Sanskrit-language"). It also doesn't seem to be possible to recast the sentence in a way that it could be recast if "Illinois" were a noun (in the sentence). "The phenobarbital pile" (using a noun attributively) can be recast as "the pile is made of phenobarbital" (using the noun 'nounally'), but "the English / Sanskrit / Illinois word" doesn't seem to be recastable as "the word is made of English", can it? (This is not to say that "English / Sanskrit / Illinois" cannot be nouns: they can, in other contexts.) I don't object to deleting the adjective section in favour of the proper noun. - -sche (discuss) 20:10, 1 February 2016 (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[30], 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)
    • I tend to agree; at Ngram Viewer "manboob" is too rare (in any sense; and we know some uses are not of the "coin" sense) to be plotted. - -sche (discuss) 20:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
      • Indeed, the first citation uses manboob three times and mahboob five times, confirming (or strongly suggesting) that one is a typo. (The other two appear to only use manboob.) I've done this. - -sche (discuss) 20:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
I would even support removing the usage note—a misprint/typo that has only two or three citations doesn't warrant mention. If we're concerned that readers may search for "manboob" when looking for the currency (though that seems unlikely given the rareness of the typo), {{also|mahboob}} could help with that. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 20:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Which is better, {{also}} or ===See also===? I tend to think {{also}} is for graphically similar things, whereas this is a case of one letter being used for another (though they happen to be graphically similar). But I have no strong preference. - -sche (discuss) 22:14, 1 February 2016 (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)
RFV-passed (except the uncited sense, which was removed). Thanks again, Cloudcuckoolander! - -sche (discuss) 22:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


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

Cited two senses. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 20:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Belatedly RFV-passed. Excellent work, User:Cloudcuckoolander!! - -sche (discuss) 22:20, 1 February 2016 (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)


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)


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: [[31]] and a song called Fuckabilly Boogie. Kiwima (talk) 06:09, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

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

  • 2016, Dee Carney, Hunger Untamed (ISBN 1459290402):
    The phone rang twice in his ear before the call connected. Cicero's cultured voice came on. "Gave the job to someone else." "Yeah, fuckabilly. Hello to you, too."

This might be the general insult:

  • 2014 January 17, joebr...@gmail.com, Re: Studies:Secondhand Smoke Not a Significant Health Threat, in alt.atheism, Usenet:
    Your real name is Pussy F Fuckabilly. Yep, I think you are a fag. Read the link, stupid asshole. Fuck you. Go fuck yourself, you looney bitch.

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

  • 1983, Winston Leyland, My Deep Dark Pain is Love: A Collection, page 303
    It was the epic poem "In Praise of Fuckabilly Butt," an ode to homosexuality written by Jack Fritscher and published in the magazine Skin. A magazine freely sold on newsstands in the United States, Skin is devoted to the cult of the male body []

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

  • 2003 November 17, gair rhydd: Cardiff's student weekly, issue 750, page 26, television review:
    19.00 Children in Need Inane tedious bugger-for-nothing scroungers being thoroughly un-hilarious. Although it's for a good cause, so that makes all this fuckabilly acceptable.

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

  • 2003 October 4, Doug Boucher, What's in your...(Hi, Everybody!) :-), in alt.music.mike-keneally:
    His voice might make some people run away screaming, he's twangy as all fuckabilly, but I dig the heck out of him.

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


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)

I would say that the 1893 cite looks like it fits the sense. Does anyone disagree? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree. RFV-passed. - -sche (discuss) 20:20, 1 February 2016 (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)
RFV-passed. Thanks, all. - -sche (discuss) 20:24, 1 February 2016 (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)

baixo (Portuguese)[edit]

Rfv-sense: casualty

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

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 20:25, 1 February 2016 (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)

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


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)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 06:32, 7 February 2016 (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)
I tend to agree with DCDuring. How about combining the senses like so? (Compare Talk:UCLA.) - -sche (discuss) 07:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

risorgimento as a common noun[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)

I can only find one citation:

  • Candace Vianna, The Science of Loving - Volume 1 (ISBN 1311163379):
    [I looked] something likethe Elephant Man after he'd stuck his finger in a light socket — this wasn't my typical bed-head. I didn't know what this was — Fuckhead. I had fuckhead — shit, Mat'd seen me like this — oh, my God, he let me walk around like this!

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 06:39, 7 February 2016 (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)

Right you are. Ok, how about these?
  • 2006, David Brown & ‎Kara Willey, The Worlds of Naughtenny Moore, ISBN 0978866010:
    The borogove let out a quiet chirp. Another, larger borogove squirmed in through the hole in the fabric.
  • 2013, Mel Gilden, The Jabberwock Came Whiffling: A Novel of Fantasy, ISBN 1479409405, page 22:
    Its knee bent the wrong way, though Albert thought it was certainly the right way for the borogove . Another borogove popped out of the forest and followed the first across the road, then a third and a fourth .
  • 2014, Daniel Coleman, Jabberwocky: A Novel, ISBN 0988196948:
    It smelled like a wet borogove.
  • 2015, Donald Weis, Monster Lore 2, ISBN 1329377532, page 12:
    With the Borogove's long legs, they hop and step over some incoming attacks.
Kiwima (talk) 18:09, 10 December 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:

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." [32]
    Nicole Sharp (talk) 05:25, 14 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)


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 [33] (uses quickscoping) and [34] (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)

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


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.[35][36][37][38]. 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)
These seem like clear citations. The second citation mentioned above actually seems a little less clear, because it could mean she returned to the "news bureau", which needn't denote a physical office per se; compare "she returned to the unit with some steaming hot food". Nonetheless, for reference it is:
  • 2002, Ron Steinman, Inside Television's First War: A Saigon Journal, page 237:
    Within an hour, she returned to the bureau with steaming food, our only meal of the day.
I think this is cited. - -sche (discuss) 08:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
RFV-passed. - -sche (discuss) 03:27, 4 February 2016 (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)
  • The citations that have been added appear to be sufficient. RFV passed. Note that the entry has also passed RFD. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:05, 7 February 2016 (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)
Added 3 citations. Equinox 13:20, 4 February 2016 (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)


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)


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)

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)

This should've been in RFD instead, but it's not worth the effort for something that should so obviously fail. Sense deleted. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:17, 7 February 2016 (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)
Urban Dictionary has the following surprisingly believable explanation, but i wasn't able to find any reliable source for it on line. On the other hand, maybe not many books of nursery rhymes have been scanned. Maybe someone in an English-speaking country just needs to go to a big library. I must say i remember dimly hearing a long time ago something about a children's rhyme that causes confusion with numbers one and three in English:

"Comes from the childrens nursery rhyme:

Number one, tickle my bum

Number two, do a big poo

Number three, go for a wee"

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


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

  • [39] 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.
  • [40] 2007, Pelican Parts, coldstart
    • Fall Fun Run!!! - Toronto area or aka 'COTU'
  • [41] 2013, Bruno 54
    • Is Toronto the COTU?
  • [42] 2008, Eh Mac, FeXL, New Toronto tax on cars, motorbikes rolls out
    • How do the denizens of COTU feel about this?
  • [43] 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.
  • [44] 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)

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".

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[45] has a broader definition that mentions the genus and then singles out A. auricula and A. polytricha. oxforddictionaries.com[46] only covers Auricularia auricula. AHD[47] 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)


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


"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)


@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)

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

Netflix and chill[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)

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


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)
I suppose we could combine the two courage ones into a single definition - something like "To lose courage or cause to lose courage", and then use the three cites for that. Kiwima (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the 1973 Canadian Labour manpower cite is good. It is at least ambiguous. I find the more natural reading to be "the employer is usually attempting to (cut out) (manning) (down on) a particular piece of equipment."
Another reading would be that it was a blend of "cut out" and "cut down" resulting from a mid-sentence edit of speech.
They all look like nonce creative exploitations of "man"'s normal meaning by verbing it. The heterogeneous nature of the uses suggests that there are probably other meanings also. DCDuring TALK 20:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


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)



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)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 04:16, 2 February 2016 (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)


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: [48] [49] [50] 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)
No more so than slip off, which is not challenged. Kiwima (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
MWOnline has, for intransitive, the following:
4 a : to move or pass smoothly or easily <slid into the prepared speech>
[4]b : to pass unnoticed or unremarked <let the criticism slide>
Why do our definitions for basic verbs suck? DCDuring TALK 22:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Because not a single one of our editors is a professional lexicographer. --WikiTiki89 22:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

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


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

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

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)


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)
And no one has come forward with citations, so: formally RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 04:26, 2 February 2016 (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)
Given the citations, it seems to have entered the lexicon. I would prefer us to have Cliff capitalised (Cliff notes) like the first name it derives from; is that not more common than the lower-case form? Equinox 01:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


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 ? [[51]] 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)


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

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

sea puss[edit]

RFV of the two senses added in diff, "longshore current" and "submerged channel through a bar caused naturally by a longshore current". This is an interesting case, because many general references say "sea-puss" means "seaward current", while many special shore-protection references say it means "longshore current": every one of the uses I've seen explicitly refers to it as a seaward current or rip current, with only one possible exception. Is the "longshore current" perhaps an error or wishful thinking (desire for a term) on the part of one shore-protection reference which was propagated to the others? Likewise, the uses I've seen only support the other "channel" sense. I'm not sure how a longshore current would generate a cut through a sandbar, anyway. - -sche (discuss) 08:43, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

After looking at the glossary linked to, I think the added sense is really three:
  1. A dangerous longshore current
  2. A rip current caused by return flow
  3. The submerged channel or inlet through a bar caused by those currents.
The first new sense is the only one of the three having no overlap with the two original ones. The second is identical with the first sense in the entry, and the third is very similar to the second sense in the entry. Since "currents" is plural, it looks like we can attribute the cutting through of the sandbar to the rip current as well as to the longshore current (or, I would argue, instead of the longshore current). That means the only difference between the second original sense and the third new one is who or what is said to have cut the channel. What it all boils down to is a minor variation in the channel sense and the longshore-current sense being the only thing we would need to verify. Chuck Entz (talk) 09:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Excellent analysis. I've tweaked the "channel" sense to say "often deliberately", which allows for natural formation, and removed the duplicate "rip current" sense. - -sche (discuss) 04:53, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
RFV-failed. I've expanded the usage note to cover the difference in how the term is actually used (denoting a seaward current) vs how some reference works describe it (as a longshore current). - -sche (discuss) 05:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


The dative singular "dem Konfixe" shouldn't exist. - 02:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

I've suppressed the -e form, although the footnote "1" is still present, which is slightly unattractive. - -sche (discuss) 05:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


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

I agree that they are mostly mentions, but some move more into the use territory, and the 2012 cite is definitely a use:
  • 2007, Brigham Young University Studies - Volume 46, page 142:
    LDS filmmakers had reacted against Hollywood's stereotypes but only succeeded in creating their own, and some detractors pejoratively dismissed the entire Mormon film movement as "Mollywood".
  • 2007, Robert Van Voorst, Anthology of World Scriptures, ISBN 0495503878, page 362:
    One exception is the Latter-day Saint church, which has its own motion-picture operation (nicknamed Mollywood).
  • 2012, Elisha McIntyre, Handbook of New Religions and Cultural Production, ISBN 9004226486, page 74:
    Mollywood is not an official Church institution, although the Church has been using film as a tool for religious education since the early twentieth century.
  • 2012, J. Michael Hunter, Mormons and Popular Culture, ISBN 0313391688:
    The fledgling movement had earned the nickname “Mollywood” and audiences who had flocked to God's Army and The Singles Ward now avoided anything with Mormon material.
  • 2013, Nadia Marzouki & ‎Olivier Roy, Religious Conversions in the Mediterranean World, ISBN 1137004908:
    Rigal-Cellard's comments about 'Mormon culture' demonstrate that, more than a mere religion, Mormonism indeed appears like a culture, a way of life encompassing all aspects of daily life. American Mormons have their own music (the Church-sponsored traditional Mormon Tabernacle Choir or non-Church sponsored Mormon boy band 'Evercleen'), are encouraged to dress 'modestly', and there is even a Mormon cinema (Mollywood).
Kiwima (talk) 04:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure mention is strictly forbidden. CFI requires citations "conveying meaning" which could conceivably include mentions, provided they aren't "made-up examples of how a word might be used". Although all but the first citation might fall under that, the strongest cases are the 2013 and the two 2007 quotes, with the term nearly appearing as an appositive. I mean, how would we feel about the example given in CFI if it were slightly modified?
  • They raised a small sail forward of the mainsail (the jib) in order to get the most out of the light wind.
Is this substantially different from the one explicitly allowed? DAVilla 06:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

December 2015[edit]

passive voice[edit]

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

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

I get what it's poking at. Language Log has several posts ranting about this; [52] and [53] discuss it. [54] has a clear CFI-citable quote: "In an initial press release, the department said Winkler "aggressed the deputies and a deputy-involved shooting occurred." Note that Winkler's actions were put in the active voice, while the officers' actions were put in the passive." where Language Log notes that "a deputy-involved shooting occurred" is weird and responsibility-avoiding, but not actually passive voice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
[55] summarizes the issue and provides a link to some of the Language Log pages.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:35, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


Plural of opium. I removed 3 quotations that were visually verified as scanos. One quotation does not appear to support this sense, and is mention not use anyways. The last 2 quotations, from a single source, I am unable to verify. In other words, we're practically starting from zero here. DAVilla 05:52, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

The Andrew Salter quotation, if accurate, seems like a failed protologism. The two alleged to be from China: Cultural and Political Perspectives don't appear in a Google Books search of the book, and the WK entry is the only occurrence of the phrase when Googled. If accurate, they would still represent a single author's apparent protologism, but I doubt them since 1) it doesn't make sense (more below), and 2) the word ought to occur when the book is searched.
I know that Wiktionary is supposed to be "descriptivist" in the sense that it doesn't matter whether the word makes any sense grammatically or has a valid etymology, as long as people use it. But I still think there's some value in following that line of inquiry. Since opium is a substance, and uncountable, it shouldn't have a plural. There's not more than one kind of opium. The entry for opium suggests a countable sense in the Karl Marx quotation that "religion is the opium of the people", but I don't think that's a logical inference. Merely because something is "the" opium doesn't make it countable; the fact that something else could be metaphorically described as "opium" doesn't really make opium countable. And while verbivores like myself may take malicious delight in using Latin plurals for common English words, there ought to be some real history of a plural for something normally uncountable. Even in Greek and Latin it was uncountable, although it would have had a logical plural should one have been needed. But one wasn't, and probably never has been. So it doesn't seem like there's any justification for an entry. P Aculeius (talk) 00:37, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I think it could be countable, e.g. "the opiums of Afghanistan and of China have different effects". Compare e.g. rice. It would come down to attestation. Equinox 00:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Ah, yes, good point -- similar to water or fish or plastic, much like your rice example -- nouns that are usually uncountable, unless referring to varieties of the uncountable. But then, as you note, it would be opiums and not *opia. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:31, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
    But theoretically it could be opia. Our job here is to determine whether it actually is. --WikiTiki89 01:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I love a good challenge, but on this one I'm coming up dry. The best I could find was [56], which is unreadable enough to be questionable. Kiwima (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
this refers to "opia" addicts - thus using it like a synonym for opiates. And this has the phrase "Opia's can have no effect". Does that count? Kiwima (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Zooming in on your first link makes it clear that this is opium, not opia, so that one is out. In your third link, the apostrophe appears to be either a scanning or printing artifact for what is clearly a lower-case “t” in this same word elsewhere on the page, such as in the preceding paragraph (bolding mine, italics original):

II. That this Defect will ariſe from whatever exhauſts, waſtes, or evaporates them when produced, as Labour or Exerciſe; or from whatever abſorbs them, as a great Quantity of crude Chyle, recently and ſuddenly admitted into the Blood, in the Time of, or ſoon after, a plentiful Meal; or whatever can fetter or re-unite them with the groſſer Parts of the Blood, as much as Brandy or ſpiritous fermented Liquors and Opiats. []

That leaves the second link. I poked around a bit, and opia appears twice (once in the main body of the text and once in the index pointing to the first appearance). Meanwhile, opium appears 94 times, opiate 18 times, and opiates 41 times. I'm inclined to view the one use of opia as a fluke, especially since the same chapter, just two pages later, uses the word opiates instead. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 08:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
RFV-failed. I found the same thing as P Aculeius about the two China: Cultural and Political Perspectives citations, namely that they don't seem to actually occur in that book. - -sche (discuss) 05:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
I can, however, cite this as a term for a kind of Taino ghost. - -sche (discuss) 05:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


Guess who's back. Equinox 19:25, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

There are lots of hits on Google, such as [| this], but for attestable sources, the best I could come up with was pretty iffy:
  • 2003, Peter Lamborn Wilson, Pirate Utopias: Moorish Corsairs & European Renegadoes, ISBN 1570271585, page 201:
    If Islamophiliac notions circulated amongst educated Masons, why not also amongst a “masonry” of poor mariners?
Kiwima (talk) 22:12, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Looks like an adjective in this case. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:09, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
Wouldn't the correct form be Islamophilic? An Islamophiliac would be a person with Islamophilic tendencies. P Aculeius (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
That's why I called that one iffy - it MIGHT be a noun used attributively, but is more likely a misspelling of Islamophilic. Kiwima (talk) 05:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


Resembling a bun. Equinox 20:39, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

It's hard to search for. So far I've only found this, which just seems to be a cute turn of phrase made up for an ad. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
I found two more:
  • 2012, Sue Simkins, Cooking With Mrs Simkins, ISBN 184803475X:
    If you would like to make some buns with more of a Chelsea bunlike texture follow the recipe above, but increase the flour to 300g (11oz). This will make them less rich and more 'bunny'.
  • 2014, Bruce Montague, Wedding Bells and Chimney Sweeps, ISBN 1784180424:
    Before the interregnum, the cakes made for weddings had been pathetic offerings, consisting mainly of piles of biscuits and scones. When you read the list of ingredients -- sugar, eggs, milk, flour, currents, and spices -- these must have looked and tasted a lot like hot cross buns, but without being hot, without the cross, and without being particularly bunny.
Also, a somewhat iffy recipe for "Bunny Burgers from Cooked Vegetables" (which I THINK refers to the fact that the burgers are eaten on burger buns, but might mean that they are from vegetables, and hence rabbit food) in This. Kiwima (talk) 02:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
If we allow citations of the comparative form, this seems to be attested: one citation on Citations:bunnier and two above. It's rare. And jocular? - -sche (discuss) 05:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


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

What I get from this [57] is that Bailey's original definition was of writing that was unnecessarily great or prodigious. This would fit with the "monstrous" etymology of the word. Johnson's contraction of Bailey's wordy definition has somehow lost the original meaning and our entry has followed Johnson. It seems to me that there is a valid third meaning but it needs rewriting. Richard Kearney seems to think that this is a medieval term (study of monsters - all too credible for that era) and he is re-coining it with a new purpose;
  • This third approach I term—borrowing from medieval parlance—a teratology of the sublime in that it focuses on the "monstrous" character of God.[58]
  • ...I would identify a more recent and widespread tendency to remove evil from the realm of a properly human interpretation: what I call a postmodern teratology of the sublime.[59]
With "study, or writing, of monsters" as a definition, or even Bailey's "monstrous writing", there are more cites available;
  • Mieville's fictions as sublime backwash, inclusive of teratological angels and teratological shit, inclusive of the language of flowers and of the solar anus...[60]
  • In this way, this analysis has aimed at expanding gaga feminism by undertaking a critical teratology, that is, of course, the study of monsters.[61] (they're talking about Ladu Gaga!)
  • In Jack London's urban gothic, the city's teratological economy comes to light in grotesque animal allegories.[62]
  • A Final Teratology [63] (section heading)
  • Miranda Francus notes that in the West, the image of the fecund female has often been associated with monstrosity: 'misogyny and teratology have always met in the image of the maternal monster'.[64]
  • Despite being productive in embodying and critiquing human problems, however, teh incorporation of the cyborg into teratology overlooks one important aspect that distinguishes this cybernetic creature from the rest of the monster phylum: we are able to choose how to fabricate and use the cyborg.[65]
SpinningSpark 20:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


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

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


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

I have added two entries to the citations page, but can't find a third. Kiwima (talk) 07:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
There are more citations available for the hyphenated form, so I think we should have an entry at one or the other. SpinningSpark 18:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I am not so sure about that...hyphenated forms that are simply SOP don't seem worth entering, and the unhyphenated form does not have enough cites. Kiwima (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
SOP of what? There is no English word culturo nor prefix culturo-. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
"culture" + "o" (for combining form) + "scientific". Kiwima (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
We've never evaluated SOPpiness at the level of the bound morpheme, otherwise birds would be SOP as bird + -s. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure where this discussion is going, but I've added more cites of the hyphenated form. Note that the last one I put in (Libraries of the British Council) appears to be hyphenated only because the word is breaking across lines. SpinningSpark 22:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


English ? Leasnam (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I think this was perhaps meant as a Catalan entry (?)...I will change it Leasnam (talk) 22:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Done Leasnam (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
The OED knows an obsolete word fuster meaning a saddle tree maker, so perhaps "fustering" is saddle tree making. However, all of the instances of "fustering" I can find at the link you provided are scannos for ſuffering. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:02, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Except this one, where it seems to mean something like "cascading". That appears to be a nonce word; I can't find any other hits for "fuster down", "fusters down", "fustered down", or "fustering down". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 23:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I did find this [[66]], which is the definition used by the creator verbatim; though I realise that English may have a fuster too Leasnam (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
RFV-passed (as amended). - -sche (discuss) 17:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

bosom friend[edit]

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

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


Any takers? Needs some cleanup (and a headword) if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:54, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, there's Snicklefritz Leasnam (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
I can find that definition in plenty of word lists, but no actual usages. One word list mentioned that it was local to Pennsylvania, so that would shrink the field quite a bit. Mostly, I find it used as a term of endearment for a child. Also, a strain of marijuana. Kiwima (talk) 02:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
p.s. "schnicklefritz" seems to be the more common spelling, and I can find one supportive citation for that:
  • 2014, Marta Perry, Abandon The Dark, ISBN 1488708355:
    She's going to be eight already, and such a little schnicklefritz. Always into mischief.”
Kiwima (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
There are several instances of Schnicklefritz on Usenet, but they all seem to be mentions of it as a German or Pennsylvania German term, or references to it as a nickname or name (of a cat, baby, etc). Through Issuu, a few magazines can be found where it appears as a nickname. The nickname might meet CFI. - -sche (discuss) 23:14, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Do we include nicknames (although I think it is more a term of endearment)? When researching this, I looked for other common terms of endearment, and we do not include those. For example, honey bun has the pastry, but not the term of endearment. Kiwima (talk) 00:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
We do have sweetie, sweetie pie, etc, but the uses of Schnicklefritz that I saw weren't like "sweetie", they were (nick)names (which people signed as, or called others), like "Bubba". - -sche (discuss) 05:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Certainly, there are a number of uses as a nickname, but I also found a number where it was used by someone who was calling a child "snicklefritz" affectionately, when they knew the child's name to be something else. Kiwima (talk) 06:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
On Google Books, the spelling Kiwima mentions (Schnicklefritz) is easily attested as a nickname of sorts. I suppose those are includable, a la "Bubba". (And on Issuu, Snicklefritz might be attested as the same kind of thing.) I suppose the entry should be moved and reformatted, which I may do soon. - -sche (discuss) 18:54, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "police officer(s)". The cites would have to unambiguous in showing that the police officers in question weren't just being called reprehensible people. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

  • I'm pretty sure I have heard this usage on TV and in films. It would be very time-consuming to search for quotes, so I'm going to carry on building the dictionary instead. Feel free to remove the definition. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:32, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
    It is a specific case of #5 in any event, as it's never use in a neutral or positive tone. I tend to feel this does exist but if cited I feel it might be redundant anyway. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
    Sure, but is it used in such a way that the listener knows it's the police that are being referred to that way, and not someone else the speaker dislikes? The term pig can mean any dirty and/or gluttonous person, but when someone says "Here come the pigs" it's clear they mean the police and not just anyone dirty and/or gluttonous. But if I were watching a TV crime show and a criminal said "Here comes the scum", I would simply interpret that as "Here comes someone I detest" and not necessarily the police. But if there are English speakers who would know right away that the police specifically are meant, then it should get a separate listing. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:06, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
    In the UK, the filth is common amongst the criminal classes to mean the police. I've never heard scum used in this way, although I daresay the police have been called that at times. SpinningSpark 16:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


Fondness for prostitutes. Equinox 11:42, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Pornophilia or pornephilia would be far simpler. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 15:57, 12 December 2015 (UTC)


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

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

江詩丹頓 /江诗丹顿[edit]

It was in Requested Entries and I forgot about CFI's section about brands/companies —suzukaze (tc) 20:51, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Pommie Basher[edit]

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

  • I was more concerned about the use of a capital letter in basher. Pommie (or Pommy) is correctly spelt with a capital [67]. I think the use of a hyphen is optional. Donnanz (talk) 10:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


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

application taxi service[edit]

Nothing obvious on a Google book search. Maybe it's a protologism. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:26, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Two points, nobody says application any more, it's always abbreviated to app, so much so that some people no longer know what it's short for. Secondly, this is surely SOP, as shown by sources that use the words in a different order e.g. US-based taxi application Uber is now making their services available in Utrecht. Even when the words are in this order, it is generally with the more grammatical mobile such as Uber, the widely popular mobile application taxi service, is launching a new ferry service in East Boston and Graeter’s is partnering with the mobile application taxi service Uber Technologies to deliver ice cream to your doorstep. SpinningSpark 17:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes - it's the service provided by a taxi app. SemperBlotto (talk) 17:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "Able to be made physical". I looked only very cursorily at GBS but saw nothing.​—msh210 (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I found a number of cites:
  • 2001, Shanker Kumar Shrestha, A step towards victim justice system: Nepalese perspective, ISBN 9993330124, page 118:
    Rehabilitation or restitution and social sheltering are the subjects of long-run scheme, which may be fulfilled after the probable or physible study and after settlement of the certain objectives.
  • 2005, The Indian Journal of Political Science - Volume 66, page 447:
    Hence, any world order devoid of transformation in man is not physible.
  • 2004, Proceedings, Technology Development Workshop, page 212:
    Also this technology was economically viable, biologically physible and socially acceptable.
  • 1980, Indian Banking Today & Tomorrow - Volumes 5-6, page 49:
    An expert evaluating the project of dairy finance by commercial banks has concluded that the financing to small producers for the dairying could be viable and physible business proposal.
They are all Indian, so I suspect that it may be dialectical. The only non-Indian citation I could find was this:
  • 2014, Joanne McNeil, Best of Rhizome 2012, ISBN 1291861459:
    Retro physible hackers will take up woodworking, just to "make something real".
which doesn't seem to support the supplied meaning, since that hackers already have physical form. Kiwima (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
These would need to be clearly differentiated from the first sense of a misspelling of feasible - try reading it as either "physible" or "feasible" per cite. In the contexts of many of those cites, I would expect "feasible", since there doesn't seem to be anything particularly physical that is being talked about therein. That retro physible hacker cite makes me think of the noun sense related to 3D printing. Nibiko (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Nibiko. The 1980, 2001, and 2004 cites in particular, because of the meanings of the adjectives with which physible are coordinated, seem to be about as good cites of the misspelling as we are likely to get. The 2005 citation is only slightly more ambiguous. What a delightful misspelling! DCDuring TALK 03:14, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
You could call it a rare misspelling. However it should be included even as a rare misspelling because it's not obvious what it's a misspelling of. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
The question is, is it a misspelling, or is it an instance of the meaning about capable of being made physical. I tend to lean toward the latter, while it seems that you lean toward the former. Kiwima (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
We need unambiguous cites to attest whatever definitions we keep. I certainly don't see the cites before 2014 supporting either the digital sense or the challenged sense. I would have thought that we could agree on them unambiguously supporting a misspelling. Apparently not.
The only definition we have either from outside sources or with unambiguous citations is the neologistic one for a digital object that can be rendered into 3(4?)-dimensional physical form. All of the cites above, except the one from 2014, precede the rise of the digital->3-d sense, so they cannot be generalizations of that sense. It seems wildly implausible that physible could be used in general usage without someone suggesting a definition nearby, as it is a formation that violates normal morphology. The explanation that would best satisfy Occam would be that it is a misspelling that for some reason happens more readily in India than elsewhere. If physible had appeared in some Indian works on philosophy or spiritualism, I could have accepted the definition under challenge, but that is not the case. DCDuring TALK 01:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
It looks to me like it's feasible with the spelling altered by folk etymology. It probably arose in India because first-language English-speakers would probably think of physible as rhyming with visible, or perhaps sizable, and there are a lot of second-language speakers in India. Chuck Entz (talk) 05:51, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree, especially with DCDuring's comments. The citations seem to be meaning (and misspelling) feasible. By my ken, the "able to be made physical" since fails RFV. - -sche (discuss) 06:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


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

  • 2015, Cory Doctorow, Eastern Standard Tribe, ISBN 9635230540:
    First there is a geyser of blue flame as the tank's puncture wound jets a stream of ignited assoline skyward, and then it blows back into the tank and boom, the fartmobile is in one billion shards, rising like a parachute in an updraft.

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

I thought I remembered this one, it's been here before Wiktionary:Requests for verification archive/2012/even more#assoline. I remembered finding that quote above. SpinningSpark 18:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Looking at that entry, it is marked as failed, so why is it still there? Kiwima (talk) 18:48, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
It was deleted, but User:Cirt added the citations and recreated the entry. I'm sure they thought at the time the citations were adequate. From what I remember of their participation here in the past, I'm not sure how well they really understand CFI. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:27, 18 December 2015 (UTC)


Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 08:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Nothing on Books or Groups. RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 06:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


So how many tropospheres are there? Just one, I thought. Donnanz (talk) 10:53, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Other planets which have atmospheres also have tropospheres, so there are several of them in this solar system anyway. There are also references to "the middle and upper tropospheres," and similar formations. See this search for a bunch of examples. - TheDaveRoss 13:18, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
There are many nouns for which the plural is not "normally" in use. But I don't think it is a good use of time and this space to RfV plurals because they are very uncommon, as this one might be. IMO, a stronger case could be made for challenging claims that a plural does not exist, but our usual use of this page does not challenge claims of non-existence, noncomparability etc. DCDuring TALK 13:54, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
RFVing is justified on the grounds that the main entry does not mention the existence of any troposphere other than that surrounding the earth. It needs to be modified accordingly if it occurs on other planets too. Donnanz (talk) 15:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I amended troposphere so that it included any planet. Someone who is more familiar with the term can adjust it further to include moons and such as I suppose it would apply on any celestial body. - TheDaveRoss 15:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Certainly true of at least the moon Titan. SpinningSpark 17:42, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I have reincluded Earth as that is perhaps the most important troposphere, to mankind anyway. Donnanz (talk) 12:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Even if there is only one of something, it is possible to talk about more, if only in imagination. (After all, there are no unicorns, but unicorn is a word.) So it's a question merely of attestation, i.e. finding the citations. I also recall something in Fowler's Modern English Usage suggesting that "protagonist" cannot have a plural (since one work can only have one protagonist), which is obviously silly when you consider a sentence like "the protagonists of King Lear and Death of a Salesman are comparable". Equinox 07:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Cited on Citations:tropospheres. Some citations refer to the tropospheres of different planets, some are contrasting e.g. the upper and the lower tropospheres, and some are doing both. - -sche (discuss) 06:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


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

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

Can't find any citable quotes, but the word does seem to be common on videogaming wikis;
  • Is there any way to spade the time helmet adventure bonus...[68]
  • Could one try to spade the formula as is now [69]
  • Post results here to spade the formula for the pogo stick [70]
  • Back before NS13, there was the framework for a system whereby people could place bounties on certain things they wanted spaded. [71]

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

I think most of the usage will be from Kingdom of Loathing players. I don't know if they invented the term. DTLHS (talk) 18:06, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Isn't this just an overspecialization of the following MWOnline definition: "to dig up or out or shape with or as if with a spade", much as our first definition, "To turn over soil with a spade to loosen the ground for planting", is also an overspecialization?
This looks like yet another instance of spurious specificity in a loosely used term. DCDuring TALK 19:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
I would not be surprised if the meaning was very specific within the very narrow context that Spinningspark referenced, but that context seems too narrow for our purposes. - TheDaveRoss 00:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)


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

The spelling stalkear is attested for both languages. We could just move the page there but the definitions need amending since it refers specifically to Internet stalking. — Ungoliant (falai) 17:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh, it turns out this was created by the same idiot who has been promoting lesser-used adapted spellings in Portuguese for several months. Chuck Entz knows who I’m talking about. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:01, 20 December 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: adjective.

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

What is the test for a true adjective? SpinningSpark 22:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
See Wiktionary:English adjectives. One test that might be useful in this case is predicative use: Is it possible to say, for example, "This book is gardening" to mean "This book is a gardening book"? —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 22:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Ungoliant; see [72]. Donnanz (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
The above link is to oxforddictionaries.com. I do not see why this particular dictionary should matter all that much. It is not OED. Multiple good dictionaries can be consulted at gardening at OneLook Dictionary Search. Of them, Collins[73] has a dedicated line (b) "(as modifier)" in its noun entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
So does Oxford, if you don't mind me saying so, but with the orange colour they use it doesn't show up very well. Donnanz (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh, you're right. So for some reason, Collins and oxforddictionaries.com see it worthwhile to single out the modifier use. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
The OED itself does indeed have an adjective sense for the word (definition:- that gardens). SemperBlotto (talk) 11:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
That's different: a participial adjective. ("Living creatures" vs. "living conditions".) Equinox 15:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

lexical warfare[edit]

I request attestation in use as opposed to mention. There are currently two quotations and the one starting with '“Lexical Warfare” is a phrase that I like to use' is a mention. google books:"lexical warfare", google groups:"lexical warfare", lexical warfare at OneLook Dictionary Search --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I've added a couple of citations, but I'm rather on the side of the rfd. — Pingkudimmi 07:03, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

bíonn cluasa ar na claíocha[edit]

Irish by Embryomystic. Attested? The page references http://www.teanglann.ie/en/fgb/cluas but I don't find the phrase there. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:27, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

But it has "Bíonn ~a ar na claíocha, ar an gcoill" --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

bíonn cluasa ar an gcoill[edit]

Irish by Embryomystic. Attested? The page references http://www.teanglann.ie/en/fgb/cluas but I don't find the phrase there. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

But it has "Bíonn ~a ar na claíocha, ar an gcoill". --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, "Bíonn ~a ar na claíocha, ar an gcoill" counts as a mention, but not a use, of the phrase. It might be difficult to find a use online since CFI-compliant Irish on the Internet tends to be formal and bureaucratic (newspapers and government documents). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I spoke too soon. Here's a newspaper article using the "ar na claíocha" variant. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:36, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


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

I found a few quotes:
  • 1866, John Quarry, Genesis and Its Authorship: Two Disserations, page 108:
    Such a representation would present a real difficulty, if we were obliged to understand all this in its strict literal import, implying, as it would, very unworthy conceptions of God on the part of the writer. The difficulty vanishes, however, when it is perceived that this is only and instance of a prevailing anthropism which charaterises the whole narrative.
  • 1992, David Kolb, New Perspectives on Hegel's Philosophy of Religion, ISBN 079141437X, page 67:
    Homeric, and to an extent Hesiodic, myth amounts to "perfected anthropism," depicting the divine-made-human
  • 2014, G. V. Loewen, Place Meant: Hermeneutic Landscapes of the Spatial Self, ISBN 0761864938, page 172:
    In transitioning from anywhere to everywhere, we must reinvent the means of reading the world as containing both an autograph—though we do not presume to attach it either to a divinity or to an anthropism—and an hermeneutic.
Although I have some doubts about the 2014 quote. Kiwima (talk) 17:49, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I found another one:
  • 1979, John Carew Eccles, The Human Mystery: The GIFFORD Lectures., ISBN 3540090169, page 2:
    I have seen the question asked "why should mind have a body?" the answer may well run "to mediate between it and other mind". It might be objected that such a view is undiluted 'anthropism.' To that we might reply, anthropism seems the present aim of the planet though presumably not its enduring aim.
Kiwima (talk) 18:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

through the wire[edit]

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

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

slippery slope[edit]

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

  1. I don't find it in other dictionaries.
  2. I don't understand what it possibly means. Which sense of "argument" applies? --Hekaheka (talk) 11:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
It sounds like a confusing way of getting to the same point as the original definition. P Aculeius (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I had to read it about four times before I understood it. If you bracket it like this "An argument that [follows a chain of events or causes and] effects to some conclusion." hopefully it's easier to understand by skipping over the bit in the brackets. Note that this definition has no negative connotations. A slippery slope that's an argument where the outcome isn't negative. But I'm also pretty sure it's just an error. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree with Aculeius that the second definition appears to be a restatement of the first sense. Also, I don't think slippery slope is ever used in a positive or neutral sense, so if that is the intent of the second definition I think it is wrong. Smuconlaw (talk) 13:14, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I think I figured it out. The Wikipedia article on Slippery slope states that it is a "logical device in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability of the event in question. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom." It seems to me that the disputed definition is actually an attempt for a definition of "slippery slope argument" and should thus be deleted. --Hekaheka (talk) 14:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
No, @Renard Migrant, it's "An argument (=series of propositions, or process of reasoning) {that {follows {a chain of {events or {causes and effects}}} to {some conclusion}}}". It's an argument like "Well, if we allow Joe to do it, then Jim will want to, so we'll need to allow him, and pretty soon everyone will do it". In other words, it's an argument that says "there is a slippery slope (sense 1) at risk here". As Hekaheka says, this is, in my experience, called a "slippery-slope argument": I've never AFAIR heard a slippery-slope argument called a "slippery slope" alone, but cites will tell.​—msh210 (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
I have heard it by itself, "that's a slippery slope!" But I still believe that the second definition doesn't add anything to the first. And it's garbled. A slippery slope argument doesn't follow a chain of events or causes and effects. It asserts that one act will necessarily or eventually result in other, undesirable actions. It doesn't follow anything, because you don't have to describe each step, identify the mechanism, or even the result. Usually the person describing something as a slippery slope is understood without a full explanation. It can give the end result, with the rest of the assertion inferred; or it might give examples of the kinds of things that might happen, but the direction of the argument may be reasonably obvious without any specifics. And, although the Wikipedia article defines it as a fallacy, I believe that's a mistake. It's a rhetorical figure that might or might not be proved correct. It doesn't stop being a slippery slope if the predicted result comes to pass, nor is it disproved if the course of action warned against is rejected. It's a slippery slope because of what it predicts, without respect to the actual outcome. Since the slippery slope is always used to caution someone against a particular decision, it could be argued that it's negative, but since positive and negative depend on one's point of view with respect to the desirable result, I wouldn't specify whether it's positive or negative. P Aculeius (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I've always considered "slippery slope" essentially a synonym of the thin edge of the wedge: the beginning of a course of action that may escalate beyond the point of desirability. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 00:37, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that's basically my understanding. They're not identical, but very similar expressions. Usually person A and person B disagree about action 1, and person B attempts to persuade person A that actions 2, 3, 4, which neither person desires, would almost inevitably follow from action 1. P Aculeius (talk) 04:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
That really looks like a sum-of-parts entry. One can also refer to "slippery slope arguments", but there's no reason to have a separate entry for each permutation of "slippery slope X". Besides, a slippery slope isn't necessarily a fallacy; if it were, you could automatically disregard it whenever it's made. P Aculeius (talk) 14:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Are we ready to conclude by:

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

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

Why not wait for a month since nomination date to see whether someone provides attesting quotations? --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Why keep a confusing and unhelpful restatement of a good definition as a separate sense? P Aculeius (talk) 14:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
It's a question of procedure rather than 'keeping' the entry. I think it's just plain nonsense but less not start skipping the 30 day rule willy-nilly. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)


@Embryomystic, it seems that there are a lot more Ido entries left to check for attestability... —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:30, 24 December 2015 (UTC)


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

Short for Egbert ? Leasnam (talk) 05:12, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
@Equinox, Leasnam: I see sufficient citations at google books:"Egg said" to demonstrate that males goes by this name. One of the cites makes it clear that it's short for Edward, but the others seem to be ambiguous. What do you think we should do to the entry? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I think we should mention that it is also a surname (Thomas Egg, Joanne Egg, Rudolph Egg, et al.); and just mention that Egg as a forename (given) name can be a shortened version of Edward, and Egbert if that be the case Leasnam (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


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

Delete Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese sections. This vulgar character is only used in vernacular Cantonese. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, the Japanese doesn't exist. There is no Korean entry on the page. However, the Vietnamese character appears to be documented. Unihan database gives a value of "V2-736D" for kIRG_VSource, and furthermore, zdic says that this character means "prostitute" in 字喃/chữ Nôm. I've added the info from zdic to the entry with a references section ^^ Nibiko (talk) 02:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Unihan data is problematic. It provides readings for CJKV languages for characters, such as Japanese specific shinjitai or Chinese simplified characters, which were never used by other languages. I have added RFV for Vietnamese as well. An actual usage should be provided, otherwise the sections will be deleted.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
zdic is reliable. It's hard to provide a usage for chữ Nôm. Nibiko (talk) 05:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, a quick Google search for "𡚦 喃" seems to produce at least two results that back up "prostitute", one in a Chu Nom wiki (possibly) and another at "hannom.vass.gov.vn" (certainly, if Google Translate is to be trusted). —suzukaze (tc) 05:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
@suzukaze-c, Atitarev, Nibiko: This and this (with "đĩ" in the search) should confirm the usage of this character in Vietnamese. The first gives "đánh đĩ, đĩ điếm; mẹ đĩ" as context for this character. Other variants include 𡛜, 𡜤, 𡞖 and 妓. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Since dictionary entries are confirmed, I am withdrawing my vote for Vietnamese. I've made an entry đĩ. It's strange that "mẹ đĩ" means "the mother of our little girl; my wife". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


Some doubt was expressed a while back at talk:קאפ; Stephen is, of course, wrong about the spelling being problematic, but I am having trouble ascertaining if the sense we have here ("bra cup") is in fact attestable. I think that at least a couple more senses should be added (the senses "menstrual cup" and "cup (sports)" seem likely to be attested), but I'm not sure if this one should stay. @Enoshd, Ruakh, msh210Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:33, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, this and גביע ‎(gavía) appear to be roughly tied as the usual Hebrew words for "cup" in the bra sense. Both are obviously based on English cup: one as a regular loanword, one as a calque.
As for attestation — I haven't looked, but I'm betting it's citable (though Modern-only words are, in general, much harder to cite than ancient ones, so maybe not).
RuakhTALK 14:34, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
I've added three cites now, from the online editions of three major Hebrew daily newspapers. Dunno. If this were an English word I wouldn't be very satisfied with these cites, from a "durably archived" standpoint — I have no idea whether these articles appeared in the print editions — but for Hebrew I don't know if we can really do better.
(Though maybe we can just call this "clearly widespread use", since phrases like חצי־קאפ, קאפ B / קאפ C, and מידת הקאפ all get lots of Google hits? Opinions welcome.)
I've also added the "cup (sports)" sense (though not worded as such). I haven't investigated the "menstrual cup" sense.
RuakhTALK 03:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


Not in any Japanese dictionary. Nibiko (talk) 02:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


Not in any Japanese dictionary. Nibiko (talk) 02:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


Not in any Japanese dictionary. Nibiko (talk) 02:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)


"Buick". Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion#Company_names. —suzukaze (tc) 10:01, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


Attested? --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:52, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

  • 1991, Claude Alphonso Alvares, Decolonizing history, page 2:
    But at the beginning and end of it all, he allowed the fact of his grasshopperhood to slip beyond the focus of his immediate task.
Kiwima (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)


Alt form of cuntwhore. I'm not sure that this kind of slashed construct is even a single "term" but I thought I'd go for RFV. Equinox 21:23, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Ugh, delete. This one is speediable IMO. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:32, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Not just offensive, it is also quite rare. I added two to the citations page, but that is all I could find. Kiwima (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
The cunt/whores one is quite nice (if you see what I mean) because it's the plural of a singular. The second one could be interpreted either as one word or the words cunt and whore linked by a slash. Renard Migrant (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. I'd have thought this was SOP but for that.​—msh210 (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


One quotation has been added, but my searches for others only turned up news articles such as this one indicating that it is a translation of the German Merkeln which was itself explicitly selected by a dictionary publisher as the "best neologism coined by young people in 2015". Perhaps we should wait to see if the term catches on? Smuconlaw (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Unlike its German etymon/equivalent, I really don't see this catching on at all, so I wouldn't give it hot word status. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:10, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


One obscure quote from 1683 was included in the entry, but that's all there is in Google Books and Google Groups. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

I found these two:

  • 1974, Bob Gough, Improving the Quality of and Aggregating Opinions Expressed as Subjective Probability Distributions, page 16:
    The assessor can then be asked to successively divide an interval into equally likely segments yielding the octiles (X X gy^), hexadeciles (X x 9375^' etc., etc.
  • 1997 August, Akinori Sueoka, “Present Status of Apheresis Technologies, Part 3: Adsorbent”, Therapeutic Apheresis and Dialysis, volume 1:
    This adsorbent consists of microporous cellulose beads that immobilize the hexadecile group.

Kiwima (talk) 23:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a new sense is required. The 1683 quote and the 1997 one above appear to be using the term in a sense or senses different from those already stated. — Cheers, JackLee talk 06:19, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
I agree about the 1997 quote (and I found one other with the same meaning - but two cites is still not enough to add a definition. I included this one because it is ambiguous), but the 1974 looks to me like the same sense as the current definition. Kiwima (talk) 06:32, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Yes, I agree the 1974 quote supports the first sense. — Cheers, JackLee talk 03:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
The 1997 cite (chemistry) appears to be being used as a synonym for hexadecyl. I note that this would be the correct form of the chemistry meaning in Italian going by some of our other entries, such as pentile. It may therefore be a mistake by a non-native speaker. The 1683 cite is an astrological meaning different from both the other two meanings. SpinningSpark 15:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I have found two more quotations supporting noun sense 1, and have taken a stab at writing the astrological definition (noun sense 2, and a new adjective sense). Please feel free to improve the latter, as I have no particular expertise of astrology. — Cheers, JackLee talk 22:04, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


Sense 1 was given as "seasonably; opportunely; suitably; fitly" but this makes no sense with the given citation (about the location of an oasis). I thought it might be a misspelling of "tidally" but that also might not make sense geographically. Anyone? Equinox 08:45, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

The only sense in the OED (at each tide) is marked obsolete, and the only cite is from 1482. I have a vague inkle (less than an inkling) that it might be used by some as a synonym for timely, but Google Books shows no support for this, having only the obsolete sense and scannos (mainly for tidily). I also thought the deleted cite was a scanno for tidally -- I wish we could ask Stefan Siebert what he meant -- perhaps seasonally rather than "seasonably"? Sense 1 could be combined with sense 2, and all senses could be marked as rare. Dbfirs 09:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
We can: s.siebert(a)uni-bonn.de. Keep in mind he's not a native English speaker. Having read the whole sentence in context, I'm thinking he meant "tightly" (German doesn't contrast /d/ and /t/ at the ends of syllables, and German speakers have difficulty distinguishing them in English). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:23, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
IFYPFY.​—msh210 (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, the sense I took from Century. Seems that is better suited as Middle English (or as a by-form of English tidily, which appears to have some support). I placed the cite there as a "best fit" (?), but apparently not Leasnam (talk) 15:16, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
I have found a modern use in the sense of "fitly", from which perhaps we get "tightly" (I find a lot of uses in Books with this sense, even from native speakers)
1792, James A.M. WALCOT, The History of the Indian convert:
[...] so I went to work, prepared splints, rollers, and a plaister made of some linament and whites of eggs, and, by the assistance of the men, reduced it to its form, and, put on my bandage, etc. pretty tidely ... Leasnam (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Here is another that is ambiguous: 1861, William B. Turnbull, Calendar of State Papers...: Has received the Council's letter as to the promised aid; fears this may be his last letter, as the enemy will stop his passage, but will do what he can tidely to signify their state. (tidely = "timely"?...)Leasnam (talk) 15:46, 29 December 2015 (UTC)


I always thought this term was made up for the Star Trek episode it appeared in. Judging by Google Books, this seems to be the case: there are only three hits, with the only relevant one a mention of the Star Trek episode in an essay. In Google groups, there are lots of hits- but all except for one quote the same line by the same person, which is a direct quote from the episode.

Note that CFI requires that it not only must be in use, but that it must be used outside of the fictional universe. It's possible that there might be a real term behind this- but not with this spelling. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Apparently the spelling should be "dunsel", not "dunsail". According to Memory Alpha, this is the spelling used in the script for "The Ultimate Computer". I can't say whether this is where the term originated, but it is the earliest occurrence I've found, and I don't find it in OED or Webster's Third. It does seem to have received sufficient independent use to qualify as a word in the sense of "a part which serves no useful purpose, especially a part of a ship, or applied to a captain with little or no authority." There are also multiple references to "dunsel caps", but I have not determined what kind of caps these are, or whether the meaning is related to the sense of "useless". Only two of these come from books, although the phrase "dunsel cap" does occur in a number of blogs as well. Many hits for the term (in English) seem to be misreadings of "counsel" or "damsel".
  • 1982, Marteen Dee Graham, Silver Sundown (Dell Publishing), p. 42: "If I'm not part of the crew and earn my keep, then I'm a dunsel. And you'll not have a dunsel aboard long..."
  • 2003 T.F. Campbell, The Light in the Stones: ...from the tales of Fibinacci... (iUniverse), page 248: "The President 'Dunsel' has engaged so-called exterior terrorism, by committing two-hundred thousand son 'n' daughters trying to checkmate the settlers who sit on the ancient oil fields."
  • 2007, Mark Kadrich, Endpoint Security (Addison Wesley), p. 234: "...so one thing we need to do is to remove all the dunsel default user accounts."
  • 2011, Kevin J. Anderson, Scattered Suns (Simon and Schuster), glossary: "DUNSEL – slang term for token human commanders aboard EDF rammer ships." Also used by the same author in Of Fire and Night (also 2011).
  • 2015, Chris Mentch, As I See It: Reasons, Rhymes, and Reflections; the Spirit of a "Well-Versed" Philosophy (WestBow Press), "In the Face of Her Storm": "I struggled down through the galley. And again up to the mast. I even checked on the dunsel, Wrapped my girl's sails down, I wrapped 'em low and I wrapped 'em fast."
  • 2015, Solitaire Parke, Flight of the Aguiva (Lulu Press), page not numbered: "For the first time in years I felt dunsel or un-needed. Ordinarily I don't do dunsel, I mean who I am says I have a purpose..." Used again by the same author in Egg of the Amphitere (also 2015).
  • 2011, Joani Lacy, Hollister House: The Banyan Tree Awakens, page 83: "Her long white hair was stuffed haphazardly into a dunsel cap..."
  • 2013, Thomas Berger, Reinhart in Love: A Novel (Open Road Media), pages not numbered: "In the school yard he saw his grammar-school self in dunsel cap and leather boots..." P Aculeius (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
According to this it is "like a ski cap with a tassel", and according to this it is a navy term for a w:Watch cap (wich redirects to w:Knit cap) so evidently a knitted cap. SpinningSpark 03:06, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Created entries for dunsel (apparently created before, but deleted for lack of attestation other than in Star Trek) and dunsel cap. Suggest "dunsail" be indicated as a misspelling for "dunsel", or converted into a redirect there. P Aculeius (talk) 13:51, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


I can't find anything on this word at all. Although I can find stuff on street nail. Nibiko (talk) 09:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


I can't find usage in English. But I've added the Japanese entry. Nibiko (talk) 11:38, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


Norman, by Embryomystic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

It's used by some Norman blogs and the Norman Wikipedia, but not by anything durable, as far as I can see. - -sche (discuss) 07:26, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


Norman, by Embryomystic. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:26, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


Norman, by Embryomystic, from 2012. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


Norman, by Embryomystic, from 2012. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:33, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

à la perchôine[edit]

Norman, by Embryomystic, from 2012. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Cited on a stamp, which I think we can agree is durably archived, though the websites displaying it are not. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


Norman, by Embryomystic, from 2013. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


Norman, by Embryomystic, from 2013. --Dan Polansky (talk) 17:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense - angle of a hammock's suspension. Looks iffy to me. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

January 2016[edit]


The sense of this term as a translingual proper name for a specific product - a board game - needs to meet WT:BRAND as a translingual term. In other words, it needs to be used to identify the product without further context, in multiple citations, in multiple languages. bd2412 T 18:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)


Romanian for abandonable. Formerly tagged with {{delete|Protologism - only a few results on Google, unattested in dictionaries}}, but this is not a candidate for speedy deletion. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 22:54, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

You're correct, it gets two hits on google books:abandonabil suggesting even if not attested, it's not a speedy deletion candidate. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
The feminine indefinite singular, abandonabilă, has a third durably-archived use. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:26, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


A form of jamming in telecommunications. I can only see this in Urban Dictionary (same definition). Equinox 10:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I suspect it is related to SMEG channels, but finding good cites is a challenge. Kiwima (talk) 18:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Seems to be a neoligism suggested on Reddit "If you write a white paper on this, you should call this method "Smegging" since I brought it to your attention. ;-)"—AnotherSmegHead [74]. SpinningSpark 01:32, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
While we are here, are the other senses British English? I am not familiar with them, and the sodding in the definition made me curious. - TheDaveRoss 18:34, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
It was coined in the comedy Red Dwarf. I don't think it has ever had an explicit meaning, but it is usually understood as a replacement word for fucking (as an obscenity, not the literla meaning). SpinningSpark 00:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


Sense - "an avenue for describing the fluid morphic nature of texture in the realm of cyber graphics and the tranversally responsive works created in the field of visual arts therein". I am not too sure what this is trying to say, but it really sounds like a protologism. Equinox 19:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Looks like tosh. The first definition is reasonable though. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
It's hard to say because that definition is not exactly clear, but here are some cites that don't seem to match the computer graphics definition:
  • 1990, Aslib Information - Volume 18, page 314:
    A pilot project, for example, at the Department of Information Science, University of Strathclyde, used HyperCard as an interface to the services offered on Telecom Gold, and the Department is currently using Hyperdoc to integrate and hypertexture information for organic farming in a joint project with the Edinburgh School of Agriculture.
  • 1999 August, S.M. Park, R.H. Crawford, & J.J Beaman, “Functionally gradient material design and modeling using hypertexture for solid freeform fabrication”, Proceedings of Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium:
    (see title)
Kiwima (talk) 21:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

știință socială[edit]

I moved this page because the most common form is in the plural, just like in other Romance languages. A Google search and the Romanian Wikipedia article on this subject support this renaming. However, the creator of the article, keeps reverting my edits and since I want to avoid a prolonged edit war, I want to raise the question here. --Robbie SWE (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

It does seem to be a matter of procedure rather than attestation. Just because something is usually in the plural doesn't mean we can't have the main entry at the singular. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I've added social#Romanian by the way. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


@Mrvonungan, @Neitrāls vārds: on a quick check, Erzya пушо ‎(pušo, reindeer) does not seem to appear either in the main etymological references on this Uralic word-group, or in Paasonen's Mordvinic dialect dictionary. Is this by any chance actually an entry for the Mari term that got mistakenly created for Erzya? Or perhaps just a loan from another Uralic language? I don't currently have access to any recent Erzya dictionaries. (And in any case, we'd rather expect **пужо if this were inherited.) --Tropylium (talk) 21:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "(US, politics) Relating to the Republican Party, regardless of its conservatism." --WikiTiki89 00:34, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Isn't this just use as synonym for Republican Party? - Amgine/ t·e 17:00, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I doubt that it is a good use of time to look for unambiguous cites of this. DCDuring TALK 18:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
And I doubt that such unambiguous cites exist, which is why I nominated it here. --WikiTiki89 18:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
What about this one from "Strictly Right: William F. Buckley Jr. and the American Conservative Movement":
  • Then in December, Ohio congressman John Ashbrook decided to mount a primary challenge to Nixon. Ashbrook was a card-carrying conservative: an old YR buddy of Bill Rusher's, ...
Typically "card-carrying" refers to political parties, but there is no "Conservative" party in the US. Also YR probably stands for Young Republican, and Nixon was obviously in a Republican primary. I think Amgine is right that conservative is sometimes used as a synonym for Republican. - TheDaveRoss 16:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
"Card-carrying" means that he's an official member of some organization(s). You cut off the sentence too early, since further on it mentions more organizations, one of which even has "conservative" in its name: Then in December, Ohio congressman John Ashbrook decided to mount a primary challenge to Nixon. Ashbrook was a card-carrying conservative: an old YR buddy of Bill Rusher’s, a member of the Draft Goldwater Committee, a former chairman of the American Conservative Union.. But even then, a "card-carrying conservative" only means that the organizations that he is a member of are evidence of his conservativism, and not that his conservativism is defined by his membership in the organizations. --WikiTiki89 17:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the groups are evidence of conservatism; the evidence I was seeing was that conservatism is not an organization, so the organization which was being referenced was possibly the Republican Party. Other instances compare conservatives and Democrats such as this: Such Democrats rule out "class warfare" and emphasize their friendliness to business interest. Like the conservatives, they take economic issues off the table. link. - TheDaveRoss 18:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
By the way, I wasn't saying that the groups are evidence of conservatism (not that I disagree), I was saying that the quote is saying that (with the words "card-holding conservative"). As to the next quote, contrasting the views of "Democrats" with those of "conservatives" does not necessarily imply that the latter is also a specific political party. --WikiTiki89 19:27, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
To be sure, neither of these is clear in their meaning, which circles all the way back to DCDuring's sentiment. While clear citations are going to be hard to find, there are many which can be interpreted as evidence, many in which conservative seems to be a hypernym for Republican, many in which it is a hyponym (sometimes for Republican, sometimes for the Democratic party of the 19th century). Ambiguity is the one common theme in everything I have looked at. - TheDaveRoss 19:35, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
This is because "conservative" does not have this meaning, and that is exactly my point. Maybe sometimes it serves as a hypernym for it and sometimes as a hyponym, but never as a synonym. --WikiTiki89 19:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I disagree, I am just saying that it is hard to demonstrate. Since Republicans so often have the feature of being conservative it is hard to suss out when someone is using it synonymously and when they are using it in another way. For instance in the 5th paragraph of this news story there is a remark about Democrats in Congress "openly inviting conservatives across the aisle." Since the article is about Republicans cooperating with Democrats I would read that usage of conservative as synonymous with Republican. I totally understand that, if you don't think that they are synonyms, you could interpret it to merely mean "inviting people of a conservative bent." I think it will be nearly impossible to find a usage which is not subject to the same argument, but that doesn't mean that the usages don't exist. Sometimes it is just very hard to tease out something this nuanced. - TheDaveRoss 19:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
The purpose of RFV is to verify this specific meaning. If we cannot do that, then we delete the sense. That's the way it works, and for good reason. --WikiTiki89 19:58, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I was confused about the purpose of the page, thanks for the clarification. - TheDaveRoss 20:11, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Well then if you don't have any unambiguous quotations, then please stop disrupting the discussion. (And I apologize if you weren't being sarcastic.) --WikiTiki89 20:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I think this fails the blueberry test. All (or nearly all) Republicans may be conservative, but not all conservatives are Republicans. So yes, people might use the word "conservative" instead of "Republican" for sheer variety, but I don't think that the word can be fairly said to carry the meaning of "Republican". The words apply to many of the same people and positions, but they don't have the same meaning. P Aculeius (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
There are moderate Republicans now, and there have been Liberal Republicans in the past. Purplebackpack89 02:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
It may literally refer to membership in an organization, but "card-carrying" is used figuratively as an intensifier for all kinds of nouns referring to types of people: "card-carrying optimist, card-carrying psycho, card-carrying idiot, card-carrying capitalist, card-carrying teenager, etc. Also, never underestimate the irresistible pull of alliteration on writers seeking the elusive snappy turn of phrase. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:36, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Also, there are people called Republicans who are also called libertarians. Though some may call such folks conservative, I don't think it is a helpful definition. DCDuring TALK 04:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Nuke in favor of a different definition: Until about 50 years ago, "conservative Democrat" was a thing. In the past fifty years, most conservatives have coalesced in the Republican party, and most liberals (including fmr. liberal Republicans) have coalesced in the Democratic party. Being "conservative" in the United States means you want a smaller, more restrained form of government. It often also indicates a more regressive view on issues of racial/social justice, and adherence to more traditional views of society, particularly religiously. Purplebackpack89 21:13, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, I have created Conservative Democrat and Liberal Republican. Purplebackpack89 21:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

{{look}} The month is up tomorrow. This has clearly had enough eyeballs on it, but hasn't been cited. You have three days or I'm closing this as uncited. Purplebackpack89 15:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


"Neither yes nor no" in Zen Buddhism. I've heard of this (because of the Jargon File) but it's rather hard to imagine people using it in conversation... Equinox 21:18, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not a good definition of the term as it is used in Zen Buddhism. A better definition would be nothingness or non-existence, and it refers to the notion that what we perceive as reality is an illusion. Kiwima (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I've added three quotations that I believe support this sense, though one of them uses it in italics. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 22:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

binder (Italian)[edit]

Entered as binder, but the entry says "bonder". Which is correct? Donnanz (talk) 00:03, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Great stuff, I haven't got a clue about Italian. Donnanz (talk) 09:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC)


Protologism from a single Web site, I think. Equinox 18:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like it to me as well; although there is a solvent/cleaner called MultiSolve, and a textbook of some kind on Indian Amazon which describes "multi-solve" problems as problems which have multiple solutions. - TheDaveRoss 18:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, I heard the word multisolve or multi-solve ‎(verb) used on a conference call a few weeks back, so if it's not attestable yet, it might be very soon Leasnam (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
The definition is overly specific, but it does seem to be citable under a broader definition
There also seems to be a specific mathematical meaning, it's connected with optimal choice problems but I can't quite divine the meaning.
  • Namely, let \varphi be the scaling function of the multisolving analysis ...[76]
  • (This snippet is very garbled but seems relevant and I can get a copy of the paper if we really want the cite) By running a set of such methods, every object o(i) has an r; 4. OCP MULTISOLVING associated evaluation ve,ctor U(i) = (~(i,m))=,~ ... m=l 4 6 +iround(iC(-1)qg3(i,q)) . st term denote the general score given by OCP multisolving and the last terms bring a bonus I th [77] SpinningSpark 01:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Biserica Anglicană a Angliei[edit]

This overcomplicates things - according to the Romanian Wikipedia article there is Biserica Anglicană and that is the translation of the Church of England. Do we need to addd the different countries where the church exists? Biserica Anglicană a Angliei might work as a side note on Wikipedia, but it doesn't provide any added value in a dictionary. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

This translates to "Anglican Church of England", right? The note on the talk page is right (I don't know why it's in German) that there are multiple churches called the Anglican Church, but adding an entry for "Anglican Church of England" is not the way to go. The entity in question is called simply the "Church of England" without the word Anglican anywhere in its title. I strongly suspect this is as true in Romanian as it is in English, but to be on the safe side I guess we should let this RFV run its course. FWIW, Romanian Wikipedia calls the Church of England w:ro:Biserica Anglicană as does this page, but this page calls it Biserica Angliei. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 22:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Exactly Angr - it translates to "Anglican Church of England". Completely redundant if you ask me, but we'll let the RFV run its course. --Robbie SWE (talk) 12:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


Lipogrammatic is the form other dictionaries have, this does have some books hits. - TheDaveRoss 20:25, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

8 Google Book hits in English. I think it's just a misspelling/typo though looks the the Romanian would be ok. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
I'd say delete as an extremely rare misspelling. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:06, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


Any takers? Not in any online French dictionary that I can find. Very difficult to search for. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

It's in Le Grand Livre des Gros Mots, if that helps. --Stubborn Pen (talk) 14:42, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Dictionary entries are mentions, not usages. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
The Officiel du jeu Scrabble has it. I didn't check the meaning, just existence. I'd imagine it's valid just horrendous to search for because of the given name. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Normally (or least, searchably) used with craquer:
  • 2002, Patrice Dard, Un pompier nommé Béru: Les Nouvelles aventures de San-Antonio, Fayard (ISBN 9782213675466)
    – Pas l'gaz ! ricane l'Enflure. Tire mon p'tit doigt. J'vais te craquer une louise qu'si ton cocu y croive pas qu'on vient d'vous l'installer, l'gaz, c'est qu'y manque vraiment d'imagination.
  • 2003 July 3, Gregoire Kretz, “Porier lent au démarage”[78], fr.rec.jardinage, Usenet:
    Vi, vu qu'à force de bons mots et de contrepets y en a bien un(e) qui va nous craquer une louise, bonne mère!
  • 2011, SAN-ANTONIO, Princesse Patte-en-l'air, 12-21 (ISBN 9782265092242)
    Pour ne pas être en reste, l'un des occupants se met à craquer une louise, mais après tout, peutêtre s'agitil du même qui serait biloque.
Smurrayinchester (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
RFV-passed. Dirty French: Everyday Slang from What's Up? To F*ck Off! confirms that our definition is broadly correct (they say it's a particular kind of fart). - -sche (discuss) 17:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

butterfly door[edit]

The Lamborghini Murciélago with butterfly doors.

The definition given looks to me like the definition of a revolving door. "Butterfly door" a.k.a. "scissor door" is used of a certain type of car doors, see Butterfly door or this result of Google image search [79]. --Hekaheka (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Sigh. This is an example of why some entries really need a picture and a WP link. If the contributor had tried to provide them and failed, he might not have added he entry. If he had succeeded, there might not have been a need for an RfV. DCDuring TALK 00:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
There seem to be numerous kinds of "butterfly doors" united mostly be some fancied resemblance to a butterfly's wings.
  1. The sportscar doors
  2. boiler firebox doors. See this image. (stationary and locomotive; coal- or other solid-fuel-fired only?)
  3. an architectural door pivoting on a vertical center pivot. See here.
  4. a center-pivoting valve "door". See this image for an automotive application, but there are many kinds of applications.
Only for the last of these is the pressure-differential explanation relevant. Also there are butterfly doors that have offset pivots, which weakens the association with the image of bilaterally symmetrical butterfly wings. DCDuring TALK 01:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Of those the sportscar doors seem to have a well-defined meaning, at least among the sportscar enthusiasts. Almost every picture found in the Google pic search for "butterfly doors" is of the automotive type. I added a definition for them. Here's another example of a door that may be called "butterfly door" [80]. I'm not proposing that we add a definition for it. --Hekaheka (talk) 02:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
We have an entry for butterfly valve that covers the last. The "boiler firebox door" sense is attestable. The center-pivoting architectural door sense is hard to find in use. DCDuring TALK 02:57, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
The "door" component of a butterfly valve is usually called a disk/disc, so the challenged definition seems unlikely to be attestable. DCDuring TALK 03:24, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Cited on citations page. SpinningSpark 16:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
The cites look good. I didn't think to look at patents. Now all we have to do is improve the wording and/or get a good image for that type of butterfly door. DCDuring TALK 23:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Butterfly Valve.jpgButterfly-valve--The-Alloy-Valve-Stockist.JPGROSS POWERHOUSE- BUTTERFLY VALVE AS SEEN FROM INSIDE THE SCROLL CASE, 1987. - Skagit Power Development, Ross Powerhouse, On Skagit River, 10.7 miles upstream from Newhalem, HAER WASH,37-NEHA.V,1-G-20.tifHenry Pratt Butterfly Valves.jpg110327-F-PM645-011 butterfly check valve.jpg110327-F-PM645-006 butterfly check valve.jpgValve with actuator (1).JPGDuplex-valve-The-Alloy-Valve-Stockist.JPG Giant Valve.jpgVlinderklep1.jpgDrosselklappe.jpgAbsperrklappe01.jpgPolte Drosselklappe für Turbinen.JPGSchwenkantrieb auf klappe.jpg254-SMO-valves-The-Alloy-Valve-Stockist.jpgDhünntalsperre6.jpg -SpinningSpark 01:42, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

These pictures are all of butterfly valves. Each one seems to me to have too many extraneous features to clearly illustrate the "door" element. I have selected a silly gif schematic to illustrate butterfly door because I thought butterfly valve is a better home for the images such as those above. A gallery of such images might lead a user by induction to the common element of the images, but that seems like a modest benefit for the visual complexity involved.
  • Another kind of butterfly door is one with two center-hinged leaves that open to the same side of the opening. An example is a top-opening freezer cabinet, but there is similar geometry in many architectural and mechanical applications.
It is interesting that the butterfly metaphor is exploited in two? distinct ways (hinge geometry, physical appearance) and that these prototypical instances of butterfly door are the metaphorical source for the challenged sense in which there is no center hinge of two independent leaves but rather a center pivot of a rigid disk. DCDuring TALK 13:35, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
I think virtually every application of this kind of butterfly door is going to be in some kind of valve or other. An image of the door by itself would be useless for understanding how it operates. SpinningSpark 18:23, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
The patent etc citations you provided did not seem to me to refer to typical valves. None of the illustrations seem to show such uses of butterfly doors. I didn't find anything in the patent drawings either. No presentation using available images seems very good, IMO. But perhaps we could improve the wording, add usage contexts etc. DCDuring TALK 19:26, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
@DCDuring I really have no idea how you came to that conclusion. If you look at figure 9 of the first patent, for instance, ("Door for changing over air passage") it shows precisely that kind of door viewed from above. SpinningSpark 18:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
I looked at the patents and tried to find a usage image that made it clear what component was called a butterfly door and how it was hinged or pivoted. I still would like to see an image of a door that has labeled a butterfly door of the type that corresponds to the challenged definition.
To clarify the images below: Are those doors ever configured as revolving doors? Do the closed doors swing open when pushed? If they do, do the doors swing both ways? DCDuring TALK 19:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

The central pivot type of butterfly door, is a door, not valve. Though it's action is the same as a butterfly valve. See

-- 15:06, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

The National Fire Protection Association uses this butterfly door (see this 1995 report [81]) [double-panel center pivot door] -- 04:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

This reminds me of words like blackbird, which can refer to birds from any of a large number of species of only distantly related dogs. "Butterfly doors" seem to differ greatly in use and configuration. DCDuring TALK 13:32, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

A few cites?
Pretty sure these are the same POS. I did also find other POS'es, probably not the same one. AliHautala (talk) 17:37, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Liberal Republican[edit]

Rfv-sense: Does this term exist with this definition except as an alternative form of SoP liberal + Republican? DCDuring TALK 15:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Conservative Democrat[edit]

Analogous to above. DCDuring TALK 15:06, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

  • DCDuring, these two terms have a set meaning, which encompasses parts (but not all) of the two words they are composed of. Liberal Republicans tend to be liberal on certain issues; conservative Democrats tend to be conservative on the same issues. I can produce stacks of Google Books citations that use the term (for example, search for "Liberal Republican" and civil rights); and I believe the terms should be kept, SoP or no. Purplebackpack89 15:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    I doubt it. Facts before arguments. Let's see the citations. DCDuring TALK 16:56, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    This isn't even an RfV, @DCDuring. This is just and RfD pretending to be an RfV. I will cite the definitions as written. SOP is not a question for RfV and I will not bother trying to meet your off-topic SOP threshold. Purplebackpack89 17:38, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    @DCDuring I have added citations for LR. Those citations bear out the definition as written. If they pass muster, I'll add citations for CD later. Purplebackpack89 18:15, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    Not one of the three citations offered at Liberal Republican is for the headword. Try again. DCDuring TALK 19:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    If you're complaining that they are for "liberal Republican" instead of "Liberal Republican", by god, I can just flip which is the primary and which is the alternative. Otherwise, the citations are valid. Purplebackpack89 20:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    Virtually no-one, bar a handful of ideologues, is liberal or conservative on every single issue. There are at least two groups of "conservative Democrats" in the US - social-conservative Blue Dogs and fiscal-conservative New Democrats (I can find cites calling both conservative Democrats). Not all conservative Democrats fit the definition given, it seems, and I'd be surprised if all "liberal Republicans" do either. Smurrayinchester (talk) 19:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
    Well, I doubt they use LR and CD to refer to people who are 90-10. But you do concede that this definition is a valid description of some people, Murray? Purplebackpack89 20:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Do I think that there are Republicans who are (relatively) liberal and Democrats who are (relatively) conservative? Sure (as you can see from the citations I linked). Do I think that liberal Republican means anything more than a Republican who is liberal? No. Smurrayinchester (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
But, Murray, isn't your second question an RfD one instead of an RfV one? Purplebackpack89 23:37, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Delete, or move to RFD, then delete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I think the only way to find out if this is SOP is to read every use of LibRep and ConsDem on Google Books and find out if, in practice, the terms are always used the way Purplebackpack89 has defined them. Let's do some researching! Khemehekis (talk) 07:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


It is given as ńīr- in George Starostin's Proto-Dravidian database, without the final vocal, but apparently with a palatalised (?) n. — Ivadon (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Starostin is definitely not reliable for something like this. @AxaiosRex might be able to help reference this reconstruction. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Do you know “A Dravidian Etymological Dictionary” by T. Burrow and M. B. Emeneau whence he derived his work? — Ivadon (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Given as “3690 Ta. nīr” in T. Burrow (1984). I see no difference in quality to G. Starostin's version, but at least there were no bad Nostraticists at work at that time! --— Ivadon (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

My memory is that Burrow & Emeneau put them under Tamil rather than actually reconstructing the PDrav roots (hence the Ta. above), weirdly enough. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it seems to have been a common practice to put Tamil on the same level as Proto-Dravidian, probably because of its long written tradition. — Ivadon (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


rfv-sense: Can't find anything to back up the horny sense, probably regional / colloquial? Jberkel (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Posh and Becks[edit]

Rfv-sense "sex". I can easily find references for it, but cites are a different story. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


Some kind of Anglo-Saxonism; a Google Books search finds it mentioned as a word used by one specific writer somewhere (where?). Nonce word I suspect. Equinox 23:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Sir John Cheke ! Leasnam (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
I can find lots of references to Sir John Cheke's translation of the bible. The only other use I can find is this [patent], but that looks like a different meaning. Kiwima (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


"Given name". Google results are meager. The relevant results are two websites about names, one LINE Q (whatever it is) post, and a Twitter profile. —suzukaze (tc) 01:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  • I see some evidence that this spelling and reading are instead in reference to パイン ‎(pain) as in pineapple. But I see nothing convincing that this is a name. Possibly a username, but not a given name. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


Even more dodgy than the above entry. I see only one relevant Google search listing, a website about names. —suzukaze (tc) 01:57, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

  • I can't find anything either, except for what appear to be echo chambers. If no one can cite this, delete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


Wiktionary:CFI#Brand_namessuzukaze (tc) 11:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

If this entry is insufficient, please removed it. (You said it is like Pokemon case.) I just got it from Wiktionary:Frequency lists/Japanese10001-20000. --Octahedron80 (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "website"; there are only two pages of Google results for google:"網処の" -"辞典", google:"の網処" -"辞典", and google:"網処を" -"辞典", a decent percentage of which seem to have been written by non-natives. (yes I am implying that jisho.org is responsible for half of the results)

Should I also rfv the other sense too? Exactly zero Google results on those pages seem to relate to fishing.—suzukaze (tc) 12:01, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

EDICT has the meaning. And also means "URL" too. (Look at WWWJDIC; I rely on this site) --Octahedron80 (talk) 12:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Its appearance in EDICT means nothing. Wiktionary includes words that people actually use. —suzukaze (tc) 12:10, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
You ought to know that not every words in (any) dictionaries are actually used; they are published and referable. Wiktionary is a dictionary too. --Octahedron80 (talk) 12:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Edict is not considered a reliable source. We're following WT:CFI here.This is not an RFD page here. You don't have to vote but provide evidence for the entry to be kept. Otherwise, it'll be deleted in due course. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад)
I found one on this page: http://ishigaki-island-nagura-amparu.jimdo.com/ --Octahedron80 (talk) 12:32, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Also this at the bottom: http://www.shi-yaku-jin-no-hokora.org/ --Octahedron80 (talk) 13:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Octahedron80, those are websites, which do not meet WT:CFI requirements for term citations.
The first is, oddly, on http://www.jimdo.com/, what appears to be a US-based "create-your-own-website" service, suggesting that the original page creator / maintainer might have been from the US. The linked page itself mostly consists of the line "新しい網処へ * To the new website" at http://www.ishigaki-island-nagura-amparu.org/. This latter site contains zero instances of the term 網処: google:site:ishigaki-island-nagura-amparu.org "網処"
The second site clearly states that "shi-yaku-jin no hokora is both this virtual online shrine and an actual, small, family-owned, • minzoku NEO-shintô shrine located in the Twin Cities, Minnesota." This suggests that the Japanese on the site might not be reflective of native-speaker usage.
The only reputable native-Japanese reference work I could find that includes this term at all is the 世界大百科事典 (Sekai Dai-Hyakka Jiten, “Big World Encyclopedia”), in the entry here on the Kotobank reference aggregator site. In this case, the term literally means “net place”, as the “place” where a stationary “net” would be set up to catch fish. The reading would presumably be amido or the contracted form ando, or possibly amidokoro. This entry on the less-reputable Glosbe site lists this older meaning as well as the purported new meaning of website, but again, Glosbe is not known for the quality of its entries.
google:"網処" "は" (adding the "" to explicitly capture just Japanese texts) generates 1,210 apparent hits as shown at the top of the page, collapsing to just 108 when paging through (though apparently listing 113 actual hit links). Some of these are scannos, and some more are just dictionary listings. I cannot find many instances of this term used to mean website, and those few that I *can* find are 1) often in contexts suggesting non-native users of Japanese, and 2) not sufficient for WT:CFI.
I suspect that this is a rare protologism. Searching Google Books for this term in works since 1990 doesn't find any apparent uses with the website sense.
It appears that this term does not yet meet WT:CFI. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

vidunderleg (Nynorsk)[edit]

I believe it should be spelt vedunderleg. I have just sent a message to User:Njardarlogar about this and am awaiting a reply. Donnanz (talk) 12:33, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

That's the only correct spelling according to the dictionary, but it appears to have less Google hits than vidunderleg (1, 2), so it's probably worth a {{misspelling of}} entry. --Njardarlogar (talk) 11:37, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Re Google hits, I was beginning to suspect that. Anyway, treating it as a misspelling is probably the best solution. Donnanz (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • I have included it as usage notes, added a couple of references, and removed the RFV. Job done, I hope. Donnanz (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Don't be deceived by the inaccurate Google hit counts. If you actually click through the result pages, you will notice that "vidunderleg" has 30 pages of results (299 total results), while "vedunderleg" has 34 pages of results (331 total results). --WikiTiki89 19:02, 15 January 2016 (UTC)


Romanian for fuckability. Redboywild (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Unattested in dictionaries, with only a few hits on Google ([82]). However, it could belong to modern slang and that might be the reason why it hasn't been used in daily speech. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)


Romanian for faggotry. Redboywild (talk) 19:27, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Same situation as the previous word futabilitate ([83]). --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:57, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

god forfend[edit]

God forfend is clearly attested, but I don't think that this form is. @Purplebackpack89, could you please cite your creation? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I wonder about god forbid as well. Equinox 06:15, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

god forbid[edit]

Neither god forfend (which I created) nor god forbid (which I didn't) can be cited from the first three pages of Google Books. Purplebackpack89 07:53, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

NGrams suggests that god forbid is used, but not god forfend. Unfortunately the links for usage by time period at the bottom are not case-sensitive, despite NGrams being case-sensitive, so they link to the regular BGC results. This may be NGrams making assumptions about using God forbid at the start of a sentence etc. - TheDaveRoss 13:58, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Is the only dispute over capitalization? Bear in mind if deleted typing in god forbid will lead you straight to God forbid. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant yeah, pretty much. When I found out that most of the citations were for God forfend instead of god forfend, I went out and created God forfend. Somebody can probably just delete little g forfend; I guess it isn't citeable Purplebackpack89 19:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


Allegedly a Pashto word for "Egypt" borrowed straight from Ancient Egyptian. The nature of the reference provided makes me suspect a protologism motivated by linguistic purism. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

While Pashto lacks even basic words here and the standard word for Egypt - مصر, some users just have the wrong agenda. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I've made a Pashto and Urdu entries in مصر, replaced the unverifiable کومت with مصر as a Pashto translation at Egypt. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
The reference added to the entry links to "Pashto Purification"'s Facebook page. Make of it what you will. —suzukaze (tc) 01:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Nope, nothing wrong here /s —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 16:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
@Aryamanarora What do you mean "nothing wrong here"? The link won't qualify for CFI at all. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
@Atitarev Normally, "/s" is internet slang for sarcasm. (It failed an RFV on Wiktionary; see Talk:/s). —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 00:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

they in uses like "they people"[edit]

Our entry on they has a "Determiner" section, which I have a lot of questions about. It says "(archaic or dialectal) Those (used for people)".
In the first of the citations present in the entry, "they" looks like a misspelling or typo for "the". Do enough citations exist where "they" is used often enough as a determiner/demonstrative to suggest that it isn't a misspelling or typo? If it's a misspelling of "the", it's exceedingly vanishingly rare compared to "the", and we don't include very rare misspellings.
In the second citation, it might be eye dialect for something (possibly "the" or "these"). If "they" is in fact attested as a determiner, should it be labelled "eye dialect"? Is its origin eye dialect, like they = there, or is it from Old Norse þeir? And does it mean "those" (as the entry says) or "these"?
Also, is such usage (if it exists) even usage of a determiner rather than something else? See Talk:they#Not a Determiner. - -sche (discuss) 01:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I found the url for the edition of Swedenborg used, though many other editions have the text. There is no named Latin to English translator. I will try to find the Latin text in an old edition. In the meantime, I have forgotten how to have a long url not appear on the screen. Could someone fix it please? DCDuring TALK 05:21, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
The relevant portion of the cite is "Whereas they are called nations, who are principled in charity and they [are called] people who are principled in faith, therefore the priesthood of the Lord is predicated of nations as relation to things celestial, which are goodnesses...". The bracketed text ("are called"), when inserted makes some sense of the passage. I suspect an infelicitous translation is the problem, not an error of orthography. DCDuring TALK 05:26, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
Above is the Latin text. Perhaps someone can explain why the translation came out as it did. DCDuring TALK 05:35, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
My Latin isn't very good, but I can tell that there's no solution in the Latin passage here. The pronouns are quia and qui, which here mean "(those) who", as in quia gentes dicunturilli, qui in charitate, populi qui infide, "those who nations are called, who in charity people (who) in faith [are called]..." "They" isn't really part of the Latin to begin with, but part of how you choose to render the sentence in English. The pronoun is implied by the verb, which is third person plural. But there's no "they people" in the Latin. Someone has merely inserted a pronoun in order to clarify how the verb relates to the word "people" in a way that seems to have caused confusion by suggesting that "they" and "people" form a phrase, when they don't. A comma after "they" would have made the original intention clearer. P Aculeius (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
What does that Latin passage have to do with it? Renard Migrant (talk) 16:29, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant I was trying to see whether the citation should be thrown out as a translation error made as a result of following the Latin original too closely. Then, there would need to be at least two more citations and the Swedenborg citation would also not even support a misspelling. DCDuring TALK 16:38, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I feel like I didn't really make my point very clearly, so I went back to the entry and looked over the quotations. I don't read the first one as supporting the sense at all. I don't believe that the translator meant "they" to modify "people"; the phrase is "people who are principled in faith", which is meant to be parallel to "they... who are principled in charity", omitting the verb. The second example is simply someone's attempt to represent a particular dialect, not otherwise in evidence. I don't think it can stand independently; there needs to be some evidence that people actually said "they people" instead of "those people". Making a character in a book use the wrong word isn't evidence of the word's use for the asserted meaning. P Aculeius (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes; thanks to DCDuring for tracking down the Latin and to you for translating it; I agree that "they" isn't a determiner meaning "these" in the citation, but rather the usual pronoun meaning "group of people, etc previous mentioned". - -sche (discuss) 22:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
I found a number of cites. Here are three clear ones:
Kiwima (talk) 04:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Disagree with them being clear cites. I strongly suspect that all three examples are typos for the men. Spell check doesn't flag "they", since it's a perfectly ordinary word. The sense under discussion purports to be potentially archaic or dialectical; but all three examples are from recent literature written in modern English, and the would make much more sense in each case. P Aculeius (talk) 13:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Right, every one of those citations is just typo-ing "the", as one can gather from the fact that they use "they men" only once each, and "the men" 39 times (in the first book), 77 times (in the second book) and 79 times (in the third book). As a typo, "they" for "the" is too rare to merit even a "misspelling of" sense line. Books that consistently use "they" in determiner-like ways are needed. - -sche (discuss) 19:44, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
The OED has they "As demonstrative determiner, with plural noun: = those pron. and adj. 6, 4; (also freq. with weaker sense) = the adj., pron.2, and n.2 Now Eng. regional (chiefly south.) and nonstandard." with various citations from 1470 ("They two knyghtes mette" -- Malory) to 1974 ("so I can see how thee'st look when they ribbons do flare out." -- Foley). I don't know whether this helps. Dbfirs 10:37, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
Hmmm, if used the way it sounds in Malory, it could possibly be an example of what's intended by this entry. But we need to see the context, and I can't find this phrase on-line. The question is, does they in this sentence refer to the knights ("they two knyghtes") or does it refer to someone else who met the knights ("they (mette) two knyghtes"), with the verb simply placed at the end? Without the context, it's impossible to know. Does anyone have an edition of Malory which uses this syntax? I really can't tell what is meant in the second sentence "how thee'st look"; to me it looks like thee substituted for thou, because the inflection is second-person, not third (thou dost, he doth, they do). And I've definitely heard that used in English country dialect on television. For that matter American Quakers used "thee" in place of "thou" into the 20th Century. So this doesn't appear to be an example of "they", although possibly the context would help settle it. P Aculeius (talk) 13:28, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I can find the line: "In the meane whyle brake the enbusshement of Kynge Ban and kynge bors, and Lyonses and Pharyaunce had the aduant garde, and they two knyghtes mette with kyng Idres and his felauship, and there began a grete medele [...]." However, this looks like — and A Modern English Grammar on Historical Principles gives it as an example of — "they two", i.e. "they" as a pronoun. Foley's As the twig is bent uses "they ribbons" once (I can confirm) and "the ribbons" at least once (that I can confirm) and supposedly "thy ribbons" once (per Google Books; it won't show me the snippet so I can confirm it), suggesting "they ribbons" might be a mere typo for the or thy. - -sche (discuss) 06:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The Middle English Dictionary does say that Middle English thei ‎(they) could be used "as dem. adj.: those", which if accurate would lend some credibility to the idea of demonstrative they in modern English. However, its citations are "and þæȝe adle Greccas nemneð brostenus" (which is quite unclear, and could be pronominal or a scribal error for another word entirely), "mon tented hys, & þay two tented þayres" (which is another example of pronominal "they two"), "They six smote othir six downe" (pronominal), "They two knyghtes mette" (pronominal), "Fore thay thre causis, I leue of that matiere" (?), "they fyve haue ... shappe" (pronominal), "the fourme of thay Pryuylegis" (?), "Þen he lacches his leue and þai lordes þonkit" (?). - -sche (discuss) 06:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, the use in Malory looks borne out; "they" doesn't seem to be referring to anyone other than Sir Lyonses and Sir Pharyaunce. Looking back on the Foley quotation, I note that I misread it yesterday. But all the same, unless the rest of the work (or at least the passage containing the phrase) contains other, similar archaic language, I think that "they ribbons" is almost certainly a typo for "the ribbons" or "thy ribbons" (unless "they" refers to someone other than the ribbons). The Middle English citations seem to demonstrate that they could be so used in Middle English, but I don't think they can tell us much about whether it can in Modern English. Malory comes at the tayle end of Middle English, so an isolated example from Malory still doesn't demonstrate that they can be used in this way in Modern English, or that it has been at any point in the last five hundred years. I don't suppose there are any examples from Shakespeare? P Aculeius (talk) 13:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
The Malory and Middle English citations of "they two", "they six", etc are pronominal (not just in my view but in A Modern English Grammar’s); they are grammatically identical to "we two knights met [each other]", "you two knights met [each other]". I'm impressed that the Oxford English Dictionary missed that. - -sche (discuss) 20:57, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure; the word seems to function exactly as "those" in this instance, which would make it an adjective, not a pronoun, even though "those" can also be a pronoun. The same is true of "we" in "we two knights" or "you" in "you two knights". The words may ordinarily be thought of as pronouns, but here they appear to be modifying "knights" rather than taking its place (which would make no sense in the same phrase). So it seems to me that "they" could be used as an adjective in Middle English, although so far it doesn't seem clearly established in Modern English. P Aculeius (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
How would you define "we", in "we two knights", if you think it's not a pronoun? Btw, one also finds the oblique case forms of all these pronouns used with numerals, e.g. "them two guys over there", "us two were thinking...", not to mention "y'all two" (even "you 'uns two" gets two Google Books hits). - -sche (discuss) 00:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm still thinking they look like adjectives, because they limit or describe nouns and pronouns. But whether you call them adjectives or determiners, the question remains: are there examples of "they" used as a modifier, rather than a pronoun, that clearly belong to Modern English? I see some uncertainty as to whether to place the (approximate) division between Middle English and Modern English closer to 1475 or 1500; but in either case Malory (who died in 1471) fits under the heading of Middle English. So far all we have are several recent instances that seem likely to be typos for "the", or in one case possibly "thy". P Aculeius (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Or how about Shakespeare's famous w:St Crispin's Day Speech: "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers...". Chuck Entz (talk) 02:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
We, you, these and those all function as determiners (not adjectives). If used as determiners in a sentence with a tag question, a pattern emerges with suggests that for most modern speakers these and those may together have replaced they in the determiner role:
We guys did it, didn't we?
You guys did it, didn't you?
Those guys did it, didn't they?
These guys did it, didn't they?
  • They guys did it, didn't they?
Note that no singular determiner exists for the first and second person. This and that (not he, she, or it) function in the third person, with he, she, or it as the pronouns in the tag question.
This makes me think it plausible that they could work as a determiner in dialects that had a diminished role for these and those as determiners.
I wish I had recourse to the OED and to Jespersen. As Online Ety Dict. points out in is brief entry for this: "OED begins its long entry with the warning, 'This word has a complicated history.'" DCDuring TALK 02:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I not that they is Scandinavian in origin (where it was a "demonstrative pronoun" [read "determiner"?]), so it might have retained some of the functions performed by these and those in those dialects with strong Norse or Danish influence, presumably in the northeast of England.
Both hypotheses are testable. DCDuring TALK 03:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Well, the OED (cited above) calls it "Eng. regional (chiefly south.)", not northern. The Middle English Dictionary citations that are ostensibly of this sense, excluding the ones that are obviously pronouns, are from Peri Didaxeon and Gest hystoriale (I can't tell where either was written), Secreta Secretorum by Anglo-Irishman James Yonge, and a work on the English Conquest of Ireland. - -sche (discuss) 07:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I should have checked Joseph Wright's English Dialect Dictionary sooner; it provided me with leads to the following works and more that I didn't feel like typing up, which do appear to be using they intentionally — but I don't see any indication that they mean those as opposed to being eye-dialectal forms or synonyms of the. Furthermore, the citations are from (and the Dialect Dictionary says this sense of they is found in) Berkshire, Cornwall, Devonshire, Dorsetshire, Gloucestershire, Hampshire, Oxfordshire, Rutlandshire, Shropshire, Somersetshire, Surrey, and Warwickshire (see map), exactly not the places where the Norse were.
The EDD also says says they is sometimes used as an emphatic version of them, as in "I don't understand anything about they", and then says they can be a demonstrative pronoun meaning "those, such-like", with the examples such as "under they she hid herself" which are indistinguishable from the examples of they = them, and in some cases (like "under they") also indistinguishable from they = there (our entry's Etymology 2).
The EDD also has a huge variety of contracted forms which are irrelevant to this RFV but still fascinating and possibly even attested, such as tear'n for "they were" and tead'n/teyd'n for they had. Also of note: Wright records the well-known use of they "instead of 'he' or 'she' when the speaker does not wish to make known the sex of the person spoken of". - -sche (discuss) 08:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Nothing quite like a demonstrably wrong hypothesis. I guess the other hypothesis about relative frequency of determiners is not actually testable because we have no good dialect corpora. DCDuring TALK 12:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Not sure that it's wrong at all. All of the examples look like attempts by the (fictional) speakers to say "the" in a heavy dialect, or possibly "thy" in one or two cases, except for the last example, "they tight-wasted shoes o' yours," which I think clearly uses it to mean "those"; I can't read that any other way. Of course nowadays we would say "them tight-wasted shoes", using the objective case. But I still don't think it's a very good example, since it's not what anybody actually said, but what a character speaking in thick dialect is imagined to have said, irrespective of whether anybody actually did use the word that way. I suppose if there were enough examples of literary characters talking like this, it could at least be described as "literary", but there ought to be some indication that real people used the word with this meaning before it's so stated in the dictionary. P Aculeius (talk) 14:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I agree that "they tight-wasted shoes" is the only one that seems like "those" rather than "the". (Richard Pearse Chope's 1891 dictionary of The Dialect of Hartland, Devonshire cites "Witness, Bench, 1891" as saying "Get off they steps until you pay the money"; Chope gives this as, and it does seem to be, another example of they = those.) As you note, people would now say "them" (in all the instances: "you spoil them gals", etc; as our entry on them notes). The OED and MED do both admit that the term often meant "the" instead of "they".
The usual label for written representations of dialect (like the ones above) is "eye dialect" (sometimes alternatively "pronunciation respelling", based on whether it reflects a different pronunciation or is just giving visual flair to the usual pronunciation). "Literary" is for language that is so formal it is only used in literature (as our entry puts it, things "appropriate to literature rather than everyday writing" or speech), which doesn't fit here. I have tagged the term as "(archaic, Southern England dialect or eye-dialect)" and added a usage note on regional distribution. Re "what a character speaking in thick dialect is imagined to have said": if you're asking for writers speaking in their own dialectal voice, well, Gwendoline Keats was born in Devon, so I assume her representation of her own dialect is authentic, and Thomas Hughes was born in Berkshire, and quotes a song from Berkshire/Gloucestershire. To my great surprise, I think this is actually cited. - -sche (discuss) 19:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
I meant that they're reporting the speech of other people, who may or may not represent actual persons, but probably don't represent their actual speech (or can't be certain to, at any rate). Looking over the examples again, Thaay stwuns looks like "they'st th'ones" (they are the ones) shortened even further. Still not an example of "they" as a modifier, but not an example of "the" eyether. Ugh, Freudian spelling there. P Aculeius (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
"Thaay stwuns" means "the stones", as can be seen from plain-English versions of the song; other spellings include "they stwons" (with the spelling we're after), "the stwons" and "the stwuns". As for actual speech, Louis John Jennings' 1878 Field Paths and Green Lanes reports the speech of an old Sussex man to Jennings, about a rookery in his town: "They rooks as you see [...] only coom a few year agoo. About fi' year back, ten or a doozen coom..." - -sche (discuss) 16:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


RFV of the Latin adjective's declension. Tagged but not listed. The reason given was "Please verify the declension. E.g. it should be more likely that the nominative neuter form is 'monoīdes' like it also is 'neuroīdes' (neuter noun) and not 'neuroīdēs'." — I.S.M.E.T.A. 14:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I made an exhaustive check, and can confirm that neuroīdes is a hapax legomenon and is only attested in the nominative singular. AFAICT, the only evidence that suggests that the e in the ult is short is that it represents, etymologically, an epsilon rather than an eta. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 17:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Dictionaries mention words ending in -oides in different ways. Sometimes it's like "āeroīdēs, is (ἀεροειδής)" and sometimes like "nētoīdēs, es (νητοειδής, ές)". So in case of netoides it's said that the neuter form is short. In case of aeroides it might look like the neuter form is long (i.e. all nominative singular forms being the same), but it might also be short as it is in case of netoides and Greek νητοειδής. Furthermore:
  • In case of some words ending in -oides dictionaries state that the accusative (also) ends in -ēn (instead of -em).
  • Why should the neuter nominative plural end in -ia and not in -a and the genitive in -ium and not just in -um? In case of Latin adjectives it might be -ia, but Latin words derived from Greek aren't always declined like normal Latin words, thus normal Latin declension doesn't proof anything.
  • As for rhomboides:
    1. Googling for "rhomboidium" didn't seem to bring up any good results. In biological/medical terms that is a form of an adjective as in "Veryhachium rhomboidium". But I couldn't find any Latin usage of "rhomboidium". "rhomboidum" instead lead to an Latin sentence where it is used next to "rhomboidibus" and to a German example ("Theilung der Rhomboidum"; Germans once declined Latin words like Romans do, which includes the usage of vocative and ablative).
    2. Some dictionaries state that it is feminine, while others state that it is neuter. Maybe it's both depending on the author? Or maybe there are (older) text where the gender isn't obvious. In case of neuter gender, the plural should rather be "rhomboidia" or "rhomboida". Googling didn't seem to bring up a result for that. That is, the plural might be different (maybe "rhomboide" like it is pelage for pelagus), or maybe the plural for the neuter was never used, or maybe it never was neuter and some dictionaries are incorrect.
- 13:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
An interesting find:
  • diopetēs” on page 546/3 of the Oxford Latin Dictionary (1st ed., 1968–82):
    diopetēs ⁓ēs ⁓es, a. [Gk. διοπετής] Fallen from the sky.
So the OLD does explicitly make the length distinction in the neuter for that adjective. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 16:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "To detach any part of the human body painlessly, but have it still fully functional as if it were still attached." Recently added by an anon, and I wasn't sure, but didn't want to revert on sight. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:23, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

If I search for "disembodied <bodypart>", I get quite a few hits, such as the following:
  • 2006, Neil William Lerner, ‎Joseph Nathan Straus, Sounding Off: Theorizing Disability in Music, ISBN 0415979064, page 80:
    The mobile disembodied hand has been a recurring motif within horror films, so much so that it has become a stock convention of the genre.
  • 2012, Carolyn E. Tate, Reconsidering Olmec Visual Culture, ISBN 0292742568:
    We should not forget that whatever animal(s) it represents, the paw-wing is essentially a disembodied hand or wing.
  • 2013, Catrien Santing, ‎Barbara Baert, ‎Anita Traninger, Disembodied Heads in Medieval and Early Modern Culture, ISBN 9004253556, page 48:
    What is significant for the purposes of this discussion is that the object being adored by the idolaters is a grimacing, disembodied head.
Of course, I think the "painlessly" bit would be hard to verify, and I am dubious about it. Is that what you are looking for? Kiwima (talk) 04:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
This is what "disembodied" most often means, I think. It's really sense #2, probably ("separate from an object"), but that seems poorly worded for when the object is a (human) body. Equinox 04:40, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
For me, this is an adjective disembodied. I'd like to see real verbal usage before having it as a verb. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 04:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Fair point. "disembody * arm" and "disembody * leg" disappointingly turn up nothing at all in G.Books! Equinox 05:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, this sense is probably only used as the adjective "disembodied". Otherwise we'd have disembodying for decapitation (I suppose it all depends on your point of view, eh?). P Aculeius (talk) 13:19, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
"disembodies his" turns up disembody his spirit, troops, intellect, power, corps [of troops], treacherous enemy, essence, victims, argument, narrative, body, living music, peasants, conquests, heroine, militia. theory, "capital" and "labor", mistress, wife, daughter, parents, analysis, view, and political will, some of which suggest we're missing a sense. Also: Aaron Smith's 2005 Blue on Blue Ground "Products that require pouring and/or stirring: Fabric softeners, especially in deep blue containers, diet sodas (he loves to disembody his perfect hand and let it belong, if only for a little while, to a perfect body that's not his body, that's somebody else's), coffee creamers, and lotion." That doesn't seem to be quite this sense. These seem to be the right sense, though:
  • 1982, William Buchan, John Buchan: a memoir, page 109:
    "[he] wore the high, stiff collars which were the fashion of the day: in pictures these tend to disembody his head, making him look constrained, uncomfortable, yet they remained his choice."
  • 2015, Marlys Millhiser, Nightmare Country (ISBN 1504010205):
    Jerusha turned, a flush on her cheeks that wasn't makeup, a swath of steam from the vaporizer swirling around her chest, disembodying her head.
Seems rare, probably a back-formation (also: does it only apply to heads?). - -sche (discuss) 04:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I'm convinced. Definition still needs some revision, though. Something like, "to remove, separate, or give the impression of separating part of the body (especially the head)." P Aculeius (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

English disease[edit]


This is a tricky one. I can find quite a lot of citations along the lines of "The French used to call sweating sickness "the English disease"", but these aren't much good for our purposes. Not only is it a mention rather than a use, it's just a translation of a foreign language term rather than an English one (it would be like if we had an entry for "bottom of the bag" meaning cul-de-sac). I've collected a lot of citations at Citations:English disease, but quite a few still need bulking up. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

(There are also some senses - syphilis especially - which can be cited, but only from historical fiction that uses the term anachronistically. An Englishman wouldn't call syphilis the English disease, they'd call it the French disease, but quite a few 21st century authors seem to have made that mistake. I suppose that still counts for RFV purposes, but it's strange) Smurrayinchester (talk) 12:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)


Really? SemperBlotto (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I've added 2 more cites Leasnam (talk) 02:45, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
Also a verb (added) Leasnam (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Entries for rare words like this need synonyms so folks won't feel compelled to use the words. DCDuring TALK 13:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
Fully agree, especially for the Adjective. Does anyone have anything else to add ? Or can we mark this one off ? Leasnam (talk) 19:50, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
I think this is done. Cited. Leasnam (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


This was passed before when the rules for RFV were not very clear. The only durably archived citation I see is in this book and even that's spaced. DAVilla 08:00, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense for "(Cantonese) quarter of an hour" sense. I was unable to find an independent source for this outside of the Unihan Database. Bumm13 (talk) 10:46, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@Bumm13 I don't know if this is how it's written (since it's a loan from English quarter), but it is used in Cantonese (pronounced as gwat1). —This unsigned comment was added by Justinrleung (talkcontribs) at 18:03, 23 January 2016‎ (UTC).
FWIW Cantonese Wikipedia has the relevant page named "". —suzukaze (tc) 05:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

thug life[edit]

Isn't this just a hip-hop anthem or something? SemperBlotto (talk) 20:05, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

It features in Tupac Shakur's song "Runnin' (Dying to Live)" (2003), but I don't know if he was the originator of the term. According to this source, it "became (and still remains) for many disenfranchised youths a celebrated banner of the 'ghetto soldier's' conviction to live without fear of death as well as a defiant mark of their disregard for all authority". See also [84] and [85]. I have the impression that it is often used in the sense of "a bold and ostentatious lifestyle" rather than merely "a gangster's lifestyle". Smuconlaw (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
These days it's mostly known for being a meme. Check out some funny "thug life" videos. I'd define this as a phrase, involving rebellion. People use the phrase "thug life" to mean "I'm a real rebel", albeit heavily ironic. --Ce mot-ci (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)


What is this? I can't find the original Chinese term, let alone the English. ---> Tooironic (talk) 10:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

@WurdSnatcher hasn't been active for about 5 months, hopefully he might see this ping. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:49, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Bianzhong Nibiko (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia says Bianzhou is a place, so it appears to be a mixup with the above. Equinox 03:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
(If bianzhou is wrong bianzhous should be deleted) —suzukaze (tc) 03:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


There were two references in the entry, but they were both links to different versions of an index to the same work, which is the same work that accounts for all of the English-language Google Books hits (two different volumes), except one mention in a fringe-y essay making unsupported and extremely dubious claims about this name being related to names in other languages. Everything basically just says this is the name of the charioteer to a king of the Hittites. Nothing in Google Groups. If this were a Hittite entry, that might be enough- but this is (apparently) an English entry.

Once you remove the bogus etymological connections, there is absolutely no reason anyone would want to look this up- all of the occurrences of the name come with the same information that's in the entry, and the person himself is a very minor footnote in the history of the ancient Near East. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2016 (UTC)


@IvanScrooge98, SemperBlotto: Per recommendation at RFD, this entry has been brought to RFV with the purpose of finding out not whether it is considered correct, but whether it is in fact used. Any insight? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:37, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Metaknowledge: first of all, that form is currently only used in certain areas of central Italy, otherwise faccio is used: being so rare nowadays, Italians might be uncertain about whether to use the grave or not, so that in those extremely unusual cases in which they have to write it, may appear, but in even rarer instances, then I wouldn't define it as in fact used. In older texts, where that form is more common, you'll never find the accent. Italy.png IvanScroogeNovantotto (parla con me) Italy.png 13:57, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
@IvanScrooge98: The way RFV works (as detailed at the top of this page) is that if a word has been used, it gets to stay. In this case, even if you don't like it, if there are at least three times that different people have put in a published work, and those works span more than a year, then it gets to stay (and you can label it with {{lb|it|proscribed}} or whatever, if there's reason to do so). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
This is incredibly difficult to search for as Google ignores the grave accent. But Google Ngram viewer shows plenty of hits -but then you can't link from the graph to the citation. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


Google Translate doesn't show any translation. Ubuntuuser13 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ubuntuuser13: Google Translate lacks many words, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have them in the dictionary. This is a perfectly real word, and you can see at google books:"homosociabilité" that it has been used many times in French, so it doesn't need to be sent to RFV. I have added three of the quotations I found to the entry. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. Part of the long-running "is it or isn't it Turkish" debate (series). The lemma gets a page of Google Books htis, including one dictionary and what looks like a couple of uses. - -sche (discuss) 04:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Defined as verb "to telephone, to phone". google books:"telefonlamak"; google:"telefonlamak". If attested, the form should be ranked as rare.
Some quotations found:
  • 1953, Türk dili, passage: "Baltalamak diyebildiğimiz halde kalemi emek ve telefonlamak niçin diyemiyelim ?"
    • DP note: Is in quotation marks; does it make it a mention? Given the title seems to say "Turkish language", is this a linguistic work?
  • 1946, Türkçeʾde kelime yapma yolları, passage: [...] (Telefon etmek, telefonlamak) gibi ulusal bir söyleyiş tarzı dururken tutup da Fıransızca mastar şeklini alarak (telephonner) demek, dili bozmak ve onun varlığına karşı saygısızlık etmek değil midir?
    • DP note: mention only? The book title suggests it could be a linguistic treatise.
  • 1964, Türk Dil Kurumu yayınları, passage: telefone etmek = telefonlamak (Fransızca masquer karşılığı maskelemek gibi)
    • DP note: Again seems to be a linguistic work, and it could be a mention.
  • 1930, Yeni Türk lûgati, passage: Telefonlamak [f] Telefon etmek, telefona çağırıp görüşmek.
    • DP note: Definitely a mention: a dictionary entry.
Does anyone know how to search for inflected forms? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
It seems to conjugate like bağlamak, so the first person singular present simple is telefonlarım, etc. And judging from the hits that gets (google books:"telefonlarım"), it's attested: the question, raised in similar previous discussions, is whether it's Turkish or another Turkic language like Azeri. Plugging some of the results into Google Translate and asking it to translate from Azeri produces results only slightly less intelligible than asking it to translate from Turkish. Have any of our Turkish-speaking editors been active recently? @Bibliophile, Johanna-Hypatia, can you shed any light on whether this is Turkish or Azeri?
  • 1992, Fatih Çekirge, İktidar oyunu, page 29:
    Biliyorsunuz benim telefonlarım dinlendi. Kiminle konuş- sam teşhis ediliyordu. Siz bütün bunlara rağmen benimle birlikte oldunuz. Güzel'in bu sözleri, iktidar oyunundaki çirkin dekorları gösteriyordu. Ne yazık ki, o oyunda Özal'ın yanında ...
    -sche's note: Fatih Çekirge seems to be a Turkish author, suggesting that this word is Turkish
- -sche (discuss) 18:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Seems to be amply attested, both in books (google books:"telefonlarım") and on the web (telefonlarız, telefonlarlar, etc). - -sche (discuss) 06:11, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


English. Entered to mean (humorous) Expression of disturbance and confusion because someone has been running circles around them (see Etymology). --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Google Books has 0 hits. All uses in a regular Google search seemed to be either quotations from Blackadder (the program in which the word was introduced), or non-quoted borrowings from its lexicon by the show's fans for message board postings, blogs, or user names. I couldn't find any evidence of independent usage, and certainly nothing to suggest that the word is ever used for its literal meaning, which is hardly surprising, considering that 1) there would be few occasions in one's lifetime where such a term would come in handy, children on a playground notwithstanding (they're unlikely to know such a word); 2) only fans of Blackadder would have the slightest idea what the user was talking about; and 3) since combobulation means "arranging, composing, or organizing", pericombobulation actually means the opposite of what it's supposed to, thereby making the term even less useful and more confusing (although not quite arising to the level of being discombobulating). P Aculeius (talk) 13:40, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
google books:"pericombobulation", google groups:"pericombobulation", pericombobulation at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:49, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
All of which translates to zero usability. Just because Google Books turns up a book doesn't mean the word is in it. If you search the text of the listed books, you won't find "pericombobulation" in them. Even without looking I can state without fear of contradiction that it does not occur in The Cat in the Hat. If the word were used in any of the books, there would likely be a quoted passage for each one showing the usage. The only hit is "Urban Dictionary", which as we all know is a perfectly useless web site for establishing that a word has an established, independent usage. All of the message board hits appear to be direct quotations of the dialogue in "Blackadder". The online dictionary search turned up zero hits in real dictionaries; the only hit was for "Urban Dictionary". So we're exactly where we were before. P Aculeius (talk) 15:09, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The searches I posted are for convenience of whoever tries to attest the term, including a search that includes Usenet. Of course, not every hit found in these searches meets WT:ATTEST. A similar helper template generates pericombobulation - OneLook - Google "pericombobulation" (BooksGroupsScholarNews Archive). --Dan Polansky (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I believe it is attestable from Usenet, and have just added 3 cites (one for the plural). It always appears to be used self-consciously with the knowledge of its Blackadder origins, though not always as a direct quotation. Our definition might be too specific. Equinox 18:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
According to WT:ATTEST, "Attested means verified through: 1) clearly widespread use, or 2) use in permanently recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year...." We're definitely not talking about a word in widespread use, so it must meet all of the criteria in the second clause. Does the word "convey meaning" in the example sentences?
  • Example 1: "We have identified an anuspeptic [sic], some would say phrasmotic [sic], phased paradigm shift in the market of interphrastic proportions. It's causing much contrafribbilarities [sic] and indeed much pericombobulation in the ABC1 sector. Frankly, we're Donald Ducked." The preceding sentence makes clear that this example was deliberate nonsense intended to confuse an audience. The word was not used to convey meaning.
  • Example 2: You'll have to excuse Justin's hypersyllabic pericombobulations. Someone dropped a thesaurus on his head and he's still a bit dizzy. Here the writer apparently meant peregrinations, but used the wrong word. He was describing someone using very long words (hence "hypersyllabic" and the reference to a thesaurus), not a state of disarray induced by being run circles around. Probably the writer did not have a clear idea of what the word meant and did not care, as long as it sounded very complicated and would not be recognized by his audience, consisting of fans of the Toronto Blue Jays.
  • Example 3: Oh come now, I for one am quite phrasmotic for the pericombobulation Paul has suffered, and can only wish that in future he will have the sense to complete his assignments more interphrastically. The sentence makes no sense, as its meaning depends not just on the term in question, but upon two other nonsense words from the same source, neither of which has any known definition. It is possible for the word to have its alleged meaning in this sentence, but out of context we have no idea what it means, or whether the unfortunate Paul has been run circles around at all, and since the rest of the sentence is nonsense, it seems highly improbable that the word was used for its ostensible meaning.
  • Example 4: I hope this is not causing the poster any pericombobulations. It is not apparent from the context whether the word is being used for its alleged meaning here, or if the user simply meant "discomfort" or "difficulty" and chose the second cousin once removed of the word intended. Searched all of the posts on the message board with the title cited, and found none by the alleged author. Searched all of the author's posts in that forum for the whole year, and could not find the word. Given the average length of his posts, it seems unlikely that he meant anything other than "distress"; he was not using the term for its specific meaning.
Lastly, the uses are supposed to be independent. Example sentences 1, 3, and 4 are all patterned directly on the original Blackadder dialogue; the first sentence combines five nonsense words from the program; the third uses three of them, and both the third and fourth parallel the original's statement of remorse for having "caused you such pericombobulations." They're not direct quotations, but somewhat of a paraphrase, but they're certainly not independent. So what we really have here is a word that's seldom if ever used independently of references to Blackadder, and so far there are no other instances in which it's used for its purported meaning; generally it seems to be used solely to confuse or befuddle the audience, or imply general discomfort, without any sense of discomposing people by running in circles around them. P Aculeius (talk) 01:22, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


An editing war broke out earlier at walk, because of this word. The primary sense of the word is "mountain path", "narrow pathway" and "track" (N.B. only by extension can it mean a natural "path" and "trail") – not walk as a "maintained place on which to walk", as another user insists. I don't want to get into a prolonged editing war or get into an unnecessary discussion about semantics, but it just isn't the correct translation (see the discussion page for walk). PS: if this is an inappropriate forum to post this request, I apologise beforehand and would appreciate advice as to where I can have this discussion. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You're correct that this isn't the right forum as nobody's disputing the existence of potecă. I think this sort of thing usually goes at WT:TR because it's about discussing meanings of words without disputing their existence. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
The Google Image hits confirm that "mountain path" is a main meaning of the term. Perhaps it's sufficient to add a gloss-like qualifier to the term in the translation table at walk. - -sche (discuss) 18:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


"Someone who pretends unity with an oppressor or the oppressed. A scab who crosses the picket line is a wannabe hoping for crumbs in exchange for treachery." Really? What do they "want to be"? Chambers has no such sense. Can we also confirm/deny the newly added synonyms bootlicker and suckup? Equinox 19:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Those synonyms seems more like hyponyms coordinate terms (perhaps not all wannabe's go to such an extreme...). Prob better to list them under that heading or 'See also' (?)