Wiktionary:Requests for verification

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

Wiktionary > Requests > Requests for verification

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

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

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

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

Requests for deletion
add new | history | archives

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

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

Requests for deletion of pages in other (not the main) namespaces, such as categories, appendices and templates.

Requests for moves, mergers and splits
add new | history | archives

Moves, mergers and splits; requests listings, questions and discussions.

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

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

Scope of this request page:

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



See also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Deleting or removing the entry or sense (if it failed), or de-tagging it (if it passed). In either case, the edit summary or deletion summary should indicate what is happening.
  • Adding a comment to the discussion here with either RFV failed or RFV passed, indicating what action was taken. Some editors strike out the discussion header at this time.

In some cases, the disposition is more complicated than simply "RFV failed" or "RFV passed" (for example, two senses may have been nominated, of which only one was cited).

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

Oldest tagged RFVs


January 2015[edit]


Rfv-sense: Made of or with wood

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

I'm not sure how to tell the difference between an uncountable noun and an incomparable adjective. None of the tests at Wiktionary:English adjectives seem to be capable of distinguishing between these two. So what kind of citation would (hypothetically) be able to demonstrate that "wood" is indeed an incomparable adjective as well as a noun? —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 20:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Predicative use, i.e. you can say “this toy is wooden”, but can you say “this toy is wood”? — Ungoliant (falai) 20:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd still say that's use of the uncountable noun. Talk:woodland might provide a way forward; very wood and quite wood can't be interpreted as nominal uses, unless I'm missing something. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
That's true, but I wouldn't expect to find uses of an incomparable adjective with "quite" and "very". —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 21:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, you can. [1] [2] [3] [4] But it's not completely obvious to me whether these are predicative uses of an adjective or an uncountable noun. But if you think they're good enough, I'll add them to the entry. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 20:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Dubious IMO. It feels like "this music is (genre)": more of a noun usage. Equinox 21:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
@Mr. Granger: I'd apply Occam's razor. If we have a noun entry for a word then there should be some unambiguous evidence for its adjectivity to support an Adjective PoS section. I can find three cites (1, 3 & 4) ["be|am|is|are|be|being|was|were more wood than" -"there is|was more wood than" here] at Google Books for the following collocation: "[be] more wood (than)". If upheld, that would let us keep the Adjective section. DCDuring TALK 22:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Saying "it's more wood than metal" doesn't make it an adjective, though. —CodeCat 22:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
I tend to see "this table is wood" as an adjectival usage. Dictionaries having this adjectival sense at "wood" include AHD[5] and Merriam-Webster (entry 3)[6]. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:32, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
For the record, now as before, I consider this use of RFV less than fortunate, since for English there are no conclusive purely evidence-based criteria for adjectivity. --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
The OED has only the obsolete adjective (our etymology 2) meaning mad. Are we being wooden about this? We do have steel as an adjective, and the OED doesn't, but why don't we have soap and cardboard as adjectives? (Later note: we do now for cardboard, with good cites. Thanks, Mr. Granger.) Dbfirs 17:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
@Dan Polansky: In most cases the evidence is extremely clear. Evidence is to be preferred to gum-flapping wherever possible. We can reduce the gum-flapping to evaluation and weighing of evidence, in this case, that of the judgment of lexicographers and the corpus data. It is very hard for me to take as meaningful an individual vote which often represents nothing more than an idiolect or a completely uninformed opinion. And articulate arguments based on agreed-to principles have become scarcer over time. DCDuring TALK 17:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
I'd rather go by Merriam-Webster than OED. Merriam-Webster does have an adjective sense for "steel"[7]. We could have an adjective sense in cardboard, just like Merriam-Webster[8]; however, they may have the adjective sense to accompany the figurative adjective sense that they have. Again, since adjectivity is hard to detect based only on evidence, I discourage and oppose this use of RFV. Yes, there are cases where the evidence clearly supports adjectivity, but absence of such evidence requires judgment and discussion to determine the adjectivity, as per the existence of incomparable adjectives. Under the assumption that we take this RFV seriously, occurrences of "this table is wood" should count toward attestation as adjective, IMHO. This RFV should be closed as out-of-scope (my preferable closure), or as passed. We have no evidence to tell us whether "this table is wood" is an adjectival use, so we do have to use judgment or linguistic sense; hence the propriety of RFD for these kind of cases. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
RFV can be useful and appropriate in such cases, since the POS is part of the sense, and it seems perfectly acceptable to challenge whether there's usage for the sense as an adjective. The problem comes when the evidence is inconclusive: the presumption with rfd is for keeping unless the case is made for deletion, while with rfv it's for deletion unless the case (in the form of citations) is made for keeping. I have no problem with using rfv- unless someone tries to close it as failed when citations have been provided, but they're ambiguous.Chuck Entz (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
You ignored the incomparable adjectives objection, it seems. --Dan Polansky (talk) 20:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
As I understand it, the issue is that there are no circumstances in which an incomparable adjective could be expected to appear that a noun could not also appear. (For example, one doesn't find "wooder", "woodest", "very wood", "quite wood", etc, but one wouldn't expect to find "birchen-er", "birchenest", "very birchen", etc, either.)
What do other dictionaries think? Of the comprehensive dictionaries, Merriam-Webster and Dictionary.com have an adjective section, while Century does not; of the less comprehensive dictionaries, Cambridge, MacMillan, Oxford Dictionaries and Collins do not have a relevant adjective section (some do cover the adjective "wode", but that's not what we're discussing).
We would not lose any information by lacking an adjective section — the noun section covers all affected usage (senses) nicely, and translations can go in wooden.
- -sche (discuss) 06:22, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
RFV-failed: not only do no citations show unambiguous adjectival usage (all can be analysed regularly as the noun), I can't even find evidence that this was an adjective in Old or Middle English, which distinguished nouns and adjectives in ways that can typically be recognized; the Middle English Dictionary treats attributive usage under the noun, with the preface "as quasi-adj.:". - -sche (discuss) 08:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

February 2015[edit]

maximum security[edit]

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

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

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

The noun section is well-cited by the citations mentioned above. As for the adjective section: we have maximum-security defined as an adjective. Should it be relabelled a noun used attributively? Or is it an adjective? If it's an adjective, I imagine maximum security is an alt form of it, since they exist in free variation. - -sche (discuss) 23:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
It's quite possible that there is predicate use of maximum security, but not highly likely that it is gradable/comparable. DCDuring TALK 01:48, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
It's already been cited and de-tagged so I'm going to strike this. Seems real, just a clipping of maximum security prison (facility, unit, etc.). Renard Migrant (talk) 11:02, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

March 2015[edit]


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

What do you think of these: [9], [10], [11]? — Ungoliant (falai) 16:16, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
On second thought, the specific adjectival meaning is not obviously the same as any of the clearly appropriate noun senses. Credit is due to Purp for noticing. Obviously the adjective use is derived from one of the noun senses. It seems a bit a stretch in real life to interpret diet in diet soda as soda for "a controlled dietary regimen".
Some, at least, of the predicate uses confirm this or provide additional support, though capitalized "Diet" in quotes doesn't. DCDuring TALK 16:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
If it's a noun, what's its meaning? There's no noun sense for 'low in sugar or fat'. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:40, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
Exactly my second thought. DCDuring TALK 01:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
So this is being withdrawn, right? Renard Migrant (talk) 12:15, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I left it here to see if anyone agreed with my first thought. Evidently not. DCDuring TALK 23:34, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Note that three quotations are now in the entry diet, for phrases "diet hamburger" and "diet drink". Among OneLook dictionaries (diet at OneLook Dictionary Search), adjective for "diet" is in Merriam-Webster[12], which has actually two adjectival senses. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

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


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

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


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

I am unable to find unambiguous citations of the challenged (intransitive) sense, but there are numerous transitive citations on Google Books, so I have added a transitive sense with three citations. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 19:07, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Is e.g. "the central causating power" transitive? Equinox 19:40, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
It seems ambiguous to me—as far as I know, both transitive and intransitive verbs can be used that way. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 19:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
English verb sense 1 RFV-failed; verb sense 2 passed. - -sche (discuss) 20:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


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

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

Let's see: adds an asteroid-name sense to an entry for a supernatural being, adds genealogical cruft to another one, and has trouble keeping straight whether a sense belongs in the Japanese or the English section (I would be astounded if the "(childish) honorific suffix" sense is actually English)... who needs to look at the geolocation data? This is our wiki-problem child, in spades (and the IP does geolocate to Easynet in the UK, anyway). Chuck Entz (talk) 01:38, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 20:42, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

golden spike[edit]

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

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

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


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

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


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

In dictionaries it definitely does [13]. Not sure about usage as in use-mention distinction as I don't understand enough Dutch. Oh and should be at WT:RFV#schrinken. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
This might be Middle Dutch... Leasnam (talk) 23:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
This verb is in the WNT though: [14]. I have also added a few attested examples. Let me know if they suffice so I can remove the tag. Morgengave (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
The 2003 and 2009 citations aren't durably archived, which leaves us with one citation per sense. @CodeCat is this a word you're familiar with / can you find citations of it? - -sche (discuss) 07:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


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

Here’s one use independent from Empire of Man: [15]. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:17, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
It definitely does not only appear in Empire of Man
  • Something deep within his molycirc heart seemed to be beating against the confining cage of his chest's synthetic composites p105 "A Might Fortress" David Weber (2010) ISBN 9781429961356 -- this is not "Empire of Man", this is "Safefold"-series
  • Another three keystrokes and that portion of the Department of State's molycirc memory core where those notes had been stored was reformatted ch54 "War of Honor" David Weber (2002) ISBN 9780743435451 -- this is not "Empire of Man", this is "Honorverse"-series
  • The molycirc shouldn't be possible in this universe. p176 "Claws that Catch" (2008) John Ringo & Travis Taylor ISBN 9781416555872 -- this is not "Empire of Man", this is "Looking Glass"-series
-- 15:39, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I've typed up the citation Ungoliant links to:
  • 2015, W. C. Bauers, Unbreakable:
    "Just you and the gun. No HUDs or data feeds. No molycircs. Just eyes-on-target and recoil."
All of the citations the IP links to are either non-durable or by Weber, or by Ringo. Can a citation from Weber/Ringo count as one citation if two other citations are independent of him? If so, can anyone find a third citation? - -sche (discuss) 07:33, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 16:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Bharat Army[edit]

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

I've added the following as quotations.
The Bharat Army believe there is nothing to apologise for. What they represent is a confluence of cultures.
...his first taste of the verbal brickbats wielded by India's "Bharat Army" of supporters.
Australia may be the host team in Sydney but it won't surprise any if the local fans are outnumbered by the Bharat Army
--KTo288 (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
@KTo288 Are those all durably archived? That is, for something like the third citation, was that ever on a printed page or only online? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge, sorry, I don't know.-- KTo288 (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
There's a literal use (where it means "Indian military") in the 2015 January 14, Saadda Haq newspaper, and several more on BGC. I've added an {{&lit}}. - -sche (discuss) 20:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Cited. - -sche (discuss) 20:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


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

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


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

April 2015[edit]


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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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


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


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

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


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


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

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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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



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

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


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

buy and pay for[edit]

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

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

life support [edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seems like conclusion, made the proposed edits. --Hekaheka (talk) 13:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


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

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


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

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


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

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

смерть как[edit]

@KoreanQuoter, Vahagn Petrosyan, Wikitiki89, Wanjuscha, Stephen G. Brown. In my opinion, it's not a language unit. Russian Wiktionary has it too. The word "смерть" (death) is used as an adverb but is usually followed by "как". Example: "ему смерть как хочется курить" — "he’s dying for a smoke". A Russian German dictionary has a following example: "мне смерть как хочется" - "ich möchte für mein Leben gern" [23]. Please correct me if I'm wrong. It was also entered in [24]. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 08:44, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

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


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


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

This is definitely Uyghur; ug:w:چىلى also exists, but I suppose Wikipedia doesn't fit our criteria for attestation; still, I think this word has no reason to be considered dubious. Aperiarcam (talk) 05:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
@Aperiarcam: The reason for doubt is that the editor who created it knows no Uyghur and has made many errors before; Wikipedias also often use and create neologisms and protologisms. Just one mention or use in a durably archived work will do, though, if you could dig one up. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 05:39, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


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

Kóstá Rikà[edit]

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


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

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

antanka pampa[edit]

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

big picture[edit]

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

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

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

Sûreté du Québec[edit]

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

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


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

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

May 2015[edit]


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

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


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


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


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

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


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


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


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



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

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


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


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

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


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

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


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

I found a few hits on Google Books (though some of them might be typos): [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. Einstein2 (talk) 12:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
The second and third look okay; the fourth and fifth are the same one and looks like a typo, not an eye-dialect. I can't see the first as there's no preview. So that's two. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
This is what I can see at the first one: "can find to do is memrize the printin' on all the cans and". In addition to this, I found another use: [30]. Einstein2 (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Sounds good. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

fat hen[edit]


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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

Oma fiel ins Klo[edit]

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

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

June 2015[edit]


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

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


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

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


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

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


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


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

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


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

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


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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

Alternative forms
Cardinal Numeral

ἰός (ἴα, ἰόν)

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

- 13:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

Here are the cites provided on my talk page:

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

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

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


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

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


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


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

It can be found the following places:

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

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

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

Please see WT:CFI for the requirements for verifying a word. None of those three websites appear to be durably archived. Moreover, they all mention the word "ĥamemoro" rather than using it, as described in WT:CFI#Conveying meaning. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:53, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Therefore, RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 04:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


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

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 04:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


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

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


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

There are some citations of "Syenitic granite" where Syene is mentioned in close proximity and I can't be sure if it's using sense 1 or sense 2. In this citation, it seems to mean both:
  • 1884, James King, Cleopartra's Needle: a history of the London Obelisk, page 36:
    Seven hundred miles up the Nile beyond Cairo, on the frontiers of Nubia, is the town of Syene or Assouan. In the neighbourhood are the renowned quarries of red granite called Syenite or Syenitic stone.
I can't find anything where it unambiguously means sense 2 and not sense 1. - -sche (discuss) 07:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


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

מזל בואינו[edit]

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

As above. See google books:"מזל בואינו". --WikiTiki89 15:41, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
This spelling gets a page of BGC hits. The spelling below gets none. - -sche (discuss) 17:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

מאזאל בוהנו[edit]

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


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


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

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


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

google books:adiaphora, e.g. [31]; seems to be.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
  • DCDuring and I have each added an additional sense to the entry, so I've converted this to an rfv-sense. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 20:46, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Those hits make it look like a plural noun, as is confirmed by [[adiaphoron]], adiaphoron in The Century Dictionary, The Century Co., New York, 1911, and adiaphora in The Century Dictionary, The Century Co., New York, 1911. DCDuring TALK 20:48, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: I agree with DCDuring that all the English hits you linked to are examples of the plural noun; on my interpretation, "the adiaphora concept" also exemplifies the plural noun, meaning "the concept of adiaphora".
@Mr. Granger, DCDuring: Shall we mark the singular sense nonstandard, like singular uses of criteria and phenomena?
 — I.S.M.E.T.A. 18:26, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't contest the details of the definition, but it still exists; it needed correcting, not deleting.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I've seen no unambiguous attestation for the sense given and under challenge. DCDuring TALK 21:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I think it would be appropriate to mark the singular sense as nonstandard. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 22:20, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
If it were to pass RfV that might well prove the right way to handle it, but is it even worth the citation effort? DCDuring TALK 00:50, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
I think we must be talking about two different senses. If I understand correctly, I.S.M.E.T.A. wants to mark the singular noun sense, which currently has three citations, as nonstandard. The challenged sense is an adjective sense, which I agree is not yet cited and does not seem to be citeable. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 01:52, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes. My mistake. DCDuring TALK 01:56, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


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


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

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


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


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

the axe forgets but the tree remembers[edit]

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

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


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

independentist, independentism[edit]

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

I've added three quotations for each word. One is about Poland and another is about South Africa, so the words are not limited to Quebec and Spanish-speaking areas. There also seem to be one or two senses of independentism that we're missing—one related to Christianity [32] and one related to moral philosophy [33]. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:41, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


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



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


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

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

- 14:55, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Frustratingly, I can't figure out a way to search for this on Google Books and get results in Latin rather than results in English discussing Latin. For example, google books:"e.g." "omnium" is entirely useless. It seems reasonable that this may have been used, but I just don't know how to prove it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I found three citations (which I added to the entry) by searching for "est e.g." (which still found a lot of non-Latin chaff). I also found this where there's a bit of space between the "e." an the "g." but not as much as between words:
  • 1749, Johann Gottlieb Heinecke, Joh. Gottlieb Heineccii [...] Operum, volume 8, page 22:
  • Aliud, si quis culpa sua ratione priuatus est, e.g. propter ebrietatem; et tune aliter formanda regula:
- -sche (discuss) 21:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks sche.
  • Regarding Heinecke and the small space: (a) In younger non-English style guides it's not rarely said that it is like "e.[small space]g." or "e.[small non-breaking space]g.", so with a smaller space. (As it's not easy to type such a space often "& nbsp ;" is used though, which is just non-breaking but not smaller.) (b) Maybe one could explain the smaller space by full justification (see below).
  • Is "1907, Wallace Martin Lindsay, Syntax of Plautus" a valid quote? It's from an Englishman (or maybe "Britman"), it's from the 20th century, and the book title even is in English. So, it rather seems like an Englishman used his "modern" English orthography instead of traditional ones.
    If it is valid, than "e.g." should be attestable. But then maybe a note could be added, like "since the 20th century" or "in Englishmen's 'modern' orthography".
  • In "1732, Antonius Mayr (S.J.), Theologia scholastica tractatus omnes in universitatibus provinciae germaniae superioris societatis jesu tradi solitos, et quaestiones in iis praescriptas complexa, p.55", which might be the same as "1731, Theologia Scholastica" it is also "obligationem e. g. restituendi". So the very small or missing space in the given quote could be explained by full justification (Blocksatz).
  • In "1821, Julius Müller, Ratio et historia [...]" it is also "commutatur, e. g." on page 3. So maybe one could explain the spelling on page 10 by full justification.
- 21:30, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


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


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


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

July 2015[edit]

adult baby diaper love[edit]

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


... — קהת — 18:41, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

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


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


Keφr 11:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

While Instagram would not be considered "permanent archived" for RFV purposes anyway, I had a look at what uses the 🏯 tag (Instagram being one of the few websites where emoji are widely used and easy to search). The first pictures are: a Chinese gate, the Palazzo della Civiltà Italiana, an Indonesian shrine, two pictures of a woman dressed as a samurai, a set of pictures of Osaka castle and Osaka in general, other castles and temples in Japan, and a plane ticket to Beijing. I don't see a lot of evidence that people specifically mean "Japanese castle" when they use this symbol - it just seems to be used to tag anything that looks Asian. Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
As far as I know, Google doesn't allow searches for emoji. There's really no way to attest emojis through normal means. It doesn't seem reasonable to apply standard attestation criteria when standard attestation methods don't work. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
It does allow searches for emoji, it just does not necessarily return results. Web searches return a handful of them, for whatever it may be worth. Keφr 16:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Why don't we put them all into an appendix? SemperBlotto (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
What should be in it? Keφr 16:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
We already have such an appendix: Appendix:Unicode/Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs Smurrayinchester (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
Redirected to Appendix:Unicode/Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs. - -sche (discuss) 07:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


Keφr 11:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Redirected to Appendix:Unicode/Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs. - -sche (discuss) 07:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

Perhaps Color phi phenomenon? Equinox 22:34, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Rather the phi phenomenon. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 01:53, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I suppose this counts:
  • 1963, Psychology Through Experiment (George Humphrey, ‎Jaroslav Antonio Deutsch), page 90:
    [] tolerance (Frenkel-Brunswik 1949) for it showed that those persons with the strongest defences against internal conflict, i.e. obsessionals and conversion hysterics, were those least able to perceive the reality-conflicting phenomenon of phi.
I can also find a few citations of "phenomenon of (phi movement|perception)". And, of course, citations of "phi phenomenon", but do those count for [[phi]] or only [[phi phenomenon]]? - -sche (discuss) 17:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


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

duping delight[edit]

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

That's not hard proof; e.g. the last article put a lot of things in quotation marks. Of course, I see no evidence the last one is durably archived, and it's questionable for the first two.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
Perhaps I should have chosen some other quotations, but see Google Books for several books where the term is used without quotation marks: [34]. The term also gained usage in non-academic circles, with results on Google Images being indicative of this: [35]. Morgengave (talk) 19:07, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


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

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

fuck you Jack, I'm alright[edit]

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

Moved. - -sche (discuss) 04:46, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


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

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


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


Rfv-sense X2:

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

cross one's fingers[edit]

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

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


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


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


Equinox 06:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


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


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


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


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

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

call center[edit]

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

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

make to[edit]

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

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


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

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

Tiny Tim[edit]

Discussion moved to WT:RFD.


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

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


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


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


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

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


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

also pinging @Hirabutor - -sche (discuss) 01:58, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
beket cannot be found in TDK, the official Turkish dictioary. It may be of other origin (another Turkish language).--Sae1962 (talk) 11:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
beket, simek and kıyın are not native to Istanbul Turkish. In this sense there is no verification. Maybe there exist some Oghusic dialects in Anatolia which retained those words, but are not found in the official Istanbul Turkish language. --Hirabutor (talk) 14:08, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
beket: RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 16:41, 26 August 2015 (UTC)


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

Both simek & bağdarlama(k) cannot be found in TDK. I doubt that they are Turkish (and for sure not High Turkish).--Sae1962 (talk) 11:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
simek: RFV-failed - -sche (discuss) 20:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hamburger (Adjective)[edit]

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

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

- 10:31, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

There exists a template Template:de-decl-adj-inc-notcomp-nopred (used on a whopping two entries) which could express this, but we might be better off just adding something like "invariable, attributive only" to the headword line. These fail even more tests of adjectivity than wood (discussed above); they don't inflect, they don't compare/grade, they don't appear predicatively... - -sche (discuss) 18:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
I've fixed Hamburger. If you find any more -er adjectives with erroneous predicative lines in their inflection tables, please either fix them or let me or someone else know. :) - -sche (discuss) 19:33, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Now I can do that (copy it from Hamburger), but earlier I wasn't completely sure whether or not such adjectives can be used predicatively, and earlier I didn't know about the template. Thanks for fixing the entry. - 21:37, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
But at least German gives us one straightforward way to tell whether it's an adjective or a noun compound - it's Hamburger Dialekt not Hamburgerdialekt. Smurrayinchester (talk) 10:55, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
Even that test doesn't help us here, because these -er forms could plausibly be genitives of nouns (which would be written separately, like "Königs Krone" used to be), as mentioned here. (I am tempted to undo that removal; I think the information is pertinent.) - -sche (discuss) 22:57, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
@Smurrayinchester: Well, maybe forms like "Hamburgerdialekt" do/did also exist? (Maybe because of hypercorrection regarding "Deppenleerzeichen".)
@-sche: I agree with you that the information is pertinent, and even pertinent if one just considers 21st century German: According to modern German spelling rules adjectives are usually written with a small letter, such as grüne Wiese, großer Mann, kleines Kind, berlinerisch, englisch, but Blauer Planet, Weißes Haus. (It is "modern German spelling rules" as earlier maybe forms like Berlinerisch and English existed, similar to English capitalisation.) So if words like Hamburger would be adjectives, it would be logical to spell them like hamburger by modern German spelling rules. And this still holds, even if one would say that these words ones where genitive forms of substantives, but are adjectives nowadays. namens/Namens originally is the genitive of Name, but nowadays only the spelling namens is official (in wordings like "ein Hund namens Beethoven"). So I partly undid that removal, and also added some further information and references. Please feel free to add further annotations (like: what did other grammarians or what do modern grammar books says?) or to improve my wording. -eXplodit (talk) 13:51, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
Resolved, I guess, although I still think just a headword-line note "invariable, not predicative" might be preferable to a huge table that has the same string in all fields. - -sche (discuss) 20:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


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

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


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

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

mine arse on a bandbox[edit]

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

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

bust the dust[edit]

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

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


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

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

@Sche - Meninism was created by simply grafting "men" onto feminism. Which, obviously, doesn't make sense from an etymological standpoint. I believe it was originally coined by an MRA to describe the men's rights movement/philosophy, but it got picked up by feminist bloggers, who used it in a joking way to highlight how out-of-touch they see MRAs as being. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 01:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Based on the two citations in the entry and the 1927 citation on the Citations page, is this cited? I can't make heads or tails of the Hoogensen citation, btw. - -sche (discuss) 07:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I think the two citations in the entry and the 1927 citation on the Citations page are adequate. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 08:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
RFV-passed, just barely. The 1927 citation has a somewhat different tone from the later citations which are under the same sense, and seems to bleed into the second sense's territory ("anti-feminism"). - -sche (discuss) 21:02, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


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

freeze baby[edit]

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

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

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

eat like an American[edit]

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

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


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

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


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


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

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

five second rule[edit]

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

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

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


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

If we generalise it to simply "make brown" I can find other citations, such as [[36]], [[37]], and [[38]] Kiwima (talk) 21:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)


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

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


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

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



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

Probably as you say, but I would like to be able to check it in loco, and I don't have a copy of Pseudolus, so I'm not certain on this. Aperiarcam (talk) 15:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
The internet always provides! Smurrayinchester (talk) 17:25, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
coquus” in Charlton T. Lewis & Charles Short, A Latin Dictionary, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1879. suggests that coquos is the right form for the time of Plautus's (c. 254 – 184 BC) writing. Coquos occurs three times in the online text. DCDuring TALK 18:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it's certainly just a cook, though it is awfully strange that Plautus uses "coquos" throughout the text except in the cast (and to note who is speaking), where we find "cocus" and "coc."; this may well be an editorial issue, perhaps attributable to a lazy scribe rather than our dear Plautus. The nominative in -os is certainly the norm for Plautus, but perhaps something about the "qu" would make "coquos" simplify to "cocus"? All idle speculation, in any event. We also have another such entry, Harpax, but I'm tempted to let this one stay, as it's really a Greek word (ἅρπαξ [39]); also attested as a Roman war machine, but this is after Plautus was writing. In any event, this person has done us a favor, because they have drawn our attention to several words that need to be added, including ἅρπαξ. Aperiarcam (talk) 20:09, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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


Discussion moved to WT:ES.


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

Donetsk People’s Republic translations[edit]

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

Данецкая Народная Рэспубліка[edit]

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

Doněcká lidová republika[edit]

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

Volksrepubliek Donetsk[edit]

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

République populaire de Donetsk[edit]

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

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

Volksrepublik Donezk[edit]

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

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

Λαϊκή Δημοκρατία του Ντονέτσκ[edit]

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

Repubblica Popolare di Doneck[edit]

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

Doniecka Republika Ludowa[edit]

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

Донецкая Народная Республика[edit]

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

Донецька народна республіка[edit]

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


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

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


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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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


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


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


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


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

jail lock[edit]

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

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

signum crucis[edit]

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

anti-state capitalism[edit]

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

anti-state marketism[edit]

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


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

I found this word here. I'm not interested in Swedish and I don't speak Swedish, but I'm interested to help Wiktionary and other Wikimedia projects. You can delete that page but I think that everything is useful on Wiktionary especially words of that type. Thank you.--BrunoMed (talk) 08:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia article, it's mentioned (not used) in an old edition of the Guinness Book of World Records. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
It would need to be "etymologised" (broken up into sections) to be any use at all. Donnanz (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete as complete nonsense. This is just mentioned in Wikipedia and elsewhere to show what there might be if it there was. The "translation" ("[belonging to] The manager of the depot for the supply of uniforms to the personnel of the track cleaners' union of the tramway company") shows that there's no such thing. I could easily make up an even longer "example" if I wanted to. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:36, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
An example of longer word: spårvagnsaktiebolagsskensmutsskjutarefackföreningspersonalbeklädnadsmagasinsförrådsförvaltarförening would be an association of these people.--Hekaheka (talk) 08:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
If you delete that word you can (I wouldn't) also delete (and a few hundred others that I didn't mentioned):
That word is longer than spårvagnsaktiebolagsskensmutsskjutarefackföreningspersonalbeklädnadsmagasinsförrådsförvaltarförening. So don't delete.



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 [40]. 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: [41]. Do these suffice? There's even a w:Kalodont article and when you google/ncr "kalodont" among first ten hits I get kakosepise.com. --biblbroksдискашн 23:05, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to make problems and I won't. I wrote that article and I want to defend it. I found that word in Rječnik stranih riječi by Vladimir Anić and Ivo Goldstein, Second edition. On page 649, second column, fifth hint there is a word kalodont, in brackets prema jednom tvorničkom imenu proizvoda that means after a name of product, after that pasta za zube that means toothpaste. We also use term kalodont for a game and all toothpastes, like word džip (Jeep) for all big cars or tule (Thule) for transportation boxes on roof of the cars. Some people say kaladont what is alternative form of word kalodont. Thank you.


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

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


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

There are some pages in Google Groups and Google Books. There are even online dictionaries with word Traubisoda.
Keep I don't see it satisfying WT:BRAND for many other products you have on Wiktionary.


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

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


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


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


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


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


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

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

August 2015[edit]

Эсти мастор[edit]

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


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

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


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

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


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

I can't say anything about the Spanish term, but the English equivalent ENT and the German equivalent HNO are both definitely real, so it's at least plausible. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:22, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
It looks like the Spanish use the Latin acronym and call it ORL (otorrinolaringología). oído naríz y laringe doesn't strike me as correct anyway (it's not just about the larynx), and the only Google hits are mirrors of us - oído naríz y garganta gets at least a few hits (eg. the Clínica de Oído, Naríz y Garganta Barquisimeto), although it looks like it's never acronymed ONG (maybe because of the chance of confusion). Smurrayinchester (talk) 13:35, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
In English otorhinolaryngology = otolaryngology, "a medical specialty concerned especially with the ear, nose, and throat", per MWOnline. Once more etymology is not destiny. (Google N-Grams shows the shorter form preferred over the entire period covered.) DCDuring TALK 14:03, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
But in Spanish, "otorrinolaringología" massively overwhelms "otolaringología". Smurrayinchester (talk) 14:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Similarly in most other languages according to the translation table now at otolaryngology. DCDuring TALK 15:34, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


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

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


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


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

  • Not listed in major dictionaries, seems fake. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Read some of these pages and it will be clear to you.


Rfv-sense: "humankind"

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

As a side note, is there any reason to use "humankind" in this definition and lidstvo? As a native English speaker, I find it has an awkward, standoffishly political feel to it that humanity doesn't, even while humanity avoids the gender issues that mankind summons up? My edits to humankind summarize some of the issue.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Bare "humanity" is ambiguous since "humanity" can also mean "the quality of being benevolent", but "mankind" is also polysemous and has gender issues, as you note. What about translating the terms as "humanity (the human race)"? (Btw, I don't find anything unusual about "humankind", and judging from Google, plenty of native English speakers use it, e.g. it's the title of a PBS documentary on humans.) - -sche (discuss) 21:34, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Humankind is rarer then mankind; looking at the N-grams, it never hit half of mankind's usage, and mankind is on an upswing (as of latest data in 2008) and humankind is on a slight downturn. (I'd compare it to chairperson versus chairman, where chairperson has been stable for a couple decades, and chairman has dropped a lot (presumably to unmeasurable chair), but not for chairperson.) humankind seems more common, and it strikes me as less artificial, when it's talking about humans, Homo sapiens, and not people. E.g. "Humankind first arose on the planet 200,000 years ago" and not "I want to buy humankind a Coke!".
Yes, "humanity (the human race)" sounds great.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:18, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't know any reason why "humankind" should be used in the definition instead of "mankind" or "humanity", and defer to native English speakers for what sounds most native and natural. It might be more appropriate for the purposes of translation to define the 2nd sense thus: "man (mankind; humanity)", to emphasize that "man" is probably the most suitable translation for this sense.
The sense seems to exist as a separate one, as in "člověk je mírou všech věcí" (man is the measure of all things) or "člověk míní, pánbůh mění" (man proposes, God disposes). It seems to be the sense of "man" defined in en:wikt man as "All humans collectively: mankind, humankind, humanity" and exemplified by "Whether modern, industrial man is less or more warlike than his hunter-gatherer ancestors is impossible to determine". The same distinction applied to word "man" is in Merriam-Webster between 1a and 1b[42]. Therefore, I do not think that the distinction between the uses of "člověk" in "támhle jde nějaký člověk" and "člověk je mírou všech věcí" should be abolished as separate senses. I also checked Mensch in Duden; they seem to have the mankind sense or some such as sense 1, and the sense referring to an individual as sense 2. Czech dictionaries PSJC and SSJC (now in člověk) do not seem to draw this distinction, but that seems to be a matter of a different lexicographical tradition more than anything else. I do not think there is anything to attest; the uses like "člověk je mírou všech věcí" are in widespread use. The question is whether to draw the distinction in the various manners of usage the way the English dictionaries tend to. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:17, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

banjo ukelele[edit]

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

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

geek chic[edit]

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

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


No applicable hits on Google Books, Google Groups, or Issuu. There's also nothing turning up on the Archive of Our Own (a major fan-fiction site), so no idea where this is being used. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 03:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Chinese squeeze[edit]

I don't think the definition is right. What I see on Google Books are SOP verb constructions like "the Chinese squeeze into their homes", or SOP references to the Chinese practice of "squeeze" (requiring bribes), as in: "Of course, there was the Chinese squeeze. The Chinese squeeze is two or three thousand years old. I may say in talking about politics that in Chicago I find there is a Chicago squeeze, too." OTOH, David Perry on Game Design: A Brainstorming Toolbox does define "Chinese squeeze (stealing profits off the top)", so maybe it's attested even in reference to non-Chinese somewhere. (There is a hit saying "it is true that this Chinese squeeze is not limited to any particular country, as many a public contractor could testify", but that strikes me as similar to "this American freedom is not limited to America; other countries have freedom, too", i.e. still SOP.) - -sche (discuss) 16:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

One newspaper article (look in the left hand column headed "By Westbrook Pegler") that accuses FDR's government of Chinese squeeze. Other than that, I can't find anything else not SOP (as opposed to, say, Spanish practices, which is easy to attest in non-Spanish contexts). Library of Congress newspaper search only find hits literally relating to squeeze in China. Smurrayinchester (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
An undated and possibly non-durable (e-pub) book of Slang Poetry, volume I by R. K. Cowles has this semi-sensical verse:
"This is business"
He tells me once he was left holding the bag
He never got his dib from my big cheese
My big cheese according to him gave him the Chinese squeeze
He apparently became my big cheese's patsy and referred him as a smooth
Need to bring this chin to a conclusion with me still intact
At this time, []
- -sche (discuss) 23:49, 10 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: [[43]].


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

I can find a lot of hits on Google news. For example [[44]], [[45]], [[46]], and [[47]]. Kiwima (talk) 05:23, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


Rfv-sense (Mormonism) honeybee. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

This passed RFV before on the basis that it occurs in a well-known work. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Since that's no longer valid, its status is that it has one supporting quotation and requires two more. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
That damn vote passed?! I need to start paying more attention to things. — Ungoliant (falai) 16:54, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge, could you link Ungoliant and me to said vote? Purplebackpack89 17:05, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Here you go.Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
There needs to be some sort of system to notify active editors about major policy change proposals. Because, as seems to be the case here, a major policy change proposal flew under a lot of users' radars, and thus the outcome of the vote may very well be a product of said lack of awareness rather than genuine community consensus. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Such changes should indeed be added to WT:N4E. But active users who care about policy are generally expected to frequent the BP, where all such votes are advertised. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:22, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Users can watchlist WT:VOTE to be notified of votes, or can frequent the WT:BP, where votes are advertised. If people can't be arsed to watchlist at least one of those pages, I expect they probably tune out WT:N4E and would tune out even a more invasive/harassing system, like posting talk page messages about every new vote or new policy vote (compare how much of my Wikipedia talk page consists of Signpost notices I usually don't read). - -sche (discuss) 22:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I was thinking of something more along the lines of posting notices on user talk pages. The most effective way to get the word out about upcoming votes in real life is probably to directly contact potential voters. I get mailed a notice every time there's going to be a federal election. Elections Canada doesn't just post mass notices on community bulletin boards and in newspapers. People naturally filter out information when they're being hit with a lot of it at once, and thus it's easy for relevant messages to get lost among all the noise. "News for Editors" is mostly used for technical updates, and not everyone regularly frequents BP. Nor should they be expected to, frankly. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 22:42, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Cloudcuckoolander: About notification of policy change proposals: they are all listed at WT:VOTE. They must be. The votes last at least one month. Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2014-03/CFI: Removing usage in a well-known work 3 lasted from 23 March 2014 to 24 Jul 2014 and was actually closed only on 17 August 2014, which was about 5 months later. To make sure you do not miss a policy change proposal, check WT:VOTE once a month and you should be safe. WT:VOTE hardly ever has more than 10 items listed, so it is easy to overview and keep an eye on. Yes, people should not need to frequent BP, only WT:VOTE. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:00, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Searching for the plural, I find one citation where it's clearly a typo for "deserts", and one where it's probably a typo for "deserts": Citations:deseret. - -sche (discuss) 17:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I found two citations which attribute the meaning "honeybee" to it, but they're both really mention-y and explicit about the fact that they're quoting the Book of Mormon. (Also, all of the citations, including the one in Deseret, are lowercase.) - -sche (discuss) 01:47, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
From what I can see, even the quote from the Book of Mormon doesn't cite deseret as an English word - it just gives a word in a non-English language and immediately glosses it (whether or not the language was invented by Smith seems immaterial here, per Talk:ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn). You might as well say that the Vonnegut quote "Their address was this: "Schlachthof-fünf." Schlachthof meant slaughterhouse." is a valid citation of Schlachthof. Smurrayinchester (talk) 08:30, 6 August 2015 (UTC)


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

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


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

Lolol (Mapudungun)[edit]

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


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


French. — Ungoliant (falai) 04:21, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedied. This idiot spends way too much time coming up with vaguely plausible-sounding gibberish to sprinkle through the dictionary. The first clue is that the definition is utterly devoid of anything that makes sense. I guess they got tired of creating "Swedish" entries, and we shut down their "mixing sailors" game, so they've switched to their own language. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:09, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


Template:list:sexual orientations/zza[edit]

AFAICT none of these terms are attested. The three(!) raw Google hits are us, us again, and a mirror of us. - -sche (discuss) 04:39, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


farrand (and the other spellings)[edit]

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

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


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


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


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


Appar only in the single source cited. Two more? Equinox 21:25, 8 August 2015 (UTC)


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


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


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


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


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


Googled this and got a bunch of x-rated hits. Any indication that this is used as a synonym for breastfeed? Aperiarcam (talk) 03:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Cited. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 04:26, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

boob milk[edit]

Same as above, by the same editor. Aperiarcam (talk) 03:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Mhm. I’ll just stop making more of these until I receive permission. --Romanophile (talk) 03:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Cited. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 04:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

So can I make more? --Romanophile (talk) 00:48, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Why shouldn't you be able to make more? This was easily citable from Google Books alone, so Aperiarcam shouldn't have assumed bad faith on your part. (Although it helps for the creator of an entry to provide citations right out of the gate, especially with slang - basically saves the trouble of someone inevitably RfV'ing it). -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


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


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


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

have fun[edit]


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

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


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


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

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


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

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


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

sexos orales[edit]

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


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


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


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

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

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 [48], [49]. 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 [50], but it's unhelpful for lager, only giving the indefinite plural [51]. 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 [52]. Moved from RFC. Donnanz (talk) 08:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

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

milk factory[edit]

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

[53] [54] (spam) [55] [56] [57]

[58] [59] --Romanophile (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

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


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

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


Looks like a one-off. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 23:17, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

One at a time. Slowly but surely. Yurivict (talk) 09:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Nothing on Usenet, Google Scholar, or Issuu. Just the one word-salady book citation. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 17:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


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

It has three quotations now. Yurivict (talk) 10:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Evidently a joky word: glossed as rare and humorous. Do the citations pass use-mention distinction? Equinox 17:43, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
It doesn't pass CFI. Two of the citations added by Yurivict are not CFI-compliant. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 16:57, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
It does pass CFI, just barely. Turns out there was a single viable Usenet citation to be had and a thesis buried on page 12 of the Google results. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 17:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
The following quotation in the entry seems to be a mention: "Maritodespotism is the domination of the husband over the wife". --Dan Polansky (talk) 21:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


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


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

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


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

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


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

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


Latin. Tagged but not listed. — Ungoliant (falai) 04:18, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Accusative singulars of phrasis are "phrasin" (from Greek) and "phrasim" (Latin), and "phrasem" seems to be an wt creation.
More generally, phrasis needs a cleanup, and similar entries such as analysis, synthesis (should) also need a cleanup, and syntaxis, diaeresis, synaeresis need an inflection table. - 17:20, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry to inform the IP that Wiktionary in fact covers all of Latin, not just classical Latin, and phrasem has seen much use in more modern Latin texts. I don't feel like typing up all the cites, but anyone can look at google books:"phrasem" "quoque" and see that what I say is abundantly true. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:01, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, that form is attestable and en.wt is non-prescriptive. But one could still add notes stating something like "phrasem" is non-classical (if it isn't classical Latin but Late or New Latin) or it is incorrect according to some grammarians (if one can quote grammarians stating that). I don't know whether or not any grammarian explicitly said something like "phrasem" is incorrect, but indirectly some said so by only mentioning "phrasim"/"phrasin". - 00:42, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


Any takers? (unlikely to have a plural if OK) SemperBlotto (talk) 13:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

It is a standard acronym of information technology equipment but not punctuated in the US. It does not have a plural. I added 3 unpunctuated citations but I feel it should be moved to an unpunctuated capitalized entry. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 15:24, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Corrected and then moved to ITE. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:34, 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)


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)

pene femenino[edit]

LWC creation. I don't think that this is the meaning of the term; looking at google books:"pene femenino" I find some references to the clitoris as such and a bunch of talk about the psychoanalytical implications of a woman with a penis, both of which are SOP. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

LWC was exceptionally wrong in absolutely everything. I've just deleted it. We have better things to waste our time on. Equinox 22:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

anibiotika, anibiotikas[edit]

Two more dodgy Danish inflections, obvious typos this time, should be antibiotika and antibiotikas respectively. I have corrected the main entry, so these are now orphaned. See DDO [60]. Donnanz (talk) 20:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd say obvious error, delete. --Hekaheka (talk) 15:18, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Deleted. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
    Not exactly a model exemplar of following the RFV process. The question of attestation was completely avoided. In RFD, we would examine whether this is a common misspelling, but here, in RFV, it was just deleted a day after nomination. And the nominator referenced a dictionary in this RFV, as if this was some kind of prescriptivist continental Wiktionary. Whatever. --Dan Polansky (talk) 22:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
    On reflection they could have been RFD'd. But whatever your philosophy is, they were glaring typos. Donnanz (talk) 09:26, 25 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: [61] --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
It should be renamed to queen's knight's pawn, which is much more common anyway. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 04:47, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


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

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

It refers to the cosmological notion. The existence of other multiverses suggest that the "our" is not defaulty. 21:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Seems stupid. But we seem to have the same problem with universe, Universe. Defining any X as "our X!" is silly. Equinox 01:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
This is tosh, possible even "Tosh" (as it's our tosh). Delete. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Delete. Dbfirs 08:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I have no objection to defining "Universe" as "our universe", since that usage and meaning is well-attested. In various parallel universes, my user name is Choor niceguy or Choor kelpie or Choor chupacabra or Чур монстр, but in our universe, the one where you're reading what I've typed here, it's the name down in my sig. Regarding capital-M "Multiverse", I have never seen that used outside of titles and comics, and need convincing, because off-hand, the "our" doesn't make sense, being redundant. (It's entirely possible that "multiverse" is not an "omniverse" in some usages, so to speak, I have not followed this closely.) And again, regarding the comics usage, that needs to pass WT:FICTION, which is why we don't have Watcher, but WP does have Watcher. Choor monster (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

speech is silver[edit]

Rfv-sense: "speech is valuable"

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


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)
Even the Pynchon citation is very mentiony, immediately followed by a definition, comparable to a lot of "phobia" citations that are just long-form wordlists. - -sche (discuss) 07:57, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't see any such comparison. Pynchon's is a fairly standard use and mention, making good sense if the definition part is omitted and you know the coinage. The wordlists with definitions are nothing but mention. Choor monster (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I think three once-attested nonce words using arno- should be sufficient to attest that it has been or is productive and is included, though it may merit rare and literary labels. DCDuring TALK 15:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree with that. — Ungoliant (falai) 15:37, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


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

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


Doesn't seem to be attested in any spelling. - -sche (discuss) 03:10, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Delete immediately. --Romanophile (talk) 12:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


Really? Nothing like it (or even "trophion") in Lewis & Short. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:34, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Meaning of that word is on Wikipedia. Word "trophion" is latinized word of τροφεῖον, as it is written on that page. I found word τροφεῖον here, here and here. There are also 47 results which have word τροφεῖον and 155 results which have word trophion in Google Books. Thank you. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).
Erm, [62] [63] [64]. Of course I can't read any of that. Renard Migrant (talk) 11:56, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
See Zootrophion. DCDuring TALK 15:22, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes but to be clear, the citations I linked to are apparently in running Latin text. But without being able to read Latin, I can't say what they mean (if they mean anything). Renard Migrant (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
The running Latin text meaning doesn't seem to have much to do with the taxon. I was just trying to provide clues to words that would facilitate discrimination between taxon and other possible citations. DCDuring TALK 14:08, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Cited. @Renard Migrant: your first cite was good (although from the same book as one of mine), but the other two were mentions, not uses. Curiously, one of them seems to claim that there is a book by Georg Pictorius called Zootrophion, which I cannot find any evidence of. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 15:44, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


As above. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:43, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Word trichocentrum and also word zootrophion are in Category: New Latin, that means that many words especially in New Latin aren't in any dictionary, but there are dictionary material. Internet has much more informations than any dictionary. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).
See Trichocentrum. DCDuring TALK 15:08, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
@ that's what we're here to ascertain. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:06, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

rosqueta da parafuseta[edit]

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

rosqueta da parafuseta[edit]

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

mola da grampola[edit]

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


In Greek it is "ἀνώμαλος, -ον" (or with other words "masculine ἀνώμαλος, feminine ἀνώμαλος, neuter ἀνώμαλοςον"), and so it might (also) be "anomalos, -on" in Latin.

  • books?id=v4LC-nELjQYC&pg=PA176 - in this book it is "anomalos, -on". Similarily it is "anōmalos (-us), on (um)" in Georges' dictionary, though "anomalus, anomalus, anomalum" seems strange.
  • books?id=XXhVAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA18 - in this older dictionary it is "Anomalos, -a, -on". Similarily it is "ănōmălŏs (-us), a, on (um)" in Lewis' & Short's dictionary.

As simple quotes for "anomala" do not verify the word "anomalos, a, on" other quotes are needed. For verification one needs quotes which use "anomalos" together with a feminine word (like "conjugatio anomalos"), or quotes which use both anomalos/anomalon and anomala very near to each other (like "conjugatio anomala" next to "verbum anomalon"). - 16:09, E: 16:20, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


German. Are there attesting quotations showing actual use rather than mentions, and thus meeting WT:ATTEST? google books:"Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän". For example, "... wird beim Schreiben des Wortes Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän benötigt ..." is an exemplary mention, as is 'Der „Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän" illustriert in extremer Weise die Möglichkeiten, die gerade in der deutschen Sprache durch ...'. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

delete -- Liliana 09:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
No need to vote; we'll check existence of attesting quotations using the standard RFV process, shan't we? --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
To my surprise, this might actually turn out to be attested. I've found two citations so far; Citations:Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän. - -sche (discuss) 09:48, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Added another quote.
  • Couldn't it be "Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft (+ s) + Kapitän"? de.wp says that Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft (DDSG) was a company.
  • Can "Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän" (two f) be a superseded spelling of "Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän" (three f) when "Donaudampfschifffahrtsgesellschaftskapitän" is not attestable and when the company's name was "Donaudampfschiffahrtsgesellschaft" (two f)?
- 21:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

British tooth[edit]

Familiar with the stereotype but can't see much to meet CFI. Equinox 22:36, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

[65] --Romanophile (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Cited as British teeth. I think this occurs only in the plural form. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 00:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
You have my permission to delete this entry. --Romanophile (talk) 06:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC)


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


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

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


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

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


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

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


RFV of two senses:

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

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

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

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


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


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


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

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


I came across this on the Short pages list, and I'm in doubt that it's a genuine Spanish word. (establecer, anyone?) --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 14:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Five hits on Google. The normal word for "reestablish" is restablecer, as you might expect. Aperiarcam (talk) 05:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Delete. I confused it with restablecer and reestabilizar. Apologies. --A230rjfowe (talk) 08:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


Another Danish balls-up, should be spelt tvetydighed. Fortunately no inflections were done. See the Danish site [66], and DDO [67]. Donnanz (talk) 20:50, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

  • Replacement entry done. It can also be compared with tvetydig. Donnanz (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
    No BGC hits, no uses (only mirrors and whatnot) in the Google hits, created by an editor who doesn't know Danish — speedied. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


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

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

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


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


RFV-sense "boar". I created this based on etymological dictionaries and Talk:boar, now the question is: is it attested in German, in this spelling, in isolation? The homography to Bär ‎(bear) would seem to make it impossible to use, or to search for now. It's attested in compounds (Schweinsbär, Schweinebär, Schweinbär, and Saubär, and possibly some uses of Wildbär), and its Middle High German predecessor would meet CFI. And I can find indirect evidence, like:

  • Johann Georg Krünitz, Oekonomische Encyclopaedie oder allgemeines System (1842):
    Im Oesterreichischen heißt daher der Bär (ursus) Tatzbär, zum Unterschiede von dem Eber, der daselbst gleichfalls Bär genannt wird.
    In Austrian the Bär [bear] (ursus) is therefore called 'paw-bear', to distinguish it from the boar, which is itself called Bär [boar].

- -sche (discuss) 06:17, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


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

Àwọn Erékùṣù Fàróè[edit]

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


Another one from Visviva's bot-powered scraping of journals. I gather BigData is the name of some software program but I don't think this is a legit alt form of big data, just a one-off error. Equinox 15:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


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

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


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

Well, here's one (hyphenated), although I'd probably be more inclined to remove the entry than the ivy. -- · (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
This section of wall, rebuilt and de-ivied, stood 20ft high.
  • Funnily enough I found a reference here for deivying as a noun [68], but maybe it should be discounted. Donnanz (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
    It's not English for a start. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


The dialect of English spoken in Hull, Yorkshire. — Ungoliant (falai) 18:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I've added two citations to the entry. Here's another, although I'm not sure it's the right sense:
  • 1940 March 25, John K Jessup, Spruille Braden, in Life:
    In his own bailiwick of Latin-American relations, Spruille Braden arose like the answer to this prayer. Nobody had to ask twice where he stood. No Hullish circumlocutions, no Byrnesian juggling for him.
We're missing a word hullish (not all of the Google Books hits are scannos). - -sche (discuss) 06:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The 2012 citation is easily interpreted as a more general adjective "of or pertaining to Hull", as is the Batty citation I just added. - -sche (discuss) 07:00, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


Strange spelling (see Talk:Coleridegy) and all the hits seem to be copies of Poe. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

A Poe nonce is probably worth keeping because he is a major author; I wonder whether this spelling is a typo from some later edition though. Equinox 02:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
It looks like just a typo, but you can add it to Appendix:English nonces if you like. - -sche (discuss) 17:46, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


Probably not high on anybody's list, but some Esperantist should go around rounding up all the probable neologisms we have. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I've added three citations from Usenet. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 21:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I need to work on fine-tuning when my neologism senses tingle. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


does wearing beige clothes count as nudity? Isn't this the possibly racist definition? What is the source that wearing beige color cloth counts as nudity? It is looking like nude, but not actually nude. Yurivict (talk) 00:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

google books:"nude colored". The definition under question is "Of a beige or tan color, evoking bare skin." which makes your questions off target; we aren't saying it counts as nudity. --Prosfilaes (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict) This adjective is used to indicate that something is of a colour that resembles bare human skin. It's mostly applied to clothing and make-up. "Nude bra", for example, means a skin-tone-coloured bra. The fact that the definition specified only "beige or tan" was probably an oversight rather than a deliberate exclusion of other skin tones. Anyway, I edited the definition to be more inclusive. -Cloudcuckoolander (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I've added two citations. I've also undone the broadening of the def to include any skin tone; checking various clothing stores and Google Images one can confirm that "nude" clothing is the colour of white people's skin. It wouldn't surprise me if there were now a few lines of clothing than had other 'nude' shades (like black), but I think the 'beige' sense meets CFI regardless on account of the historical usage where it is limited to white skin tones, in a manner than couldn't be predicted (without knowledge of how societies where whites are culturally dominant tend to make whiteness the default). - -sche (discuss) 01:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I've added another citation for a total of three. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 01:30, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I've added three more citations which are clear about what colour they mean: " choose warm pinks and corals or a soft nude color with a peachy undertone", Raquel Welch saying "a nude color like MAC's Spice mixed with Mochaberry Automatic Lip Liner", and "Hitchcock Blonde—a barely-there nude color with a dash of pink that was only two shades away from clear topcoat". - -sche (discuss) 02:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
It definitely exists, e.g. google books:"nude tights" which are definitely not tights that aren't wearing any clothing. My understanding is, rightly or wrongly, that nude tights match the person's skin color (obviously not necessarily with 100% accuracy). What Yurivict isn't relevant though I think it's because he's not heard of the term rather than any malice. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


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

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

deep web[edit]

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

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


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

I've heard and said it, but that's just because I empty a garbage can and run cleanups at our local park/dogrun. I would NOT claim "widespread use". DCDuring TALK 17:15, 29 August 2015 (UTC)


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)

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)