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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Deleting or removing the entry or sense (if it failed), or de-tagging it (if it passed). In either case, the edit summary or deletion summary should indicate what is happening.
  • Adding a comment to the discussion here with either RFV failed or RFV passed, 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


August 2015[edit]

lagerene, lagerenes[edit]

These are not accepted forms of lager in Danish. See DDO [1], [2]. 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 [3], but it's unhelpful for lager, only giving the indefinite plural [4]. 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)
Of the Google Books hits I see, Automatisering/instrumentering av skip is Norwegian and Revista del Rio de la Plata is not a Germanic language and is also a scanno. Christina Brok is a Danish author, but she's the only one I see:
  • 2015, Fortidens Identitet: Identitetens Magt 1, page 56:
    "Du kan hjælpe KC med at gøre lagerene op i morgen."
I don't see any hits for lagerenes. (Once this is archived: compare bestillede.) - -sche (discuss) 03:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

bestillede, bestilledes[edit]

These are incorrect forms of bestille in Danish. See DDO [5]. Moved from RFC. Donnanz (talk) 08:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Note to closer: See discussion above [of lagerene]. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:50, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Bestillede seems to be attested but obsolete. Bestilledes is less common. Some Google Books hits are Norwegian and some are scannos, but some seem to be old Danish:
  • 1723, Biblia, / Det er / Den gandske / [H?]ell. [S?]kriftes / Bøger, page 502:
    [...]; og jeg bestillede (nogle) af mine svenne[?] hos portene, at ingen byrde skulde [...]
    [...]; and I ordered (some) of my [svenne?] at the gates that no load should [...]
  • 1778, Hagiographa, eller, efter gammel Inddeling, Sidste Samling, Den 2. Krønikerues Bog (2 Chronicles) 19:5, page 727:
    End bestillede han Dommerei Landet, udi alle Juda faste Stader, for enhver Bye:
    [more modern Bible]: Og han indsatte Dommere i Landet i hver enkelt af de befæsfede Byer i Juda.
    [KJV]: And he set judges in the land throughout all the fenced cities of Judah, city by city, [...]
  • 1851, Den Danske Krønike Af Saxo Grammaticus (Israel Salomon Levin, ‎Adolph Engelbert Boye), page cclii:
    Huilcket hand bestillede tuert imod sit eget løffte oc Kongens befalning.
    Which hand ordered [tours?] against his own promise and the king's order.
  • 1903, Julius Clausen, ‎Orla Lehmann, Af Orla Lehmanns papirer: bidrag til Danmarks tidshistorie i det 19. aarhundrede:
    Borgmesteren, Overauditør Qvistgaard, fandt jeg paa hans Bopæl, men kunde kun veksle nogle faa Ord med ham, da jeg straks bestilledes hen til den tæt udenfor værende Højstkommanderende, en Oberst St. Paul.
    The mayor, Superior-Auditor Qvistgaard, I found in his residence, but [I] could only exchange a few words with him, then I was immediately ordered to [go?] close by outside [by the current?] High-Commander, a Colonel St. Paul.
  • 1922, Holberg aarbog, page 71:
    og blev om-beden at flye dem at vide hvad fornevnte Dellings Herskab udi Tydskland giorde og bestillede, da haver han lavet sig til og sad og ravede,
It's even in an 1845 A Danish-English Dictionary: Bestille, v. a. bestillede & bestilte; bestilt, to do, perform; to bespeak, order;
- -sche (discuss) 02:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


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

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

It refers to the cosmological notion. The existence of other multiverses suggest that the "our" is not defaulty. 21:39, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Seems stupid. But we seem to have the same problem with universe, Universe. Defining any X as "our X!" is silly. Equinox 01:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
This is tosh, possible even "Tosh" (as it's our tosh). Delete. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, Delete. Dbfirs 08:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I have no objection to defining "Universe" as "our universe", since that usage and meaning is well-attested. In various parallel universes, my user name is Choor niceguy or Choor kelpie or Choor chupacabra or Чур монстр, but in our universe, the one where you're reading what I've typed here, it's the name down in my sig. Regarding capital-M "Multiverse", I have never seen that used outside of titles and comics, and need convincing, because off-hand, the "our" doesn't make sense, being redundant. (It's entirely possible that "multiverse" is not an "omniverse" in some usages, so to speak, I have not followed this closely.) And again, regarding the comics usage, that needs to pass WT:FICTION, which is why we don't have Watcher, but WP does have Watcher. Choor monster (talk) 15:20, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete: I've done some looking around, and have found only one "Multiverse" outside the comics [6]. I found this high-level reference Universe or Multiverse?: the contributors use "multiverse" exclusively. And Tom Holt, in his last four novels, uses "multiverse" exclusively. Choor monster (talk) 18:30, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
  • A dynamic model of the wormhole and the Multiverse model
    Superposing enough dust matter, a magnetic field, and a Λ term can produce a static solution, which turns out to be a spherical Multiverse model with an infinite number of wormhole-connected spherical universes. (abstract)
    This Multiverse landscape of solutions, which we shall refer to as the /F-SU(5)/-Landscape, accommodates a subset of universes compatible with the presently known experimental uncertainties of our own universe. (abstract)
  • CiteSeerX
    End users encapsulate tasks for the crowd in VMs that are then replicated on the Multiverse server and controlled by crowd workers via a web-based VNC connection. (abstract, probably proper noun use unfortunately, using Multiverse to name a system of operating system(s) and software.)
  • Ghost spinors, shadow electrons and the Deutsch Multiverse
    So and David Deutsch [1] makes an attempt logically to explain the phenomenon of an inter- ference of quantum particles and comes to a conclusion about existence of the parallel worlds, in all set representing Multiverse [1]. (pdf of article)
  • The theory of Multiverse, multiplicity of physical objects and physical constants
    Correct description of the Multiverse can be done only within the framework of the quantum theory. (pdf of article)
Amgine/ t·e 19:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Item 3 is a proper noun, as you note, so of no relevance here. (Google "multiverse crowd algorithms" if you want more specifics.) None of the others refer to the "our multiverse" definition, but are merely a capitalized "multiverse". We normally don't include separate entries for terms that sometimes or even often get capitalized (we have general relativity but not General Relativity). Note too that the fourth and fifth items are non-native speakers (and colleagues). Choor monster (talk) 23:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. The Multiverse as a proper noun is a well-established cosmological concept. It refers to the multiverse in which our Universe is located. Whether or not more than one multiverse can exist though (and would thus necessitate capitalization to distinguish from other multiverses) is a tetchy subject since the multiverse exists outside of our spacetime. However, the capitalized form should still be kept since it refers to a specific place, even if that place is unique (and outside of "placeable" space). Multiverse (capitalized) refers to the specific location of our Universe, whereas multiverse (uncapitalized) refers to the concept of multiple universes. Nicole Sharp (talk) 05:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
    • This is why I placed the RfV in the first place. What usages of "Multiverse" can somebody cite where distinguishing "our" (hypothetical) multiverse from all the other (hypothetical) multiverses is part of the writing? I only get the impression that some people like capital-M, some do not. Choor monster (talk) 16:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Keep. Proper noun – e.g. the Moon vs a moon. Our, i.e. this, Multiverse is the plurality of quantum possibilities of our, i.e. this, Universe? If there is a mathematical model, I am guessing, then there would be a distinction between "this" within the set and "that" not-within the set. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 19:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
"Keep" votes do little in this forum. Above, there's mention of (only) one citation that clearly supports the semantic distinction. Plenty of citations prefer one capitalization or the other. I would keep this as an alt form of "multiverse". - -sche (discuss) 03:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


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

@Bumm13 Well, the Kangxi Dictionary says that 桉 is the same as , which does have the meaning of "table; desk". It might be better to put a {{zh-see}} so that we don't have to put all the sense of 案 in the 桉 entry. — Justinrleung (t...)c=› 21:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
@Wyang, should this entry be switched to use {{zh-see}}, per the comments above? - -sche (discuss) 05:01, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it should be split by etymology and pronunciation. Wyang (talk) 08:13, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
@Atitarev: is this edit correct? If not, please do whatever needs to be done to the entry. - -sche (discuss) 22:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

September 2015[edit]

Slough of Despond[edit]

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

  • Comment: On the first page of BGC, there's not much hope for the current definition, but a couple citations for what appears to be a participant in logic experiments. The logic-related term appears to have been coined by Charles Sanders Peirce. Here's a quote related to the logic term:
    • 1933, Charles Sanders Peirce, chapter ..., in Collected Papers of Charles Sanders Peirce[7], ISBN 0674138015, page 4.432:
      It may be considered as the expression of whatever must be well-understood between the graphist and the interpreter of the graph before the latter can understand what to expect of the graph.

Purplebackpack89 13:56, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

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

Snow Queen[edit]

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

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


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

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

October 2015[edit]


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

It looks like it. From what I can tell, it's Scotts dialect, and obsolete, which will make good citations difficult. I added a handful of more modern citations, which clearly found the old definition in a dictionary and used it for effect. Kiwima (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
RFV failed. Equinox 16:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is why I keep saying we should get rid of the words durably archived. Because we don't allow all durably archived stuff. With The Wayback Machine you can durably archive anything you like but that doesn't mean we'll accept it. If we want to allow only published stuff and Usenet, let's stop lying to everyone and come out and say it. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)


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

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

You can easily find sources that list it as a prefix of 1/10000, but actually it has never been used. in the 19th century, they used the prefix decimilli- for 1/10000. See fr:myrio-. — TAKASUGI Shinji (talk) 17:11, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

law school[edit]

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

Sure they do - try googling "has a law school" and you will find lots of hits with that meaning. I even find a few with "provides a law school". Kiwima (talk) 18:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
In "has a law school" the "institution" definition is a perfect fit. One would be hard pressed to find a law school that did not have its own institutional identity, which is why the four OneLook dictionaries that have possibly independent definitions only have the single "institution" definition. I am not sure what citations can be found with verbs that tend to collocate with program and not institution. Offer and provide are such verbs. There must be others. DCDuring TALK 23:32, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
While I see your point, if you look at the citations I added to the entry, they speak of a university having a law school. In these cases, I would think that the institution is the university and the law school is a program or division of said institution. Kiwima (talk) 00:34, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, but by the second definition, that would make the university a law school. Harvard University has a law school: Harvard Law School. Harvard University itself isn't a law school. Now, one could say: "The high-paying job definitely was worth all those years of law school." That would seem to refer to something other than an institution, but I'm not sure. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Law schools have separate deans, faculties, courses, degrees, admissions, mailing addresses, etc. I don't know what else it would take for it to be an institution. Note that no other OneLook dictionary finds it necessary to have two definitions. I am still open to citations incompatible with an "institution" definition.
"All those years of law school" is a lot like "All those years of consulting". I don't think we would want to define "consulting" as "employment as a consultant." DCDuring TALK 01:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
  • The reason I nominated this, I guess, is that the word "program" sounds off to me. A program is something that is written up and organised. Isn't a law school something much bigger than that? ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree with DCDuring. How about combining the senses like so? (Compare Talk:UCLA.) - -sche (discuss) 07:46, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

risorgimento as a common noun[edit]

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

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


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

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

and possibly also a type of elk:

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

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


  • WT:FICTIONΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:22, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
    • The term "Mooninite" to describe Lunarians is well-used on the US television show Aqua Teen Hunger Force. wikipedia:Mooninite Nicole Sharp (talk) 03:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Please read WT:FICTION: by itself, that is completely irrelevant- you have to show usage independent of the show. This is a bit tricky, since there was an incident in Boston where some blinking Mooninite figures that were part of a publicity gimmick got mistaken for a bomb, and the authorities massively overreacted. It's hard to say whether "Mooninite" used in references to that incident are independent or not. Either way, though, the term as currently defined doesn't look like it will meet WT:FICTION. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
      • No, I can't find anything usage other than that publicity stunt. I would just delete it. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
      • Delete per Semper. --Diego Grez-Cañete (talk) 04:48, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Googling with -"Aqua Teen" -Boston produces some results. It will take some work to build a decent list of references though. I would say to keep it unless it is proven that the word is a fictional neologism from the show. The best way to check I think would be to search works of early-to-mid-twentieth-century science fiction (such terms were common then); my instinct is that Aqua Teen Hunger Force is not the first place the word has been used, since it is cognate with both of the more common terms of Moon and Selenite. Nicole Sharp (talk) 05:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
  • Just -Boston -Aqua works as well. Here is a decent reference (review by AMC Networks on the classic film A Trip to the Moon), bold emphasis added:
    "In fact, despite the fact that it is so old, this film has it all: a gigantic cannon that fires a rocket ship in the spy [sic], a bevy of beautiful French girls, astronauts, alien flora and insectoid Mooninites. In a literal sense, science fiction does not get more classic than this." [8]
    Nicole Sharp (talk) 05:25, 14 October 2015 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

  • Mainly in Call of Duty games, but it can be done in most first-person shooters. (So, let's say it's related to a precise genre of video games.) I'll edit the definitions later - it can be used as a noun or a verb, so I thought it was relevant to mention both; what can I do to improve the definitions, though? Sik666 (talk) 11:38, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
    @Sik666 What they want you to do on this page is find quotations of usage of the word in "durably archived sources" (eg books and magazines). SpinningSpark 13:53, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
A related term is noscope, which (I believe) is to rapidly turn and fire on an opponent without taking time to aim. Equinox 15:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
  • @Equinox no-scope actually has its own page (although very brief and incomplete — I was thinking of completing it in the near future). @Spinningspark For quotations, I'll search for examples; seems like the definitions have been improved since the creation. Sik666 (talk) 21:06, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Edit: Added a quote. Also, I've added an alternate meaning to the noun. In my opinion, "quickscope" originally meant "a quick look through the scope" and became "a rapid kill (done by means of a quickscope)" over time, as a metonymy. I'm all ears if you find a way to regroup those two meanings or disagree. Sik666 (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
Sik666 added a quotation using quick-scoping, I added two using quick-scoped and one using quickscoping, so at least the verb quick-scope is attested.
I also found [9] (uses quickscoping) and [10] (uses and quotes quick scoping, quick-scope, quickscoping and quick scope). I’m not sure they are durably archived. — Ungoliant (falai) 00:53, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
— Most of the sources are forums and boards which tend to be very unconsistent. Some websites specialized in video games used various spellings of quickscope, but I doubt we can find more reliable quotes as of now. The RFV can be closed (unless someone has something to add?). Sik666 (talk) 09:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


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

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


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

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


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

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

November 2015[edit]

blame Canada[edit]

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

Google scholar yielded 700 results, however some of them are capitalized. --Jarash (talk) 13:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
I'm feeling extremely dubious for a few reasons. First, "central axis" seems to be sum-of-parts. But if it's not, aren't all axes central by definition? If it's an abbreviation, is it a regular abbreviation, or simply one made up by whoever needs to abbreviate "central" and "axis" for some reason? A nonce abbreviation, as it were. If it's a general scientific term or common abbreviation, then it ought to be found in a glossary of scientific terms, or at least one dealing with some branch of science concerned with items that have multiple axes (minerology, perhaps). P Aculeius (talk) 13:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
The scholar hits seem to be for "cation exchange", "calcium halide" but not for "central axis" as far as I can tell. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
There are 954 mentions of "cation exchange" in scholar. --Jarash (talk) 12:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Moved to CAX. The 1999, 2000, and 2003 citations all support the sense "central axis", and all are for the spelling "CAX". The 2000 and 2003 quotations are mentions, but the works that they come from also use the term later on. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 11:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


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

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

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

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

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

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

man down[edit]

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

I find enough cites for "to reduce in manpower":
  • 1913, Fiji. Legislative Council, Debates, page 36:
    The Hon. HENRY MARKS: We are dealing with the Supplementary Estimates, and included in the Estimates I find Mr. Mortle mans down here again.
  • 1973, Canadian Labour - Volume 18, page 10:
    The employer is usually attempting to cut out manning down on a particular piece of equipment, and they have a meeting with us to try to get some kind of an agreement.
  • 2011, Denise A. Bates, House of Bull: Book Three, ISBN 1452011672, page 392:
    These men have gotten word that the fort we left, Ridgeway, is manning down.
There is also some evidence for to intimidate:
  • 1924, George Allan England, The White Wilderness, page 160:
    A famous champion, he; super-expert in the art of "manning down" his opponent, and sometimes in the heat of battle glowing with such an ardour of excitement that he would make wide jumps, quite against every rule, and sweep off pieces wholesale.
And I found one quote to support the supplied meaning:
  • 2013, Alexei Auld, Tonto Canto Pocahontas:
    Normally, I'd psych myself out of approaching her. I looked at her, trying to find something that reinforced my manning down.
There also seems to be a meaning having to do with falconry - from context it looks like a process of reducing food intake to cause weight loss:
  • 2014, Ben Crane, Sparrowhawks: A Falconer's Guide, ISBN 1847977103:
    When taken directly from the chamber, initially Mrs Woods showed a high level of fear but when manned down, she went on to show no aggression whatsoever.
  • 1995, Association of Avian Veterinarians. Conference, Main Conference Proceedings, page 176:
    This critical period involves manning down the raptor, slowly lowering the body weight, and controlled flight training.
Kiwima (talk) 04:37, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
    • I've made a citations page, found one more for the falconry thing and taken a stab at writing a def for that one, also added the manpower one. I found a second use for "to intimidate", but that's still only two. I've switched this rfv to be for the "lose courage" sense, which still only has that one cite you found. WurdSnatcher (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
I suppose we could combine the two courage ones into a single definition - something like "To lose courage or cause to lose courage", and then use the three cites for that. Kiwima (talk) 19:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the 1973 Canadian Labour manpower cite is good. It is at least ambiguous. I find the more natural reading to be "the employer is usually attempting to (cut out) (manning) (down on) a particular piece of equipment."
Another reading would be that it was a blend of "cut out" and "cut down" resulting from a mid-sentence edit of speech.
They all look like nonce creative exploitations of "man"'s normal meaning by verbing it. The heterogeneous nature of the uses suggests that there are probably other meanings also. DCDuring TALK 20:25, 13 December 2015 (UTC)


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

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

en passants[edit]

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

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


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

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

avoid as a result of fear[edit]

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

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

Searched "he chickened" -out. Got a few hits, all of which seem to be shortened versions of "chickened out", with the same meaning. P Aculeius (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, I was originally going to rfv that sense, but saw it has some use. I was curious if there are any phrasal verbs whose first component can't be a standalone verb. I guess this sorta counts since I'm sure chicken out came first, so there must have been some time before chicken was used on its own (at least 1946). WurdSnatcher (talk)
I searched for "he chickened the" on Google Books, hoping for something like "he chickened the dare". All I found was "he chickened the rest of the way out", which I think is some kind of resultative construction (cf. "died a death", "the dog barked me awake"). Eirikr is right about! Equinox 01:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
  • I parse that more as an alternative construction to "he chickened out the rest of the way". ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
What I was getting was "he chickened before he could do blah" and similar hits. Should be chickened out, but with the out omitted. P Aculeius (talk) 23:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, it's actually marked intransitive. Sorry, I wasn't paying enough attention. Equinox 02:36, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
There's a few that look questionable to me: [11] [12] [13] WurdSnatcher (talk)
Those look like good cites. I think that the sense of chicken in question is a backformation from chicken out, ie, a different etymology. DCDuring TALK 02:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Cited and moved to a different etymology. WurdSnatcher (talk) 18:19, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Not a backformation, just elision of the word 'out'. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Omission rather. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

slide off[edit]

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

  • Sounds OK to me, keep. Donnanz (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Sounds like a mistake for slip away. P Aculeius (talk) 18:30, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • It doesn't ring a bell with me...I have to admit, it sounds like a mistake for slip off (from work, etc.), which gets at least a few hits here: slip off from work Leasnam (talk) 18:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
  • To keep the challenged sense we need citations, not votes. Opinions are of value principally for their contribution to encouraging or discouraging people from getting citations. DCDuring TALK 18:47, 19 November 2015
  • How about these:
  • 1982, John Le Carré, The Quest for Karla, page 162:
    Soon as he could, he slid off to Jim's rooms to make sure he'd left nothing around that a journalist might pick on if a journalist were clever enough to make the connection, Ellis to Prideaux.
  • 2009, David Nobbs, I Didn't Get Where I Am Today, ISBN 1409066967, page 444:
    Susan and I slid off to an Indian restaurant in Shepherd's Bush, and I slid off on to the floor.
  • 2011, Lamont Z. Brown Phoenix King, ‎& Lamont Z. Brown, Between the Gates of Heaven and Hell, ISBN 1426952619, page 10:
    As Simone and the crowd praised Drew I slid off to the back hurt, ashamed, and pissed off.
  • 2013, Steven Gould, Impulse, ISBN 1429987545:
    I slid off to follow her and I heard the scrape of a board on snow.
Kiwima (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Well those don't support the given def. Something like "to sneak" might be valid, but I'm not sure. slide can mean "To pass or put imperceptibly; to slip" and those uses sound like that def + out. You can also slide away, slide by, slide past, etc. WurdSnatcher (talk)
Perhaps the definition needs refinement, but I think they are the meaning that the author of the definition was intending. If you consider it just SOP, that falls under requests for deletion, not requests for verification. Kiwima (talk) 11:18, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
Those just look like slide + off for me. The part that makes it idiomatic is "early", but those cites don't suggest anyone is leaving early. WurdSnatcher (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
In what way do those not support the given def? To "leave without being noticed" is pretty much synonymous with "sneak off". Just for the record, I remember this a very common phrase from my youth when avoiding school/work/chores was done at every available opportunity. SpinningSpark 12:30, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
None of those give us any reason to think they are leaving something early. I agree that it's common, it's just not idiomatic. You can slip off, but you can also slip over, slip in, slip away, slip down, etc. WurdSnatcher (talk)
I am not arguing this point, but if that is your objection, move this to requests for deletion. It is not a question of verification. Kiwima (talk) 18:05, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
The definition that I'm challenging is idiomatic. If it is real, it should be kept. The definition that you cited and that SpinningSpark is talking about is SOP. WurdSnatcher (talk)
No more so than slip off, which is not challenged. Kiwima (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
MWOnline has, for intransitive, the following:
4 a : to move or pass smoothly or easily <slid into the prepared speech>
[4]b : to pass unnoticed or unremarked <let the criticism slide>
Why do our definitions for basic verbs suck? DCDuring TALK 22:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Because not a single one of our editors is a professional lexicographer. --WikiTiki89 22:34, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

holla back[edit]

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

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

cliff notes[edit]

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

More common as "Cliff notes" or "Cliff Notes", but citeable.
  • 2014, CP Moore, Legacy of the Gods, CP Moore (ISBN 9781506191577)
    Well, of course there's more, a lot more. But that's the cliff notes of what faces us once we find Sanderson.
  • 2012, Gary Wayne Clark, The Devolution Chronicles: Rise of the Chimera, Lulu.com (ISBN 9780985343828), page 105
    Ryker stepped forward and blurted out the cliff notes of the current crisis.
  • 2015, Jack Fisher, The Escort and the Gigolo, Lulu Press, Inc (ISBN 9781483429977)
    “If this is you being serious, I'll just give you the cliff notes of the plan for tonight,” said Ray.
Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:24, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
That's very good, and I've put that in the entry. But the sense in these cites is different from what is in the entry now: "A summary of a much longer work designed to allow a student to quickly learn the key points of the longer work". Can that sense be cited? This, that and the other (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
I'd just stick with the broader "summary of anything"-type sense. Purplebackpack89 23:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Given the citations, it seems to have entered the lexicon. I would prefer us to have Cliff capitalised (Cliff notes) like the first name it derives from; is that not more common than the lower-case form? Equinox 01:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


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

It's just an alternative spelling of quede. Dbfirs 22:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
quede and qued should be merged. Since there is more at qued, I suppose it can go there (?) Leasnam (talk) 19:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

"qued" spelt thusly is in Roget's Descriptive Word Finder page 141 by Barbara Kipfer, 2003, meaning "evil, bad". Sk4p (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

None of the OED's quotations at their entry for quede and its numerous alternative spellings show the qued spelling after 1450. This looks to be a Middle English-only spelling. DCDuring TALK 15:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

pack in[edit]

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

I can't think of a non-SoP US football sense, but I also can't think of any other non-SoP senses - and evidently others think they can. I guess I should just pack it in as an amateur lexicographer. DCDuring TALK 20:08, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I think it's generally ok to remove {{rfdef}} when there are other definitions and no citations. How are we supposed to guess what the other meanings are without even evidence to look at? Renard Migrant (talk) 12:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
@Renard Migrant: Without the RfV we could be seen as asserting that there definitely is a US football definition, though we can't word it properly. Conversely, the RfV is a challenge to any US football definition. The citation search work for any US football sense is generally not too much more than for one.
An alternative is to have a comment (displayed or not?) in the {{rfdef}}. I lean toward allowing the RfV of a def line with only a label and {{rfdef}}. DCDuring TALK 13:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
I've got a couple of cites from rugby (that's the same as American football isn't it? just not so much girlie protection) but I'm not sure that the vrbb is not pack plus the preposition in.
The first one is clearly just "pack" plus the preposition "in": The next sentance begins "Before deciding how to pack, ". The second one looks similar, but is not as clear Kiwima (talk) 02:46, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The citations do not seem to me to be using in#Preposition, but rather in#Adverb. That might make it SoP or it might be a phrasal verb. The citations make it seem that there might be a "technical" meaning for pack#Verb in rugby. DCDuring TALK 15:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: exclamatory final particle

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



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

Just google for "žabar" "francuz" (with quote marks) and you'll find results that corroborate such usage. Fojr (talk) 12:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Can you provide evidence? I tried it and it gets tonnes of hits, but in Polish. Also Google on its own not an acceptable source. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Examples of usage with the sense "Frenchman", from the first couple of pages of Google's results : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Fojr (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
Any CFI-meeting ones? Renard Migrant (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
The number of occurences of that sense suggests a "clearly widespread usage". Fojr (talk) 09:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I'll take that as a no, then. Bare in mind it's not up to me. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:06, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


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

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

December 2015[edit]


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

What I get from this [14] is that Bailey's original definition was of writing that was unnecessarily great or prodigious. This would fit with the "monstrous" etymology of the word. Johnson's contraction of Bailey's wordy definition has somehow lost the original meaning and our entry has followed Johnson. It seems to me that there is a valid third meaning but it needs rewriting. Richard Kearney seems to think that this is a medieval term (study of monsters - all too credible for that era) and he is re-coining it with a new purpose;
  • This third approach I term—borrowing from medieval parlance—a teratology of the sublime in that it focuses on the "monstrous" character of God.[15]
  • ...I would identify a more recent and widespread tendency to remove evil from the realm of a properly human interpretation: what I call a postmodern teratology of the sublime.[16]
With "study, or writing, of monsters" as a definition, or even Bailey's "monstrous writing", there are more cites available;
  • Mieville's fictions as sublime backwash, inclusive of teratological angels and teratological shit, inclusive of the language of flowers and of the solar anus...[17]
  • In this way, this analysis has aimed at expanding gaga feminism by undertaking a critical teratology, that is, of course, the study of monsters.[18] (they're talking about Ladu Gaga!)
  • In Jack London's urban gothic, the city's teratological economy comes to light in grotesque animal allegories.[19]
  • A Final Teratology [20] (section heading)
  • Miranda Francus notes that in the West, the image of the fecund female has often been associated with monstrosity: 'misogyny and teratology have always met in the image of the maternal monster'.[21]
  • Despite being productive in embodying and critiquing human problems, however, teh incorporation of the cyborg into teratology overlooks one important aspect that distinguishes this cybernetic creature from the rest of the monster phylum: we are able to choose how to fabricate and use the cyborg.[22]
SpinningSpark 20:21, 8 December 2015 (UTC)


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

I have added two entries to the citations page, but can't find a third. Kiwima (talk) 07:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
There are more citations available for the hyphenated form, so I think we should have an entry at one or the other. SpinningSpark 18:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
I am not so sure about that...hyphenated forms that are simply SOP don't seem worth entering, and the unhyphenated form does not have enough cites. Kiwima (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
SOP of what? There is no English word culturo nor prefix culturo-. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:51, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
"culture" + "o" (for combining form) + "scientific". Kiwima (talk) 22:48, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
We've never evaluated SOPpiness at the level of the bound morpheme, otherwise birds would be SOP as bird + -s. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm not sure where this discussion is going, but I've added more cites of the hyphenated form. Note that the last one I put in (Libraries of the British Council) appears to be hyphenated only because the word is breaking across lines. SpinningSpark 22:22, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
RFV failed: moved to culturo-scientific in line with the citations. Equinox 16:42, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

bosom friend[edit]

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

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


Rfv-sense: adjective.

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

What is the test for a true adjective? SpinningSpark 22:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
See Wiktionary:English adjectives. One test that might be useful in this case is predicative use: Is it possible to say, for example, "This book is gardening" to mean "This book is a gardening book"? —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 22:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Ungoliant; see [23]. Donnanz (talk) 10:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
The above link is to oxforddictionaries.com. I do not see why this particular dictionary should matter all that much. It is not OED. Multiple good dictionaries can be consulted at gardening at OneLook Dictionary Search. Of them, Collins[24] has a dedicated line (b) "(as modifier)" in its noun entry. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:38, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
So does Oxford, if you don't mind me saying so, but with the orange colour they use it doesn't show up very well. Donnanz (talk) 11:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Oh, you're right. So for some reason, Collins and oxforddictionaries.com see it worthwhile to single out the modifier use. --Dan Polansky (talk) 11:43, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
The OED itself does indeed have an adjective sense for the word (definition:- that gardens). SemperBlotto (talk) 11:49, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
That's different: a participial adjective. ("Living creatures" vs. "living conditions".) Equinox 15:15, 21 December 2015 (UTC)


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

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

slippery slope[edit]

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

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

Are we ready to conclude by:

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

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

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


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

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


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

Delete Japanese, Korean and Vietnamese sections. This vulgar character is only used in vernacular Cantonese. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 02:15, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Indeed, the Japanese doesn't exist. There is no Korean entry on the page. However, the Vietnamese character appears to be documented. Unihan database gives a value of "V2-736D" for kIRG_VSource, and furthermore, zdic says that this character means "prostitute" in 字喃/chữ Nôm. I've added the info from zdic to the entry with a references section ^^ Nibiko (talk) 02:35, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Unihan data is problematic. It provides readings for CJKV languages for characters, such as Japanese specific shinjitai or Chinese simplified characters, which were never used by other languages. I have added RFV for Vietnamese as well. An actual usage should be provided, otherwise the sections will be deleted.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 04:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
zdic is reliable. It's hard to provide a usage for chữ Nôm. Nibiko (talk) 05:04, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
For what it's worth, a quick Google search for "𡚦 喃" seems to produce at least two results that back up "prostitute", one in a Chu Nom wiki (possibly) and another at "hannom.vass.gov.vn" (certainly, if Google Translate is to be trusted). —suzukaze (tc) 05:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
@suzukaze-c, Atitarev, Nibiko: This and this (with "đĩ" in the search) should confirm the usage of this character in Vietnamese. The first gives "đánh đĩ, đĩ điếm; mẹ đĩ" as context for this character. Other variants include 𡛜, 𡜤, 𡞖 and 妓. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 18:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Since dictionary entries are confirmed, I am withdrawing my vote for Vietnamese. I've made an entry đĩ. It's strange that "mẹ đĩ" means "the mother of our little girl; my wife". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:45, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sorry. it probably should be deleted, suzukaze said it is only used as a "weird replacement character" for 女, probably this was true in the contexts I saw it too, but my brain interpreted a wrong meaning. Possibly, my mistake is because I am used to expanded meanings and shifts based on multicultural life, and memes... I still consider maybe there was a porn where it was used in the title, unfortunately it is impossible to find if it was a "stylized pun" of 女... 天人了 (talk) 04:07, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


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

I found these two:

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

January 2016[edit]


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

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

știință socială[edit]

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

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


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

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

butterfly door[edit]

The Lamborghini Murciélago with butterfly doors.

The definition given looks to me like the definition of a revolving door. "Butterfly door" a.k.a. "scissor door" is used of a certain type of car doors, see Butterfly door or this result of Google image search [25]. --Hekaheka (talk) 17:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The National Fire Protection Association uses this butterfly door (see this 1995 report [27]) [double-panel center pivot door] -- 04:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

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


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

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

Liberal Republican[edit]

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

Conservative Democrat[edit]

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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


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

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

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

vidunderleg (Nynorsk)[edit]

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

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

god forfend[edit]

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

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

god forbid[edit]

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

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


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

While Pashto lacks even basic words here and the standard word for Egypt - مصر, some users just have the wrong agenda. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 06:56, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
I've made a Pashto and Urdu entries in مصر, replaced the unverifiable کومت with مصر as a Pashto translation at Egypt. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 01:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
The reference added to the entry links to "Pashto Purification"'s Facebook page. Make of it what you will. —suzukaze (tc) 01:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
Nope, nothing wrong here /s —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 16:55, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
@Aryamanarora What do you mean "nothing wrong here"? The link won't qualify for CFI at all. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 23:31, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
@Atitarev Normally, "/s" is internet slang for sarcasm. (It failed an RFV on Wiktionary; see Talk:/s). —Aryamanarora (मुझसे बात करो) 00:30, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Deleted because marked for speedy deletion by the page creator. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:10, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


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

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

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


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

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

English disease[edit]


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

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


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


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

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

thug life[edit]

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

It features in Tupac Shakur's song "Runnin' (Dying to Live)" (2003), but I don't know if he was the originator of the term. According to this source, it "became (and still remains) for many disenfranchised youths a celebrated banner of the 'ghetto soldier's' conviction to live without fear of death as well as a defiant mark of their disregard for all authority". See also [28] and [29]. I have the impression that it is often used in the sense of "a bold and ostentatious lifestyle" rather than merely "a gangster's lifestyle". Smuconlaw (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
These days it's mostly known for being a meme. Check out some funny "thug life" videos. I'd define this as a phrase, involving rebellion. People use the phrase "thug life" to mean "I'm a real rebel", albeit heavily ironic. --Ce mot-ci (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
RFV passed. Equinox 23:04, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


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

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


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

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


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

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


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

Those synonyms seems more like hyponyms coordinate terms (perhaps not all wannabe's go to such an extreme...). Prob better to list them under that heading or 'See also' (?) Leasnam (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I would say that second sense (if verified) is dated...it reminds me of the mindset of some from the 1940's and 1950's in segregated America Leasnam (talk) 19:59, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
We could probably find missing definitions for large numbers of words if we could find a corpus of leftist English-language newspapers. But the oppressors have made that impossible. 21:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Hmm. I'd say the usage example is just sense 1, but nevertheless, there are some promising hits (although the sense would be better as "Someone who aspires to join or assimilate with an oppressor or the oppressed")
  • 1991, Nancie Caraway, Segregated Sisterhood: Racism and the Politics of American Feminism, Univ. of Tennessee Press (ISBN 9780870497209), page 95
    Contemporary Black women remain victimized by — and often perpetrators of — the "wannabe" (as in the "I wannabe white" phenomenon dramatized in Spike Lee's film School Daze) ideology that contributes to their own and their Black sisters' oppression
  • 1994, Carol Camper, Miscegenation Blues: Voices of Mixed Race Women, Sister Vision Press (ISBN 9780920813959)
    What I never want to hear again: "Mutt" "Half-breed" "Heinz 57" "Wannabe" I never want to face another door opened by a mother who calls the child of her own body racist names.
  • 2014, Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, Outlaw Woman: A Memoir of the War Years, 1960–1975, Revised Edition, University of Oklahoma Press (ISBN 9780806145372), page 261
    I'm part Indian but don't know anything about being Indian. I've tried to talk with the Indians here but they called me a wannabe when I told them about my background.
Arguably, there are two separate senses here, with one being a derogatory term for someone of mixed race. Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:42, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
I feel like those citations definitely cite something, but I can't figure out what. Renard Migrant (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense for "a wooden chopping block" sense. This sense is used in the Unihan database but isn't showing up in any other online dictionary source that I've looked at. Could be in the Kangxi dictionary as I haven't checked there yet (not in English). Bumm13 (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Although the ctext page mentions that in the Unihan definition field, the Kangxi simply says that pronunciation 頹/堆 is "coffin cover" and pronunciation 敦 is "withered" (reflecting the current content at 橔#Chinese). It's tricky - even zdic says it in the English, but the English is generally less reliable since it's Unihan-sourced. Nibiko (talk) 22:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: watchman.

Can't find any citations. A few dictionaries suggest a similar definition of "official" (from gauger), but I can only find one ambiguous cite for that:

  • 2012, Roy Chubby Brown, Common As Muck!: The Autobiography of Roy 'Chubby' Brown, Hachette UK (ISBN 9781405520478)
    The gadgie called me into his office. 'There's your cards and there's your P45,' he said. 'You're finished.' I was fired.

Smurrayinchester (talk) 09:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense mess Jberkel (talk) 14:02, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I found nothing for a real souq of, absolute souq, a souq of a, etc. (the way mess is used). Not sure how else to look. Equinox 23:02, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I found one instance of something of a souq in this pdf, only one hit for that query on google and it was that. 𝚛𝚊𝚝𝚑𝚎𝚛𝚜𝚒𝚕𝚕𝚢 · 🇹 · 🇨 · 21:18, 2 May 2016 (UTC)


Singaporean senses. The existing citations are to Facebook and Youtube, which are non-durable and red flags as noted above in the (otherwise unrelated) section on کومت. - -sche (discuss) 07:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)


Definiton 3: "Being only what it seems to be; mere."

Is this an actual definition, or is it an attempt at defining the same sense that definition 5, "Used to emphasize the amount or degree of something", does? The usage examples don't seem to fit the definition at any rate, and I think neither definitions 3 nor 5 are very good. I think something like "Pure, downright," etc. better capture the actual meaning. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:06, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I"ll go ahead and make the changes I see fit if no one objects. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
You do need to make sure that the wording of your proposed definition does not overlap with that of definition 2, the obsolete one. DCDuring TALK 02:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I will do so. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Senses 3 and 5 appear to be elaborations of sense 2. Of the two, sense 5 is worded better, but it's still basically the same as sense 2 IMO, and all three should probably be combined. P Aculeius (talk) 04:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I would say that senses 3 and 5 are more accurately extensions of sense 2, not the same as it. The usage examples given for the latter don't seem to fit under the modern senses of the word, and someone describing ale or a fountain as "sheer" would probably not be readily understood. I'll probably rearrange the order of the definitions. I'll hold off on doing so until this discussion seems to be over, however. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Let's not be too dismissive of the definitions, despite what seems like awkward wording. The definitions are 100+ years old, from Webster 1913, perhaps earlier. The words used in the definitions are probably less used or have shifted meanings a bit. DCDuring TALK 10:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not dismissing them, just saying that they all seem to be getting at the same thing, and it's not clear that the examples have truly separable meanings. For example, in perhaps the most familiar phrase, "sheer genius," does the speaker mean "pure genius" (sense 2), "mere genius" (as in nothing but, sense 3), or "extensive genius" (sense 5)? All seem equally applicable, and it's very doubtful that most speakers intend only one of them, excluding the others. The phrase (and many similar constructions) are generally used without putting that degree of thought into the meaning of "sheer". I also don't think that sense 2 is obsolete, to the extent that "pure" is taken in its metaphorical sense, since that seems to be fairly close to the meaning of phrases like "sheer genius," "sheer madness," "sheer brilliance," "sheer inspiration," "sheer majesty," and soforth. P Aculeius (talk) 04:30, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
I have rewritten the RFV'd definition. I did use the word pure, which overlaps a bit with the obsolete sense, but I added further clarification in that one ("pure" just seemed like the best word to use for both senses.) Feel free to make improvements. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
It looks much better to me, but I no longer have fresh eyes with which to evaluate the entry. DCDuring TALK 16:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)


An IP tried to change this into an entry about a trademarked brand name here- which I reverted.

This raises two questions:

  1. Is this attested at all in CFI-compliant sources? I can't find any.
  2. If it is, does it meet the requirements of CFI for brand names, WT:BRAND?

Chuck Entz (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I can find one CFI-compliant source:
2015 August 20, Rachel Lau, “5 unusual sports to try this summer”, in Global News:
AquaMermaid, underwater rugby and dodgebow – unconventional sports are picking up steam as Canadians search for new and fun ways to stay active.
Kiwima (talk) 23:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


RFV of two senses: "(informal) A great-aunt / grandaunt." and "A grandmother. (More often "auntie".)" Not to be confused with the more general sense 4, "An affectionate term for a woman of an older generation than oneself, especially a friend of one's parents, by means of fictive kin." - -sche (discuss) 22:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Could be worded better, but there's no doubt that "aunt" is used of grandaunts (with any number of "greats"), as for that matter is "uncle" of granduncles; and that friends (often cousins) of one's parents are also called "aunt" and "uncle". Documenting it may take some work, but I think this is pretty well-established. Not sure about use of "aunt" for "grandmother", although I know that "grandmother" and "grandfather" are sometimes applied to elderly persons without any actual relationship.P Aculeius (talk) 22:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Friends of one's parents are sense 4. - -sche (discuss) 22:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, misread that part as an RFV of sense 4 as well as sense 2. However, the words aunt and uncle are regularly applied to all aunts and uncles, not merely the siblings of one's parents, but also their aunts and uncles, one's grandparents' aunts and uncles, etc. Terms such as "great aunt" and "grandaunt" or "great-grandaunt" are typically trotted out only when there's some ambiguity. You address your grandmother's aunt Mabel as "Aunt Mabel," not "Great-Grandaunt Mabel." P Aculeius (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

after Saturday comes Sunday[edit]

A rare political phrase attributed to, but apparently not used by, Muslims. See Talk:after Saturday comes Sunday. - -sche (discuss) 22:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

  • Does a phrase need to be used by a specific group to merit an entry? bd2412 T 04:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
    • A phrase needs to be used with the definition it is claimed to have. I trimmed the expansive, literally encyclopedic (transwikied from an encyclopedia) definition somewhat a while ago, but is this phrase used idiomatically at all? It was tagged in diff but not listed here. - -sche (discuss) 05:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
      • I can certainly find lots of cites that mention this slogan. For example:
      • 2001, Paul Charles Merkley, Christian Attitudes towards the State of Israel, ISBN 0773569243, page 126:
        In this spirit, we are to understand the slogan often seen on walls in Gaza and the West Bank, and in Muslim-Arab sections of Jerusalem and Bethlehem: “After Saturday, comes Sunday!” — or, more explicitly, “On Saturday we will kill the Jews; on Sunday, we will kill the Christians."
      • 1991, Aaron S. Klieman & ‎Adrian L. Klieman, American Zionism, page 269:
        But you talk with most Arabs and they will tell you, "And don't forget, after Saturday comes Sunday," meaning after we kill the Jews, symbolized by Saturday, we go to work on those symbolized by Sunday; in other words, the Christians will be next.
      • 2001, Mario Apostolov, Religious Minorities, Nation States, and Security, ISBN 0754616770, page 69:
        Since the 1960s, the community has become conscious of the rising tide of Islamic fundamentalism in Palestine, and has recalled the Islamist slogan "after Saturday comes Sunday", meaning that after the Jews the fundamentalists will deal with the Christians.
      • 2002, Bat Yeʼor, Islam and Dhimmitude: Where Civilizations Collide, ISBN 0838639429, page 335:
        The theology of Palestinianism and corruption masked the permanent deterioration in the living conditions of the Christians in Islamic lands, similar to the process which already in the past had brought about the disappearance of the Jews in the Islamic world, according to the well-known and confirmed Arab adage: "after Saturday comes Sunday."
      • 2003, Donna Rosenthal, The Israelis: Ordinary People in an Extraordinary Land, ISBN 0684869721, page 308:
        Naila translates the Arabic writing on it: " 'After Saturday comes Sunday.' Do you know what this means? It means 'After we are finished with the Jews, it's the Christians' turn.' "
      • 2013, Lela Gilbert, Saturday People, Sunday People, ISBN 1594036527:
        This reminded me of what our Coptic neighbor told my family as we were being expelled from Egypt in November 1952: “After Saturday comes Sunday." He accurately predicted that the Coptic community also would feel the wrath and hatred of Egyptions, much of it inspired by radical Muslims.
      • 2015, Mordechai Nisan, (Please provide the title of the work), ISBN 1412856337:
        We face “a shared danger,” Philip emphatically said, “us today and you tomorrow,” as in the Arabic saying: “After Saturday comes Sunday: the only difference now is they are changing the order.
      • There are many more as well. Kiwima (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "hawthorn". Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 22:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

  • The Japanese variant form appears in the term 山査子 ‎(sanzashi, hawthorn). The Chinese equivalent appears to be 山楂 ‎(shānzhā, hawthorn; rose hip), as given at online Chinese dictionary MDBG, with that entry clearly listing 山查 as a variant spelling, using this same character. As such, I'm inclined to think the hawthorn sense is valid, but that might just be me.
@Wyang, @Kc kennylau, @Anatoli, other ZH editors: can any of you shed more light on this? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 16:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
@Eirikr: [30] says 查 zhā 2. 同“楂”, which means that 查 and 楂 are equivalent. --kc_kennylau (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
In case you need another confirmation - in Pleco: 查 or 査 with the Mandarin reading zhā, Cantonese caa4 is same as 楂 as in 山楂.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 20:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Not caa4, but zaa1. --kc_kennylau (talk) 10:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)


RFV-sense "to be crazy about (construed with על ‎(al))", tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 23:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Ruakh, EnoshdΜετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Cited. Incidentally: what's a good way to indicate when the "translation" is actually the original English, because the quotation itself is in a translation from English? I've tried a few different approaches — appending [original English], or listing the original English source as a "reference" for the translation, or just leaving it for the reader to infer — but I don't really like any of them. —RuakhTALK 16:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Just leaving it for the reader to infer is what I did for the 1844 citation of Lunch, but tagging it "original English" may be better, especially since it isn't a very literal translation. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

February 2016[edit]


"African-American, black". As an adjective, fine (I added a citation), but how can it be a noun? "He's a chocolate, not a white person"? I thought it might be uncountable (perhaps e.g. sex slang: "he wanted some chocolate", i.e. sex with a black person) but can't seem to find citations for that either. Equinox 03:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's a challenge to search for. Your sex slang idea is how I finally found some - by searching for "sexy chocolate":
  • 1967, James David Horan, The Right Image: A Novel of the Men who Make Candidates, page 73:
    "I suppose you have some of your sweet chocolates working for you?" Barney nodded.
  • 2009, Evangeline Holloway, The Reincarnation of Love, ISBN 1465318615, page 83:
    I can consume as much of you as I want to without gaining weight. Sexy chocolate is what you are.
  • 2011, Ella Campbell, Torn: The Melissa Williams Story, ISBN 1426946406, page 69:
    “How is my sexy chocolate?” Mark says on the other end.
  • 2012, Harry Davis, My Name Is Lucas, ISBN 1469902567:
    “Yes Lucas, you're some fine sexy chocolate”, she whispered, her long dark hair covering her face and the curves bursting out of her dress.
Kiwima (talk) 04:41, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Also this (12). —JohnC5 16:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Also, watch the movie The Birdcage. Khemehekis (talk) 08:21, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Parallel to honey, sugar, etc. DCDuring TALK 11:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
@Equinox I've oft found that use of the indefinite article isn't always the best test of something being a noun or not...while "a chocolate" might not be in common parlance, I think you'd have more luck looking for "some chocolate", "a lot of chocolate", "that chocolate", "the chocolate", etc. Purplebackpack89 14:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Yep, but your addition didn't show whether it was countable or uncountable. Equinox 15:02, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I know that television shows aren't the citations we're looking for, but at one point in this Colbert Late Show bit, Stephen Colbert (the guy who invented the word truthiness), says at 1:25, "That top 1%, generally doesn't have a lot of chocolate in it", then it cuts to his black bandleader, with the implication of Colbert's quote being "There aren't a lot of really, really wealthy African-Americans," and with chocolate being used in a partitive noun sense rather than an adjective one. It was that clip from the Colbert Show, along with Ray Nagin's Chocolate City speech, that inspired me to create the definition. Sorry for the slow response, I went to bed early and this is what I found when I got up. Purplebackpack89 14:38, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
How about: Mrs. Feinstein, ...she do like her some chocolate ;) Leasnam (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
"some of your sweet chocolates" is great for demonstrating this as a countable noun ("a black person"). "generally doesn't have a lot of chocolate in it" sounds like it might be a mass noun(?), perhaps to be defined as "blackness"(?). (Btw, we've tended to consider TV shows durably archived — at least in America and Britain, where they are archived; whereas, Somali shows wouldn't be — so Colbert is a fine citation as far as durability.) So perhaps we're dealing with two senses? That's not too surprising, since "chocolate" in reference to the food also has both an uncountable sense ("chocolate is popular") and countable sense ("ate some chocolates"). Incidentally, the definition seems overly America-centric; I would imagine that Idris Elba and other black people who are not African Americans are also considered "chocolate". - -sche (discuss) 19:52, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The mass noun sense looks cited. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the "sexy chocolate" (not "chocolates") citations seem like they're the mass (uncountable) sense; compare how in reference to the food chocolate, "that was some good chocolate" and "dark chocolate is what that [on the table] is" are using the mass noun sense. I'm not sure which sense "my sexy chocolate" is using. I've trying to find more plural citations that would clearly attest the countable "a black person" sense. - -sche (discuss) 20:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
There were only two citations per sense, and for some it was unclear which of the two senses they supported. I've combined them. As combined, the sense is cited. - -sche (discuss) 04:09, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


Finnish for Spider-Man; WT:FICTION applies. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:36, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

This is the official translation of the name, should be easily citable?
http://www.iltasanomat.fi/elokuvat/art-1288482080646.html AliHautala (talk) 17:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
That's not Metaknowledge's point. He says we shouldn't have fictional characters at all. --Hekaheka (talk) 19:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Why, though? Isn't it a slippery slope that could lead to mass deletion of religious, mythological and folkloric terms due to the sometimes thin line between those things? It would probably first affect proper nouns associated with religions that are generally not taken seriously by most people, such as Scientology and Mormonism, eg. Moroni and Xenu; nothing of value would be lost in the eyes of a majority of people regardless of their beliefs, but who knows what would be next? I find it incomprehensible that some atheists regard Scientology and Mormonism and Christianity and Islam at the same level, and further some see no difference between Darth Vader and Lucifer.
And while most people see it for the joke that it is, there are a bunch of people out there who list their official religion as Jediism and I'd bet some of them are serious. So to play the devil's advocate, who's to say that mainstream religions like Christianity and Islam are not obvious jokes as well? Maybe the entries for God and Satan should be deleted, followed by Jesus, Muhammed, Buddha, etc. even though it would be pretty offensive to most people to lump them in the same category as characters from sci-fi films, including myself; but who draws the line between fiction and religion? What if someone decided that it's offensive to label Flying Spaghetti Monster as "humorous", went to the Wikimedia Foundation's headquarters and blew themselves up after shouting "SPAGHETTI IS GREAT!", killing dozens of innocent civilians? Would major religious leaders around the world be expected to publicly condemn radical Pastafarianism? I don't think so, but most likely at least one of them would; would that solidify its existence as a serious and valid religion and elevate all joke religions to the same status as serious religions?
If the choice is between deleting fictional characters and keeping them, the sheer amount of extra work that the slippery slope in the case of the former would bring about should hint to the latter being a more preferable option, when it doesn't really matter either way so long as the content is correct. Unless there are concerns over politics or trademarks, in which case it makes sense to delete "objectionable content" but only on a case-by-case basis... except, the possibility that Wiktionary is actively pushing an elitist agenda... hmm... I'll shut up before I get silenced by le bowers that bee. :DDDDD AliHautala (talk) 07:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
My experience shows that Wiktionary is anything but elitist. There are occasional debates about whether something ought to be considered a word, or over whether particular meanings are supported, but in general it's not hard to get things into Wiktionary if you can show the appropriate amount of independent use. Since Finnish is fairly well documented on the internet... er, interwebz, it ought to be simple enough to find three mentions of Spider-Man in Finnish that merely allude to Spider-Man. For example, newspaper stories about someone scaling tall buildings or catching criminals with a net, or acquiring super-powers (or any abilities) through some kind of accident. If they're not discussions of Spider-Man, but assume that the reader already knows who Spider-Man is and are comparing someone or something else to him, then the entry can go in the main Wiktionary space. If they merely discuss Spider-Man as a character in works of fiction, then they might justify inclusion in an appendix of terms from or relating to Spider-Man, under a heading for "Finnish". It seems simple enough to create such an appendix, and I'm sure someone better versed in the process than I could help you get started. P Aculeius (talk) 14:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Fictional characters can't be included by virtue of being fictional characters, but they can be if they become part of the language outside of their fictional universe. If you can find quotes where someone who climbs really well is described as Hämähäkkimies, for instance, that would allow the entry to be kept. See WT:FICTION for details.
As for the issues you raised: this is a dictionary. We deal with words and phrases as words and phrases. An encyclopedia answers the questions such as "Who or what is Spiderman?" and "What are some interesting facts about Spiderman?". A dictionary answers the question "what does 'Spiderman' mean?". Every work of fiction has a number of characters in it- far too many to have entries on all of them. We don't a notability criterion like Wikipedia does, so we would end up with entries such as Alice stuffed full of every character in every book, play, poem, comic, comedy sketch, etc. with that name. As for religions: we have decided to treat religious figures differently, so that's not an issue- there's no danger of our deleting Zeus, for instance. Really, the only slippery slope here is the one that would have fans of all descriptions descending on us to get the characters in their favored works represented. I would rather avoid that. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah, alright. Thanks, all of you, for clearing that up. I could find a bunch of cites for hämähäkkimies as a general noun, but uncapitalised. AliHautala (talk) 17:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


Swedish for Spider-Man; WT:FICTION applies. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

It has been in use and is populary still in use, even if Swedish comic books now prefer to use the original name Spider-Man. [31]


Hungarian for Spider-Man; WT:FICTION applies. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

You sure must believe you are making this dictionary more useful. We would have been better off having Spider-Man as well, but somone deemed Citations:Spider-Man not good enough. Unfortunately, Wiktionary:Votes/pl-2008-01/Appendices for fictional terms has passed and we are in trouble. From the value standpoint, how would anyone know that Spider-Man is Pókember? By going to another service, I guess: translate.google.com--Dan Polansky (talk) 08:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Keep: The entry contains valuable information. --Panda10 (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
On RFV voting doesn't trump evidence. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
  • @Dan Polansky: If you disagree with policy, create a vote to change it. If you made a good proposal, I might support it; I don't necessarily think that these entries must be excluded from the dictionary. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


RFV-sense "10 franc coin". Fr.Wikt only has "10 centime coin". Tagged (and then detagged, and now retagged) but not listed until now. - -sche (discuss) 21:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 03:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

scheisse (as an English word)[edit]


I'm very skeptical that any of these—but especially the ones spelled with ß—are used as English words. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:22, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The ones spelt with ß are rare but appear to be existent. [32] & [33] --Romanophile (contributions) 14:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
I've heard it used several times over the years by native English speakers, as a way to avoid saying shit. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Amusingly, Germans use shit as a euphemism to avoid saying Scheiße. However, spoken usage doesn't verify the spelling and capitalization. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I've added three or more quotations for each sense of scheisse and Scheisse. I've also added one quotation for each sense of Scheiss, but I can't find any more. As a side note, the redlink scheiss seems to be attestable as an English word from Usenet and Google Books. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 00:17, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
@Mr. Granger, I added a citation page for Scheiss, but I can’t find many results for the interjective sense. This is italicized and this appears to be spam of some sort. --Romanophile (contributions) 06:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)


Esperanto for "female sailor". I can only find one use and one mention. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a perfectly correct and regularly formed Esperanto word. Mutichou (talk) 23:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
You found a use and mention. I agree with Mutichou that it follows accepted Esperanto grammar. What's the problem? A word doesn't need to be well-used to make a dictionary. Mark it with a rare label, if you wish. Sollupulo (talk) 16:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: (obsolete) To make a fool of, to cause to look ridiculous.

Only cite is from Shakespeare. Two more needed. DCDuring TALK 05:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Considering how widely-read Shakespeare is, that there are whole dictionaries devoted to words used by Shakespeare, and that there are far fewer published works from the Elizabethan era that can be drawn on for evidence of a word's existence, shouldn't we include Shakespeare's writings under some sort of a notability criterion? I'm aware that there is no such criterion for English, but it seems odd to me that someone (like me) looking up a word they found in Shakespeare wouldn't be able to find it in Wiktionary because of our rigid CFI. This especially considering how many times the play from which the quote used to illustrate this sense is included in compilations of Shakespeare's plays, or reprinted in some format (see here).
As a side note, I'm fairly sure senses 2 and 4 are identical. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
There used to be a criterion like that, but it was removed by this vote. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 05:56, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
The well-known work exception to the requirement for three cites from well-attested languages allowed all Shakespearean, Joycean, and Pynchonic nonces to be included. With only a single use how is one supposed to determine what the "conventional" meaning of the term is? DCDuring TALK 13:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Senses 2 and 4 are certainly identical, but I'm not sure sense 3 should be distinguished from sense 2 either. If they're combined, then only one more citation would be needed. P Aculeius (talk) 10:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure about any of these, but what I found was this: Another, but different Shakespeare reference with the same (or highly similar) sense:
  • 2002, Carol Chillington Rutter, Enter The Body: Women and Representation on Shakespeare's Stage, ISBN 113476779X:
    'O heat, dry up my brains,' says Laertes, facing a sister 'anticked' 'in deed' by madness that Hamlet only 'played'.
Another transitive use of antic as a verb with what looks to me like a similar sense:
  • 1964, Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts:
    Whether one's surroundings were anticked up or not, one often felt one was living in another century at Roque.
And finally (and most dubiously)
  • 1982, The Picturesque Tour, page 25:
    Surtees became a friend of Walter Scott and played a very "anticking" joke upon the author.
Kiwima (talk) 20:51, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense denier (coin, weight). SemperBlotto added this, but it.wiki seems to say that only denaro means denier in the money sense (which we already have here); I can't figure out how the weight sense is translated into Italian. As for denario, I think it only means denarius. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:19, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Cassell's Italian Dictionary only lists monetary senses for denaro and doesn't include denario, although the Italian Wikipedia article denaro uses it to refer to the denarius. It doesn't include "denier" under English, so there's no equivalent. The Oxford Paperback Italian Dictionary was much less inclusive. Should see if there's a more authoritative Italian dictionary. Denaro (unità di misura) does discuss denaro or danaro as a unit of weight, but no source is given. It makes sense and I wouldn't doubt it for a minute, but it would be nice to have a source documenting it. It doesn't indicate whether denario (with an i) could also be used this way, although that would make sense in Latin. P Aculeius (talk) 04:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


@SemperBlotto, are you checking your creations for attestability? I don't see any uses on BGC. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:10, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

  • I've found one citation for usage (and, of course, lots of mentions in other dictionaries etc). So I suppose it will get deleted. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
    • p.s. Is the English translation OK - it doesn't seem to have any citations. SemperBlotto (talk) 08:20, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
    • p.p.s. If this fails, should we also remove the interwiki link to the French Wiktionary so that people are not directed to spurious information? SemperBlotto (talk) 16:03, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
    • The "on a adopté mégafarad" citation is to me a clear mention, it means "one has adopted mégafarad" (i.e. the word mégafarad) which is a reference to the coinage of the word mégafarad to represent a million farads. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
      • No, it means they have adopted mégafarad as their base unit, rather than the farad.
  • There is some confusion here. There are two meanings to mégafarad; one is a valid construction in the SI system of units of a unit of capacitance. While valid it is never used because it is larger than anything that would ever be encountered. The two citations in the article (both form non-durably archived bulletin boards) seem to be joking references to this. One is only in the signature of the contributor. The other meaning is an old unit of quantity of electric charge. The 1880 cite found by SemperBlotto seems to be this old meaning. The English megafarad entry causes this confusion by conflating the two meanings. I will fix this shortly, but the capacitance meaning has only one cite to a work of fiction, and has about as much connection to reality as photon torpedoes and flux capacitors. It is that entry that should be RFVed in my opinion. SpinningSpark 23:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)


Not sure why you added Italian, because I don't see any uses of this one either. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

  • Well, I've added some Italian citations, but they are difficult to pick out from the English and they look a bit mentionish (and I'm not very good at formatting citations). SemperBlotto (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
    Only one of the citations you added is durably archived, and that one is a clear mention (it says "parole ... megafarad", so it's talking about it as a word). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:58, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Russian obscure military terms[edit]

This is a partial list of these terms. There are almost certainly more. AFAIK they were all added by User:Stephen G. Brown. Translation as given in the entry follows in parens.

These terms are cute and some serve as interesting tests for my declension module because of their length, but I doubt very many if any are verifiable, and per User:Atitarev they're all SoP anyway.

Apologies if I should be splitting this request up; I'm not very familiar with the RFV procedure but it seemed to make most sense to process them all together. Benwing2 (talk) 05:19, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

- -sche (discuss) 18:57, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! I really appreciate the work. Benwing2 (talk) 06:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)


"A friend". Evidently intended to be the "what's up, doc?" sense. Is the definition correct? Could you say e.g. "I invited all of my docs to the party"? If not, we may need to redefine it as an informal term of address, or similar. Equinox 01:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: A girl friend.

I'd like to know if this is used in a platonic context. As I've heard it being used more in platonic than romantic. In the mean time I will find quotations myself. Ubuntuuser13 (talk) 03:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Definition one ("a young female human") and two ("any woman, regardless of her age") and five cover non-romantic use, do they not? Are there citations where "girl" distinctively means "a female friend" and not "a [young] female (who may or may not be a friend)"? That might clarify matters. As it is, it seems like someone calling a female friend a "girl" is comparable to someone calling a blond-haired friend a "blond" — it doesn't cause "blond" to mean "a blond-haired friend", it's just the general definition. Usage like "girl, let's go see Andy!" seems like sense 5, the term of endearment. - -sche (discuss) 03:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
One and two are not, but five may be. That's one way to see it. Ubuntuuser13 (talk) 04:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I suspect what's being questioned is whether it can mean non-romantic friend in conjunction with a possessive: Can "She's my girl" and "Joanne's my sister's girl" refer to a platonic friend? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I would normally surmise from X(possessive) + girl that there was a romantic relationship, not necessarily sexual, between X and the referent of girl. I might further surmise that girl meant "best girl"/"the only one".
This doesn't seem like a semantic property of girl or of any single possessive word. There could be a semantic property of personal possessives in general that is needed to make the surmises.
That means that I do not think it is likely to prove a conventional use of girl to mean a non-romantic friend when used with a possessive, though some may use it that way, possibly to confuse or conceal.
BTW, in my idiolect, romantic and platonic are not antonyms, whereas platonic and sexual are and romantic and sexual overlap. DCDuring TALK 12:56, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
From what you've said, yes, they do refer to a platonic friend. Ubuntuuser13 (talk) 21:22, 16 February 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "Used other than as an idiom: see pot,‎ hole"

I was unsure of whether to RFV or RFD, I think it might fail both. Pot-hole isn't an idiom it's a word. Are we going to add used other than as an idiom to catlike as well? Anyway since this isn't rfd I'll challenge existence first and we'll worry about acceptability later. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

pot-hole is used to mean a hole for pots in several stove patents and perhaps in other objects, as well as the ground. I thought the usage example was clear enough. I wonder whether someone refers to the location of their stash as a pot-hole.
I think it is also used to refer to holes the size or shape of a pot, to holes that serve as pots, privy holes, and exceptions to marijuana laws, none of them common and few with three citations. That is, it seems that the combination is productive. Even if there were more than three instances on a single type of use, it would hardly justify a definition.
By my lights only three cites of distinct uses would be required to justify a "literal" combination definition. DCDuring TALK 14:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Let's cite it first and worry about the rest later. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Why should I bother citing it if I cannot understand what type of cites would be deemed acceptable? I don't care that much about the definition. DCDuring TALK 17:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I've added three citations of "pot-hole" meaning "hole atop a stove, for a pot", but I can also cite "pothole" with that sense (and have added it there), so those citations are using the "alternative form of pothole" sense. - -sche (discuss) 18:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm seeing one, not three. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
The three citations I found of pot-hole as "hole on a stove for a pot" are under the "alt form of pothole" sense because I can also find that sense with the spelling pothole. Hence, there's only one citation of pot-hole with a sense that pothole doesn't have. I think it's fine to RFV-fail that "&lit" sense. - -sche (discuss) 16:56, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
The 1808 citation given could even just be a typo for "port-hole". - -sche (discuss) 03:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


I had deleted it as a protologism but the creator commented on my talk page: "This word is derived from the Greek language. Examples exist of its use as 'epikarik' in Middle-English, and it was used sparingly in some writing during the renaissance period. I can probably find specific examples but don't have the time to at the moment. I'm guessing it seems like a protologism because it is an archaic, little used modifier, and in English this phenomena is usually described by nouns only (epicaricacy, schadenfreude)." I can't seem to find it though. Equinox 19:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I've had a quick go and I can't find epikarik. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Same; no mention of any forms of epicaric in the OED nor the MED. Vorziblix (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


All hits are for "The pancreas is vulgarly termed the "gutbread" or "belly sweetbread," and -is the article which would be supplied in the great majority of cases by butchers asked for sweetbread." which isn't actually a use. Any more? DTLHS (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I've added some additional citations Leasnam (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
cited. tag removed from the page. If everyone is okay with this, I suppose we can close ? Leasnam (talk) 01:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Unstriking, and I've restored the tag. Of the nine citations currently on the page, five (1999a, 1999b, 2006, 2007, and 2014) are of different spellings (either gut bread or gut-bread) and five (1909, 1967, 1999a, 2007, and 2014) are mentions. Moreover, 1999b appears to be SOP gut + bread and 2013 is hyphenated at a line break. That leaves only one solid citation (1920) of this spelling. If we lump together the 1920, 2006, and 2013 citations, that would give us three uses (of two different spellings), but then it is not obvious whether the entry should be kept at gutbread or moved to gut-bread. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 01:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I see that we also have entries for gut-bread and gut bread. I've tagged them with {{rfv}} as well, so that we can discuss all three forms together. I've also added some more quotations to gutbread, including a use of "gut-bread" from the 1909 work. As far as I can tell, we now have two citations (1919 and 1928) of "gut bread", two citations (1909 and 2006) of "gut-bread", one citation (1920) of "gutbread", and one citation (2013) that is ambiguous between "gut-bread" and "gutbread". —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 02:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Google ngram only shows for gut-bread [[34]] Leasnam (talk) 02:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
Is an instance of reported speech a mention? DCDuring TALK 12:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't think so—if there's a quote like "Mary said she wanted to buy some gutbread", I think that would be an acceptable citation. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:16, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
My long-term position has been that quotations for gutbread, gut bread and gut-bread should not be pooled. Other editors may differ. As for mentions, I agree with Mr. Granger's assessment above. I agree that the 1920 quotation is the only CFI-good one. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I do differ on that opinion. I see no negative issues resulting in pooling alternative forms. When I learned English, I learned it first by the hearing of the ear, associating the sounds with the concept. Only later did spelling come into play. So for me and millions of others like me, a "classroom" is one word, representing one thing, whether it is spelt "classroom", "class-room", or "class room". Those are just different styles of displaying the idea. As a native speaker, I grew up accustomed to the fact that words can have multiple spellings, but they are the same word; not different words. The spelling represents the word, not the other way around. So too is it for me with "gut-bread". In speech there is no distinction between it and "gutbread" or "gut bread". We must take heed that rare words do not suffer due to the fact that there may be more than one way to spell it. Leasnam (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
I agree. Non-lemma entries such as alternative forms should generally not contain quotations, which should instead be placed at the lemma entry. The OED, for example, often notes multiple variant spellings, but quotations are all under the headword. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

gut bread[edit]



RFV of the Spanish word. "catanyol" is attested as a Catalan word, and the expected Spanish spelling "catañol" is attested as a Spanish word, but I can't find any quotations of "catanyol" used as a Spanish word. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 00:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Russian obscure military terms, part 2[edit]

I can't find any of these in Google Books. I've left out some other terms that look SOP but are attested. Benwing2 (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)


Looks weird without a space. Google Books finds mostly a nickname "Pizzaboy". Equinox 02:55, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Groups gets some valid results. Surely not all of them are amateur speakers. --Romanophile (contributions) 02:57, 20 February 2016 (UTC)


BrunoMed again. @Ivan Štambuk, can you look at his contributions? Is it time to block him for even longer? —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

  • 2006, Dobrilo Nenadić, Hermelin:
    Njemu je sve bilo isto, nije se uzbuđivao kada riba nije grizla i kad se nigde ništa živo u savskim močvarama nije micalo, kada su im seljaci prodavali užeglu slaninu, mućkove, plesnivo brašno i žižljiv pasulj.
    It was all the same to him, he didn’t get upset when fish didn’t bite and when nothing living moved anywhere in the marshes of the Sava, when the peasants sold him rancid bacon, rotten eggs, moldy flour and weevil-infested beans.
  • 1970, “Informatorov priručnik za kadrove”, Volume 17:
    Tuženi je djelomično osporio tužbeni zahtjev i tvrdio da je isporučeni grašak bio žižljiv, necijaniziran i nedovoljno zaprašen, pa je zbog uklanjanja utvrđenih nedostataka imao izvjesne troškove.
    The defendant partially disputed the lawsuit claims and affirmed that the delivered peas were weevil-infested...
  • 2015, Borivoje Adašević, Čovek iz kuće na bregu:
    Tvoj crep popušta pod udarcima grada, a grede su žižljive i u njima šumi strojnica sićušnih zuba.
etc. Vorziblix (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense - an employee of IBM. Any takers? (I've only ever heard of IBMer) SemperBlotto (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

  • User:Bgoldnyxnet and I have added several quotations, and I think the form "Beamer" is now adequately attested. The form "beamer" only has two quotations, so unless more can be found, I suggest moving the sense to Beamer. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
And User:Bgoldnyxnet has made the move I suggested. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 14:16, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
And the move was undone by someone at some point. And the lowercase form now has two citations; can we find one more? - -sche (discuss) 03:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Nevidebla Rozkolora Unukornulo[edit]

And the alternative forms nevidebla rozkolora unukornulo, Nevidebla Rozokolora Unukornulo, and nevidebla rozokolora unukornulo, and the initialism NRU. Esperanto for Invisible Pink Unicorn. Nothing on Google Books, Google Groups, or Tekstaro that I can find. Some of these forms are listed as having plurals and others aren't, so if any of the forms turn out to be citeable, it would be nice to figure out whether or not they have plurals. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 18:25, 21 February 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Esperanto for "boo". I'm not sure which interjection sense of "boo" is intended, but I can't find any evidence that the word is used either to scare people or to indicate disapproval at a performance. It is in John C. Wells' Esperanto-English dictionary, and he seems to mean the disapproval sense. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 03:19, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


Of a language: having the future tense. Not apparent in Google Books. Equinox 11:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

All I can find is this master's thesis which uses the term in quotation marks. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 13:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
This transcript of a TED talk is presumably durably archived somewhere, but I couldn't actually prove it. SpinningSpark 13:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Keith Chen, "Could your language affect your ability to save money?", TEDGlobal 2012, June 2012.
  • What you see is that these bars are systematically taller and systematically shifted to the left compared to these bars which are the members of the OECD that speak futured languages.
There is also a lot of people writing about Chen's talk, this Huffington Post article for instace ("Futured language speakers, presumably seeing the future as distant and less important..."). So do we accept the Huffington Post as durably archived? And more generally, do we accept articles talking about Chen as being independent? SpinningSpark 13:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
The master's thesis linked to above is also just quoting Chen. I wish economists would stick to economics and let linguists do the linguistics. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:23, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
and perhaps you also think that Samuel Morse should have stuck to art and left telegraph design to the engineers? SpinningSpark 22:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Not knowing anything about telegraph design, I'm not in a position to say whether Morse had as poor an understanding of it as Chen has of linguistics. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
This one is unarguably a print source as Infotrac returns the page number: SpinningSpark 13:39, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
  • Wan A Hulaimi, "The connection between language and money", New Straits Times, p. 22, 6 September 2015
  • Futured language speakers, he says, tend to save less than those whose language is unfutured.
If the "he" in that sentence refers to Chen, we still don't have independent usage. So far, everyone using this word is either Chen or quoting Chen. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
P.S. If this does fail RFV, the link from futureless needs to go. Equinox 14:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Not necessarily. Dahl uses the term futureless repeatedly in Tense and Aspect in the Languages of Europe which I found from the bibliography of this published paper by Chen (don't know why I didn't find that earlier). Chen also, after several mentions, actually uses the term without quotes: "In Europe for example, most Germanic and Finno-Ugric languages have been futureless for hundreds of years ." SpinningSpark 17:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Equinox is saying that the link to futured in the entry futureless should be removed if this fails (which I agree with), not that the entry futureless should be deleted. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 21:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I misread that comment. SpinningSpark 12:06, 26 February 2016 (UTC)


Praise of superior attribute in another. There are several meanings that are close enough for this to be plausible, but I can't find it directly. —JohnC5 15:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)


Sources are needed for this accented variant. The word exists in Italian (language typically used for musical dynamic indications) only in its non-accented form, and it is unclear how can one infer the existence of an accent while claiming that it is " used [...] in its abbreviated form f " --Gengis Gat (talk) 21:19, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

If it's attested, I'd call it a misspelling. In fact, I predict this misspelling is more common for forte in the sense of 'strength, talent' than in the musical sense. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've added another sense (with quotations) to the entry, and converted the rfv to an rfv-sense as a result. For the challenged sense, I've only been able to find two citations [35] [36], of which one uses quotation marks and the other uses italics. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 21:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
While not being a French speaker, I'd argue that even the use of forté in the sense of "strong" could be considered a (possibly common) misspelling, as the word does not exist in French. After a quick search in various online dictionaries I was only able to find it in the Urban Dictionary, which I guess is not an authoritative source. Anyway, I am only sure of my opinions for what concerns the musical meaning. (Disclaimer: I've come here because of today's xkcd comic). --Gengis Gat (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
I found a third quote: [[37]]. In addition, there are a few that are the same basic idea, but not really an adjective: [This] is a noun, [[38]] simply calls it a musical term, and [[39]] describes a stop on an organ. Kiwima (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)


Scientist. Seems to be creole or learner error. Equinox 14:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

[40], [41], [42], [43]. That’s just the singular. --Romanophile (contributions) 14:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I went through the Google Books results. The best label for the current sense is archaic since it’s primarily obsolete but occasionally used in modern fiction. There also seems to be a distinct sense used in Afro-Caribbean religions. — Ungoliant (falai) 02:04, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016[edit]


This usually traditional form is 游標. Is 遊標 used? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 09:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Google Books seems to suggest "yes". —suzukaze (tc) 03:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Closed. Wyang (talk) 05:55, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: to sober up/to sleep it off. Not seeing it in dictionaries and the entry was tagged with rfc which made me suspicious. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Someone must have confused it with cuver. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 07:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
It looks like it exists. See Wikihow. I found other sites that used it as well, but I didn't spend much time searching on Google books. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 07:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I've found two on Google Books and I request that this nomination be withdrawn on the grounds it's hard to cite because of the thousands of hits for the other meaning of décuver (empty a vat). google books:décuver gueule de bois gets two (since GBooks results vary by region you might not see them) while google books:décuver alcool and google books:décuver dégriser get thousands of hits and the ones I've looked at are all about emptying vats. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:37, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


google books:"la chichevache" seems to get two valid hits for Chichevache both of which seem to refer to Chaucer's works directly (one a translation of Chaucer, one a reference to him). If we find a third citation, I suppose we need to move to Chichevache and gloss as Chaucer, we raises the possibility that it's a fictional-universe only word, and might not meet CFI even with citations. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

If the only English-language use is in Chaucer, it needs to be moved to Middle English. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "Organized gymnastics, dance and yelling at team games." How is this different to "A physical activity in which people (usually women) organize elements of dance, gymnastics, and tumbling for judgment or to cheer on a team"? ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:21, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it's obviously the same definition restated with "yelling" added in place of the implied "cheering", which really doesn't improve the entry. However, I think that "for judgment" in the existing definition ought to be stricken. Cheering for a team (an athletic team, not the chess team or the debate team) is the primary function of cheerleading, even though teams of cheerleaders occasionally compete against one another. Also, male cheerleaders aren't rare, especially in college, even though they don't wear the same uniforms or perform the same routines. They're often needed to assist the female cheerleaders with the most physically-demanding activities. So the definition could stand to be tweaked, but the new wording isn't the kind of improvement it needs. P Aculeius (talk) 23:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Also, the nature of cheerleading has changed over time. It used to be men standing in front of the bleachers and yelling through a megaphone. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:14, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
Move to rfc or tea room as existence is not being disputed. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


Ido. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Found an instance in Yahoo groups from 2000: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/idolisto/conversations/topics/3493 — Me parvendis l' unesma quanteso. I sold out/through the first quantity. - Algentem (talk) 01:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, there are several attestations on Yahoo Groups, by several people: "la Hispana jurnali esis parvendita en la butiki" (2004), "ma oli parvendesis tre rapide" (2002, the person is the same as previous), "Ta materialon havis sueda interlingua-isto qua deziris parvendar ol" (2000), "Uldie nia stoki esos parvendita" (1999). Also at some blogs: "e ye non kloki omno esas parvendita" (2009), "La unesma edituro di la libro esis par-vendita pos sis monati" (2013). Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:18, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Those blogs don't look durably archived. I also see no evidence that Yahoo Groups is durably archived, but I may be wrong. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 12:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


Ido. --Dan Polansky (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Appendix:Old Prussian/līgu[edit]

Was brought up in the etymology scriptorium. See there. Hillcrest98 (talk) 01:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

turn-key voter trailer election service[edit]

Web references probably do not meet CFI. Equinox 12:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I checked out the links, and the entire phrase is clearly not valid. "turn-key voter trailer", on the other hand, does seem to emerge as a possible entry. Kiwima (talk) 19:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
RFV failed. Equinox 00:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

north by northeast[edit]

"The compass point between north and northeast."

  • Synonyms: north-northeast
  • This direction does not appear in w:Boxing the compass, which presents traditional (prescriptive?) terminology for the 32-point compass rose as well as others, including 128.

A related wordreference.com discussion including this: "Thanks, panj, for the link. So wiktionary is wrong then?"

A following post had: "I don't know what the philosophy of Wiktionary is, but most modern dictionaries follow the practice of reporting actual usage, and "north by northeast" does indeed seem to have been used when speaking of the direction between north and northeast, as can be seen in a Google search here, where I have limited the search to books written before 1900."

There are morphologically quite a few possible compass points (and their abbreviated forms) using by (eg, NNW by NW and NNWxNW).

If we can't maintain quality on such definitions by having citations, we shouldn't have them. DCDuring TALK 13:26, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The fame of the movie w:North by Northwest suggests to me that, if we can only attest a limited number of these, north by northwest should be one of them. DCDuring TALK 13:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

east by northeast seems to be the only other entry we have in this form. Keith the Koala (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Is west by south missing anything useful? Should anything be dropped? I have added the corresponding images to the 16 standard "by" compass point entries, but not all of the other things. DCDuring TALK 00:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I am not sure why we are wasting our time on a usage this common, but I added three cites. Kiwima (talk) 20:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
What we are looking for attestation of a specific meaning, ie, "north-northeast". Or is it just used to sound like a what a mariner, explorer, etc would say, even though it is not a standard way of referring to any direction. The citations would support the latter more than the former. DCDuring TALK 22:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The sentences in the citation don't provide enough context to tell what the meaning is, other than "a direction". DCDuring TALK 22:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
There are book sources on technical subjects [44][45][46][47][48][49] that explicitly define north by northeast as synonymous with NNE. The term is also used by many other reputable sources that are clearly not just trying to sound nautical, for instance Monthly Weather Review. SpinningSpark 17:29, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


Unattested. Nibiko (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Added three Usenet citations. Makes me wonder whether we need a "sexist slur" gloss to go along with "ethnic slur"! Equinox 12:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
vaginamony is attested in books, starting in 2003. The challenged entry seems to me to be an alternative form (or misspelling?). DCDuring TALK 15:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Good point! vaginamony appears to be the most common form by far! Nibiko (talk) 01:13, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I never realised that Google Groups' native search was so much better than trying to do a "site:groups.google.com" search on Google *embarrassed* Nibiko (talk) 01:10, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 10:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

[04:59] <elena_> Hi there! We created a new word - "goodmaker" - a person who sets up a business or an organization with the purpose of creating a better world. Synonyms: social entrepreneur, businessman, philanthropist. How can I add this word on Wiktionary? Thank you!
From IRC very early this morning. - TheDaveRoss 11:55, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I saw that. I'm sure it's a word, just not sure that the current def is the right one ? Leasnam (talk) 12:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Speedied as obvious protologism (at least in the sense given). Entrepreneurial types seem particularly keen to create and advertise protologisms, I've noticed. Equinox 12:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
In contrast social entrepreneur is a term that other dictionaries have and we lacked, though we had social entrepreneurship. DCDuring TALK 14:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Kiwima has recreated the entry with citations, but I have re-added an RFV tag, because of the five citations currently in the entry, all but one (2005) appear to be scannos of either good-maker, good maker, good ... makers, or good makers. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 13:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
    The purported 1974 citation is an edition of a 1631 translation of a work by Bernard of Clairvaux. The term appears to be good maker, more plausible in a religious work. DCDuring TALK 13:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I have added a couple more citations. Kiwima (talk) 22:50, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
"good in their nature and framed by a good maker": that's got to be a maker (God) who is good, not a maker of good. Equinox 22:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. The 2008 citation looks solid, but the 1962 citation was an OCR error. There are now two valid citations for sense 1 and zero valid citations for sense 2. Kiwima, when adding citations, it would help if you read the scanned page rather than just copying Google's OCR text, which often has these kinds of errors. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 23:58, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


Supposedly British sense: "Intended to be perceived as spectacular, but actually perceived as extremely poor quality". (Not the US sense, which just means spectacularly crap.) Equinox 00:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks like a candidate for Cat:English autological terms... Chuck Entz (talk) 03:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
The first citation is a mention. The others don't seem to clearly distinguish which sense is intended. The 2003 cite seems nearer to the more pejorative British sense, and the Simpsons one to the more positive US sense. — Pingkudimmi 05:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: (figuratively) Death.

Worm, yes; earthworm, I think not. DCDuring TALK 13:06, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


google results imply that this word does not exist. -13:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Do the users of German Wiktionary call themselves? :) --Octahedron80 (talk) 03:59, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
As far as I know, they don't. But even if they do, the German Wiktionary is not a reliable source to cite this word. -Ikiaika (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


As a synonym(?) of remastered, I'm not seeing much in the way of potential citations. Keith the Koala (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

[50]. If the definition is inaccurate, just fix the definition. --Romanophile (contributions) 02:17, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

This is clearly wide‐spread use. Please terminate this topic. --Romanophile (contributions) 21:42, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


Ido for jujube. I can't find any uses on Google Books or Google Groups, though there is some interference from other languages. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 23:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

jujub. is an official root in Ido. It can be found in Dyer's dictionary from 1924: http://www.idolinguo.org.uk/idendyer.htm. It can also be found in other dictionaries like: Dicionario de la 10 000 Radiki di la linguo universala Ido from 1964, which has a really good description of the fruit: http://www.ido.li/vortari/radikaro.pdf. If you are looking for an actual sentence with this word in use, you are probably out of luck. Ido's literature is not that big, and in the case of an exotic fruit, I don't think that anyone have/will write about it. For that matter, I don't think we would have much more luck with the Espo equivalent. Sincerely - Algentem (talk) 15:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
@Algentem: Please take a look at WT:ATTEST. Dictionaries are not sufficient; we must have uses in the wild. You should note that the Esperanto noun is actually quite easily citable with books on Google Books, but the Ido noun is not, which is why it's being posted here. Please do not add any more terms like this that cannot be cited. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


Discussion moved to WT:Requests for deletion#antse.


Romanian. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Google Books gives 0 hits ([51]). A regular Google search gives a few sporadic hits ([52]). Prompted to say that WT:ATTEST failed. --Robbie SWE (talk) 13:12, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


French section. Needs cleanup and formatting if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

It's remarkably hard to cite because of the number of hits for the English word 'average'. But if you follow the links (copy and paste as they are unformatted links) there are two citations for the word 'average' already in the entry. http://www.atilf.fr/dmf/definition/average provides adequate information to cite it in Old and Middle French. http://www.anglo-norman.net/D/average confirms it just refers to our definition #7 of average. Personally I'd just detag it. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Except it's a French entry, not Old French or Middle French. Two cites won't do for modern French, especially since only one is a use, as far as I can tell. There's also the issue of whether any usage that could be construed as modern French might be construed instead as Norman. This can all be cleared up, but the entry as currently written appears to be wrong. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
English definition 7 must belong to a different etymology. DCDuring TALK 00:28, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it does. I've split the English entry into two etymologies based on the Middle English Dictionary and on the Bosworth/Toller Anglo-Saxon Dictionary. You may notice that it's the result of Norman Old French derivational morphology used on a word of Old English origin, so it's a bit hard to pin down exactly what the language was (which is normal for that time and place, I guess). Chuck Entz (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I checked the SOED (1993) which links that sense to Medieval Latin averagium and the other senses to what we have in the entry. Renard Migrant (talk) 14:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
You'll notice in the MED entry I linked to that it gives the origin as both "AF and AL". I suspect the Anglo-Latin has pretty much the same origin as the Anglo-Norman, or is from the Anglo-Norman. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

[53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58]

This is too damn easy. --Romanophile (contributions) 14:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is, but that can be remedied: those are all cites of an arithmetic sense, equivalent to what's now Etymology 1 of the English. It looks like that should be added. The rfved sense is equivalent to what was definition #7 and is now Etymology 2. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
And it gets even more complicated: see the footnote on the last cite. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:07, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
In ... statuts et coustumes..., suggestion 1 by Romanophile, the section title includes "Des pasturage ..." and in Annales du Midi, suggestion 6 by Romanophile, "de donner à mégerie et cantal de l'average des boeufs, juments, asnesses et autres bestiaux" both seem to describe types of rent from tenants to seigneurs.
In Droit anglais..., suggestion 3 by Romanophile, the section title is "De Le Moyenne (average)" and looks to me like a French explanation of the English term. —BoBoMisiu (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

[59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] --Romanophile (contributions) 23:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The footnote I referred to earlier: "on entend par averagi les brebis en général et le droit de pâture en certains lieux". Since the word footnoted is average, I think "averagi" is an error for that word. At any rate, it looks like the uses in Provence, at least, refer to grazing animals and some sort of right to pasturage for those animals. That means the first and last of your first batch (the rest are the arithmetic sense), and all of your second batch.
It looks like there really is a French word, but all the original cites which use the rfved sense are mostly something to the effect of "this is what they used to call it in England", which look like mentions to me, and all of your cites are for other senses not found in the entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:08, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


Ido for "be birefringent". —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 13:26, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


Ido for hoe (verb). —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 13:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense 7: "(used in the Britain, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, obsolete in North America) The cast off end of a smoked cigarette." Judging from the entry's talkpage not the first occasion when somebody's mistaken "faggot" for fag, in this case (mis)applying the former specifically to fag-end. (I'd nominate it for deletion but not being a native speaker I thought I'd start here in case I'm wrong.) --Droigheann (talk) 18:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I have never heard this in Britain. "fag-end" yes, definitely, but never "faggot". It sounds wrong. 21:25, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, it's not British, unless it's a regional dialect I'm not aware of. SpinningSpark 16:54, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

writing on the wall[edit]

I question whether the uncountable sense and the plural actually exist (with the relevant idiomatic meaning that is; obviously the noun "writing" can in itself be uncountable and plural). 21:21, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Here are three unambiguously uncountable citations and three plural citations (all apparently of the idiomatic meaning):
Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 21:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I have added some citations to the entry. 1982, 2012, and the first 2014 are of the plural in the idiomatic sense. 2011 and the last two 2014 cites are of the uncountable "vague" sense IMO. DCDuring TALK 22:31, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
OK, fair enough, thanks. 02:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


Ido for embalm. All I can find is this mention. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 15:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


Esperanto for "male actor". I see one mention on Usenet, but no uses on Google Groups, Google Books, or Tekstaro. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 15:42, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


Esperanto for "male lion". Nothing on Google Books, Google Groups, or Tekstaro. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 15:44, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


Esperanto for "male angel". Nothing on Google Books, Google Groups, or Tekstaro. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 15:46, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


Esperanto for "male bear". Nothing on Google Books, Google Groups, or Tekstaro. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 15:48, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Determiner. An example would be something like "How often did you go there?" / "Couple times"

I haven't found it called a determiner in OED or the OneLook dictionaries that use 'determiner' as a word class. We need to have citations for our claim that it is a determiner. DCDuring TALK 19:53, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

We have coupla as a noun, which it clearly isn't. DCDuring TALK 19:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

"couple times" is AmE. It is not valid in BrE. This should probably be noted against any definition. My impression (as a BrE speaker) is that "couple times" is a shortening of "couple of times" that has no grammatical explanation or justification. 20:33, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
It's somewhat informal in AmE. I'd not be shocked to find it in the wild in UK, etc. DCDuring TALK 20:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
If it did occur in the UK, it would, according to my understanding, be interpreted either as an Americanism or as a mishearing or misunderstanding of the phrase "couple of ...". 20:56, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Some recent examples from Google News::::For example: "Miraculously, after a year out, Hutchinson decided to return to the game, re-signing with Chelsea and featuring couple times in 2011-12, including his first Premier League start,"
Rory McIlroy (UK): "I guess the last couple times I've played here I've done pretty well, so I'm sort of going for three in a row in Dubai with winning here last year and then with the DP World at the end of last season," McIlroy told reporters in Dubai on 3 February,
About a death in Manchester: "Still remember the couple times I made sure you got home ok either with or without Ze Ze Solomon."
None of these are durably archived, but they do suggest that the Queen's spoken English includes determiner couple. DCDuring TALK 21:16, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Americanisms (as well as errors) do arise in BrE. However, they remain Americanisms (or errors) until such time, if ever, as they are generally accepted. I am not sure about Northern Irish English (yes, I know it is part of the UK). 23:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
It's not exactly mainstream AmEng either. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Couple things: 1. It's exceedingly common in speech and in newspapers, especially in interviews. 2. It could be analyzed as an aphetic pronunciation of a couple. 3. Coupla can be analyzed similarly and looks more informal, though it honors the memory of of with an extra syllable. DCDuring TALK 22:35, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
The very conservative AHD includes:
adj. Informal Two or few: "Every couple years the urge strikes, to ... haul off to a new site" (Garrison Keillor).
Their usage note includes: "The of in the phrase a couple of is often dropped in speech, but this omission is usually considered a mistake. In 2013, 80 percent of the Usage Panel found the sentence A couple friends came over to watch the game to be unacceptable."
Some style manuals rail against a couple of, which is at least obviously grammatical, because of its imprecision. Since precision is not a requirement and may be an impediment in normal speech, speakers have simply ignored the "rule" and gone further to eliminate the obvious, but cumbersome, grammaticality of a couple of in favor of (a) couple (adj.) and (a) coupla. DCDuring TALK 22:52, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I suppose couple could be a determiner ("two or a few; a couple of") of the quantifying variety. But it still needs cites. DCDuring TALK 22:59, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
    I have added a definition for determiner and one for adjective. There is no semantic difference, but there is a grammatical difference. The citations illustrate the difference, I hope. Could someone take a look? DCDuring TALK 23:58, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


Late Latin, perhaps? It's not in Lewis & Short or in the Oxford Latin Dictionary, so I'm pretty sure it's not Classical. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

@Angr: Du Cange has it as meaning tributo obnoxius or “liable to taxation, taxable.” Etymonline claims that “functional” is from Medieval Latin but doesn't specify a meaning. I don't have Niermeyer at hand right now. I'll look later. —JohnC5 19:47, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
I added 3 quotes. It is not just a "liable to taxation". —BoBoMisiu (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2016 (UTC)


West Frisian brein for "brine, pickling solution". Tagged in the English Etymology of brine, but I do not see listed. I have verified this here [[65]] and here [[66]] Leasnam (talk) 03:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I've added Etymology_2 to brein Leasnam (talk) 03:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


I think it's a misspelling of berserker, not an alt form. I tried a search in Google Books but it only seemed to turn up the other spelling. Equinox 13:12, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, looks like a misspelling. Wouldn't make sense, etymologically, without the r, so it seems unlikely to be a historical variant. P Aculeius (talk) 14:15, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but there are alt-forms that started out as misspellings, and even some main forms (pea, for instance). We need to see if it's made that transition. It would seem to me quite normal for speakers to simplify a cluster like "rs" between vowels, especially since the "ber" has lost its connection to "bear" for most speakers. It may very well be that the drift from berserker to beserker is inevitable, given enough time. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes; compare beserk, which constituted one in every fifteen or so uses of the word (beserk,berserk) until around 1985, per Ngrams, and which has made its way into various translation- and other auxiliary- dictionaries (google books:beserk dictionary). "Beserker" itself is around 1/40th as common as "berserker". Lammas: Celebrating Fruits of the First Harvest by Anna Franklin and Paul Mason is one book that uses "beserker(s)" several times and doesn't use "berserker(s)". (In books that use both spellings, it's more likely that the nonstandard spelling is a misspelling, but in books that consistently use one spelling, it's more likely to be an intentional, albeit nonstandard, spelling.) - -sche (discuss) 04:01, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

allied arts[edit]

allied means "related"; this occurs in phrases like "architecture and the allied arts", i.e. those related to architecture. I don't believe it's a thing on its own. Perhaps suitable citations can prove me wrong though? Equinox 16:03, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

@Equinox It can easily be cited without the word "architecture", if that's what you mean. Purplebackpack89 21:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
It is just an example: X and the allied arts means "X and other arts allied_with/related_to X". DCDuring TALK 21:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  1. This is another one of your hybrid RfD/RfVs. If I find three citations for "X and the allied arts" or "X and allied arts", the other words in the sentence are irrelevant because it still passes RfV, but...
  2. I believe that there are plenty of citations for "allied arts" that are not constructed in the forms "X and the allied arts" or "X and allied arts" Purplebackpack89 22:59, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment: Two citations (spanning 50 years) for "allied arts". I see no reason why I shouldn't be allowed to have a third citation of the form "X and the allied arts", and then this RfV can be closed. Purplebackpack89 23:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Cited: Entry now has three citations. This is not the place to discuss SOP. Purplebackpack89 23:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
The first two citations look good to me, but the third citation doesn't seem to mean "fine arts and related disciplines". Rather, it seems to mean the SOP sense of "related arts". —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 00:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • [after e/c] The first two citations seem to establish "arts allied to each other" or "arts allied to something that everyone knows they are allied to". The third does not IMO. It seems to be clearly an SoP use of the term. Can you find another like the first two? It would be nice to have three citations that allowed us to look at the context. It would also be nice if we had three unambiguous citations for at least one of the definitions I gave, because they seem quite different to me. I note that no other dictionary at OneLook has the purported expression, so we apparently cannot rely on authority, but rather our own lexicographic skills, however meager they may be. DCDuring TALK 00:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
    Consider this from Encyclopedia Americana 1924:
Those, then, of the decorative arts which are applied to the beautifying of useful objects, may properly be called the industrial decorative arts. (See Interior Decoration). Under this classification would be included all decorative weaving, textile work and basketry; decorative metal-work in iron and bronze, silver and gold, etc., applied to the adornment of implements or furniture; decorative woodwork in furniture, including wood inlay; and all decorative pottery and ceramics. When, however, any of these arts is applied to the decoration of permanent or immovable structures instead of movable objects, they become ancillary to architecture, and are often called "the allied arts" or "the accessory arts,* along with mosaic, ornamental carving and stained glass.
That is a mention rather than a use, but it offers a clear definition and suggests that the term means or meant something different in the context of architecture from what it means in education as the Encyclopedia definition does not fit correspond to the definition in the entry. DCDuring TALK 00:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@DCDuring@Equinox@Mr. Granger I have added an additional citation which I believe does not apply to the SOP definition, giving us three "non-SOP" citations, even though SOP is not an RfV issue. Purplebackpack89 01:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
The 2014 cite is SoP. The cite from the J of the AIA belongs to a separate definition, as explained above. DCDuring TALK 01:26, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Will you stop bringing up RfD policies in an RfV? And I hope you three realize how you guys are coming off. I write an entry, you say it's SOP. I add citations, you say they're not good enough. How 'bout less, "this isn't good enough, this is SOP, Purplebackpack do it over", you actually try and find a citation yourself to replace the one you claim is SOP? Purplebackpack89 04:38, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm simply describing what the cite seems to support. For most multi-word expressions there is at least one, often many, SoP interpretation. The first job of a citer is to exclude those. You don't seem to have been doing that.
If you don't understand the difference or notice the difference in the meaning of the cites, then you shouldn't be wasting your time or ours pretending that you know how to define a word and cite the definition. DCDuring TALK 10:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@DCDuring You're not improving how I think of you with that comment. If you're wondering why this project burns out users, it's processes like this one and comments like that one. And if you consider adding an entry that has at minimum two implacable citations a "waste of time", you give me pause on thinking you're actually here to build the project. In the time you have spent criticizing me here, you could probably have found that third citation. So get to it! Equinox tries to make me a dancing monkey; now it's your and Equinox's turn to dance! Purplebackpack89 13:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Appropriately selective burn-out is not necessarily a bad thing.
The time waste is in your apparent inability to discriminate among citations. I don't believe that the challenged definition in the entry is worth saving, so I'll wait for the next dance. I would stipulate that the collocation allied arts is abundantly attestable, but not the definition under challenge. We need much better citations than we have. DCDuring TALK 13:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
OK, so you admit that you neither care about adding new editors nor about adding this entry, even though it's at most one citation away from passing RfD. OK, glad we're clear on that. You also admit your unwillingness to do any work on it; which I continue to believe is completely disingenuous with holding me in scorn for the work I have done. Finally, lest you forget, there are at present two definitions (counting the one you added last night), and as you forgot to convert the RfD into an RfD sense, both of them are technically at RfD right now, with the one you created closer to failing RfD than the one I created, as the one you created has only a single citation. Purplebackpack89 13:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Sorry for the oversight. Would you like to challenge the architecture sense? It seems marginal and it's probably dated. It might even be US only. But there I go again, splitting hairs. DCDuring TALK 13:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
This is "Request" for verification: no one is obligated to do anything. The normal practice is that anyone who feels like it provides cites, and any perceived shortcomings in the cites are pointed out until either a consensus is arrived at that they're adequate or the rfv fails. The creators of the entries have an interest in not having them deleted, so they typically do a good part or all of the work. It's nice if people pointing out problems with the cites help in finding better ones, but they don't have to. Some nominations are disingenuous and/or unnecessary, but that's for the process to sort out. The only thing out of the ordinary here is your histrionic tone and demands on those who have the temerity to question any detail of these obvious manifestations of your brilliance. I know you're sincere about this, and not intentionally playing any games- but it's a bit much. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
  • To be honest, I'm not convinced that any of the meanings are justified by the citations given. Sense 1 isn't even a definition; if the other two fall, then the whole entry should go. Sense 2 has two citations: the first one appears to use the phrase to mean "humanities and the allied arts" (i.e. arts related to the humanities) while the second one is vaguer, but seems to mean "arts related to each other" in the context of an artist colony, and is sum-of-parts within that context. The use given under sense 3 means "arts related to architecture". The fact that the American Institute of Architects has or had a "Committee on Allied Arts" doesn't give the phrase a specific architectural meaning, any more than its "Committee on Publicity" gives publicity a special architectural meaning. In each example cited under both senses, allied arts means nothing more than "arts related to whatever topic is under discussion," and is therefore sum-of-parts. P Aculeius (talk) 16:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
    You may be right about the architecture definition. I viewed the Encyclopedia's definition as suggestive rather than conclusive. But there seems to be or have been some institutional reality to the association between any of several decorative arts and architecture. DCDuring TALK 18:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be some implication to allied that is not in the words related or connected. Architecture seems to be dominant with a changing cast of decorative arts. Are they all in common cause under the leadership of architecture?
The following made me doubt my intuition: "to say nothing of those near neighbors and practitioners of the allied arts, Fan Dancer Sally Rand and Philosopher John Dewey." DCDuring TALK 18:31, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
@P Aculeius The last time I searched for citations, to avoid the SoP you and others are concerned about, I asked Google Books to exclude any references to "and the allied arts" or "and allied arts". Purplebackpack89 19:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
What I'm saying is that all of these examples still read like sum-of-parts to me, because the only way you can tell which arts are allied is by reference to the subject under discussion. And then all it means is "whatever arts are similar to or involved with the main topic." For instance, with the architectural journal, it probably means arts related to building; such as tile or mosaic laying, carving decorative figures such as cornices or molding, design of lighting fixtures, plumbing fixtures, decorative woodwork or ironwork for stairways, elevators, grates, railings; painting, wallpapering, paneling; design of carpets and rugs, furniture and other accessories that may not be integral to the building's structure or overall layout, but which might be coördinated to match or compliment those things. There's not going to be a fixed list; it just means any art closely related to architecture. If you see an article describing the "allied arts" of architectural design, you might see a dozen different categories listed; but another article using the same phase might give only 9, and only partial overlap; or maybe 15; and over time some might not be important enough to describe, while others might. For example, the design of gas jets and gas lighting fixtures might have been considered an allied art in 1890, but not in 1920; while electrical fixtures and outlets might just have been a minor matter in 1890, but an allied art in 1920. P Aculeius (talk) 20:16, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
In the context of US primary and secondary education there might be a group of subjects of an artistic nature which are allied in the common cause of seeking restoration to the curriculum from which they have been driven by the w:Common Core State Standards Initiative (Common Core). DCDuring TALK 21:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Is there any evidence that the phrase "allied arts" is used on its own, without any context that would limit or identify which arts are meant, to mean a specific and regular group of arts? In all of the examples given, there is context: the humanities, an artists' colony, an architectural institute. I don't believe that the phrase is synonymous with "fine arts", or any other identifiable subset. Its meaning always seems to depend on the context in which it is used. P Aculeius (talk) 23:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


I can't find uses of 言語学実在論 (Google, Google Books), but I can find uses of 言語実在論 (Google, Google Books). Nibiko (talk) 05:58, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'd say so, which was why I refrained from linking to them as a whole. But, we seem to have an English entry for mathematical realism, which is the same thing as this but just swapping out the language part in the semantics for mathematics. I note that a number of the Japanese entries containing have failed RFD for various reasons, most commonly SOP-ness. Nibiko (talk) 00:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
  • (slight digression) I'm fine with having an entry for 実在論 ‎(jitsuzairon, realism, as a philosophical argument).
(main thread) But I'm baffled by the inclusion of an entry for 言語学的実在論 ‎(gengoteki jitsuzairon, linguistic realism), or even the English entry at mathematical realism -- these are just qualified kinds of the philosophical realism, with the multi-word terms fully understandable from their constituent parts, and as such these are not integral terms. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:11, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


Any takers? (other than as the name of a US healthcare company) SemperBlotto (talk) 01:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)


Alternative form of anti-?! I think the h would have to come from the word that ant- is being prepended to. Equinox 00:26, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm assuming it was created because it exists on Appendix:English prefixes. It was added to that page in this edit from 2004, which also added several other combining forms beginning with a, most of which look cromulent. (The edit history of that page is very confusing because two competing appendices were merged together some time in 2007). Keith the Koala (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
The creator has now changed it to be an alt form of anthrop-. Still sounds wrong. Equinox 11:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Equinox. Also, Category:English words prefixed with anth- is empty. I have deleted anth- from the Appendix and from user Brian's hotlist. DCDuring TALK 11:57, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
I think it may actually be a form of antho- before certain vowels. Equinox 12:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!


Labeled as a nonce word, this has one Google Books hit and one Google Groups hit. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:42, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

In contrast, doglessly is attested. DCDuring TALK 19:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


Mentioned in several books for appearing in the OED in spite of being used only once.Chuck Entz (talk) 03:28, 21 March 2016 (UTC)



Unlikely-looking non-standard adjective formations. The closest I can get for either is NIMBY-est. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

  • There are a couple of results for the capitalisation "NIMBYest" on gnews [67][68] but I'm not sure they are durable in any case. SpinningSpark 10:56, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
    In the second one, NIMBYest is actually in the comments rather than in the article itself. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)



I'm only seeing scannos for nimbler and nimblest. The fact that all the apparent hits are from before 1900 is a bit of a give away. If all four of these fail, then nimby#Adjective might not be demonstrable. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:32, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

nimby#Adjective seems to have been cited, not that it's strictly relevant. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)


"Judaism; Semitism". Religious isms are -教, other (political, etc.) isms are -主義. —suzukaze (tc) 09:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the core issue here is that the entry creator doesn't appear to know either Japanese or Wiktionary conventions very well. This particular Japanese term does exist, but the meaning is more like Semitism or Zionism -- Judaism refers more to the religion, which (as you rightly note) would be ユダヤ教 ‎(Yudaya-kyō) instead. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:41, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • Poking around, it seems that Mekikin (talkcontribs) has made several hundred edits on the JA Wikt, mostly on Hebrew entries, but they have never responded to posts on their Talk page there. Perhaps it's not that their Japanese is weak, so much as their English? Or perhaps both? ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 07:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • @Eirikr: I think we can count this as RFV passed based on the fact that citations can be found, but it wouldn't hurt to add them to the entry. More importantly, could you please come up with a better definition (and maybe a gloss)? Thank you! —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Middle East[edit]

Rfv-sense: "The region between the Near East and the Far East." According to the article Near East it appears that Near East is a dated term for Middle East. On the other hand, the definition "region between the Near East and the Far East" may be understood as comprising Central Asia and South Asia. --Hekaheka (talk) 05:38, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

That's exactly what I was taught in college; that the phrase originally referred to the region of India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iran, rather than the Arab world, which was described as the Near East; but that over time "Middle East" came to be applied to the Arab world as well, and eventually the term "Near East" became scarce, while "Middle East" was rarely applied to India (although I think Afghanistan and Pakistan might still be thought of as part of the Middle East). Of course, "what I was taught" isn't attestation, but I don't think it'll be hard to find that. P Aculeius (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
The OED has »…Also (esp. in early use): India and adjacent countries; an area perceived as lying between the Near East and the Far East.« Some relevant cites given there:
  • 1900 19th Cent. Mar. 413 The most sensitive part of our external policy in the Middle East is the preservation of the independence and integrity of Persia and Afghanistan.
  • 1903 V. Chirol Middle Eastern Question i. 5 ‘The Middle East’, that is to say..those regions of Asia which extend to the borders of India or command the approaches to India.
  • 1958 Ld. Vansittart Mist Procession vi. 82 We had [in 1909] none of the sloppy modernism which lumps everything from the Mediterranean to Bengal as Middle East... Persia, Baluchistan, Afghanistan, India were the Middle East.
  • 1988 Daily Tel. 14 Apr. 12 Potentates in the Near East (not ‘Middle East’, please—that's India) did indeed keep elephants.
Seems more than sufficient to me. Vorziblix (talk) 22:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

čárka, čárky[edit]

I haven't tagged them so far as I'm not sure about the exact rules, but the facts stand like this: čárka is the Czech word for acute accent, čárky its plural. However, both have English sections, which are "cited" at the former with two examples of the singular and two of the plural. Now for the fun and games:

  • The first citation (1993) is by "Olga Parolková and Jaroslava Nováková [...] self-published by Olga Parolková" - obviously Czech speakers, presumably unaware of the term acute accent.
  • The second (2000) is by "Jarda Cervenka", an obvious Czech name, the work may be a translation by somebody (the author himself?) unaware of the term acute accent.
  • The third (2009) is "by Autumn Pierce" but with a Czech title and the Google Books link reveals (scroll up just below the cover) it was translated from German Englisch Aufbauwortschatz by Lenka Pecharová, another Czech name, thus translator presumbaly unaware &c.
  • The fourth (2011) is per its Google Books link by another born Czech speaker, "now an assimilated American" but quite possibly unaware &c.

To sum it up, we have four citations for a Czech word (two for the singular and the plural each) used in English instead of its normal English counterpart, all of them by Czech speakers presumably unaware of said English counterpart. Does this suffice for the word to be perceived as attested as an English word? --Droigheann (talk) 10:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Possibly. There is a certain tendency to use native names for diacritic marks when discussing them in English, even when English has perfectly good native names for them. Sticking with the acute accent, fada is often used in reference to Irish Gaelic—usually by people who are native English speakers, and sometimes (e.g. the 2006 quotation at the entry) alongside "acute accent", proving that it isn't a matter of ignorance of that term. And although we don't have an English-language entry for it, I know I've heard people refer to it as accent aigu when discussing French orthography in English. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, but my point is that unlike fada or accent aigu, čárka seems (by the evidence provided at this moment) to be used exclusively by people who are not native English speakers. --Droigheann (talk) 13:29, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
I tend to agree with your analysis. I tend to agree that English quotations of what looks like a Czech word used by Czech speakers writing in English are questionable, but I do not remember any clear en wikt practice or precedent in that regard. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
All right, I tagged them now. --Droigheann (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2016 (UTC)



A person belonging to the first generational cohort of digital natives, Generation X.

Tagged by an IP, but not listed- but only because the IP beat me to it (having to sleep can be real inconvenient, sometimes...).

First of all, why would this have -ee instead of -ie? Secondly, I'm not sure that using devices with screens is really a trait people would associate with Generation X in particular. More importantly, all the hits on Google Books and Google Groups are for the sense referring to someone who has been screened. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I didn't see even one hit in google books for this meaning, and couldn't find even one bit of information confirming it in the whole internet. I even found that somebody uses screenees instead of screenshot, but not the one in question. The onus of proof in such case should be on the submitter, so I suggest to delete the meaning. 18:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
Screenshots are screenies, so that would just be a misspelling. Equinox 11:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-ee has a fairly nebulous meaning by now (standee isn't a person you stand on). But yeah. Seems very doubtful. Equinox 03:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)


RFV of all of the alternative forms which were just copied and pasted from the OED, and most of which don't seem to be attested. - -sche (discuss) 23:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm too lazy to try and attest any (outside dictionaries I've only ever encountered the peewit form in Sunset Song), but if somebody wanted to, they may (or may not) find this webpage helpful too (in addition to the OED quotes). --Droigheann (talk) 01:41, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
that would help cite the terms as Scots (at the moment they are claimed to be English). - -sche (discuss) 02:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
They are in the OED (as mentions) but unless the original editor provides actual usage (and nobody else will) they will be removed. SemperBlotto (talk) 03:31, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
The only use of "tchuchet" I can find is an oft-quoted passage about a "Tchuchet-Storm". I can only find one Yorkshire use of "teafit" (and several mentions). "teewheep", "teewhoap": only mentions. "teewitte": nothing at all. "tequhyt": no English uses; one oft-quoted Scots passage about "the bones of ane tequhyt". "terwhite": only scannos. "teuchat", "teuchit" I've cited. - -sche (discuss) 04:26, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
For teufet, teufit, tewet, and tewfet I only find scannos. tewhit is possibly attestable. - -sche (discuss) 06:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Weel, let's not throw the bairn out wi' the bathwater - Dictionary of the Scots Language http://www.dsl.ac.uk/entry/snd/teuchit has a few non-mentions, as does EDD - but someone'd have to go through and check which forms have 3 cites for this. Though, I have to ask, does the 3 cites rule apply to British dialect forms (given the variable spelling of dialect sources)? I note that CFI states "different requirements apply for certain languages" - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 23:54, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
We treat Scots as a separate language (language code sco). Chuck Entz (talk) 02:25, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Oh, okay, cool - about the Eng/Scots split, I mean. Thanks for letting me know. But this does bring up some queries about CFI: the rules seem to be applied to words and phrases, and also to definitions for polysemous words. But, first, do the CFI rules apply to every variant spelling of a word? And, second, does the 3 x non-mention cites rule apply to British dialect words? The actual CFI rules themselves do not seem to be clear on this, and the note that "different requirements apply for certain languages" does not seem to be elaborated on there - so is there a list of which languages to which different rules apply? [And, is there somewhere where these questions should be discussed?] - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 03:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
There is some disagreement about variant spellings. Some users think that three citations should be required for each spelling and that if there are two citations of one spelling and one citation of another spelling, the word does not meet CFI. Other users support pooling citations of different spellings to attest a single entry.
The requirement of three non-mention citations applies to all languages listed at WT:WDL, including English. British dialectal words are not exempt. Other natural languages have weaker requirements, as described at WT:CFI#Number of citations.
The WT:Beer parlour is a good place to discuss these topics. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 06:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Mr. Granger. I would be a pooler of variant spellings myself (esp. for sections of the language that are not standard - slang, dialect, etc.). Seems that the 3-cites rule doesn't apply to dead languages ... from which one might be able to make a case for pre-20thC British dialect lexis such as appears in EDD - a lot of which is essentially dead now. But - to the Beer parlour I must hie me. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, "pooling" is irrelevant here, because some spellings of this word (including tewit) meet CFI with three citations each. Some people have said that if e.g. foobar gets two citations and foobarr gets one, they want to create an entry (presumably at foobar) using those citations, although this is controversial and has never been done yet: we have always RFV-failed such terms, AFAIK. But if foobar gets three citations, then the only reason for giving foobarr an entry too is if it too attested 3+ times. - -sche (discuss) 17:55, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I've deleted the unattested words from the first two columns (RFV-failed); the third (now second of two) column still needs to be checked. - -sche (discuss) 20:13, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
tuquheit might be attestable, though just barely. tufit gets too many scannos to tell. tuchet does not seem to be attested. - -sche (discuss) 04:07, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


As an adjective: It's merely attributive use of the noun. Donnanz (talk) 09:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I think hairpin can also be a short form of hairpin bend (in motor racing?), but that needs to be verified. Donnanz (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

A portion of a road, path, route, etc is not exactly shaped like a hairpin, though the metonymy is obvious to most of us.
We could add a definition like "Any object, especially any kind of path or route that resembles a hairpin when represented on a map." to make the attributive use more obvious. This would accommodate all likely attributive use not covered by the other noun senses. The existing definitions already accommodate more direct physical resemblance. DCDuring TALK 12:07, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Added the noun for a road bend. Equinox 12:09, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Most of the time, it looks like an attributive noun to me, but I did find the following:
  • 2001, Dornford Yates, She Fell Among Thieves, ISBN 1842329804, page 95:
    Into and out of a valley, with the fall and rise of a lift...slow round a very hairpin, and then all out at a hill like the side of a house ... round to the left, to find a furlong waiting, straight as a rule ... and then a four-tier zigzag, to bring the needle from eighty to seventeen...
  • 2007, Roy Vincent, Listening to the Silences, ISBN 1847474721, page 98:
    The road over the Shu'uff mountains was very hairpin-bendy, and very hair-raising in a truck with bald tyres and a body that indisputably had a detached life of its own, as the tailboard hung over a precipitous drop, while we edged and reverse, edged and reversed around any one of the many hair-pins.
  • 2011, Rue Green, Cisco Unified Customer Voice Portal, ISBN 0132660377:
    If the intercluster call is not hairpin/looped back to the same cluster, the former behavior of location based CAC logic applies.
  • 2014, Gerald Seymour, The Untouchable, ISBN 1444760408:
    Beyond Banja Luka the road deteriorated. It was hairpin and cut out of a rock wall beside a fast river.
Kiwima (talk) 05:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure how to check the references you've dredged up, but one of them is actually "hairpin-bendy", a rather informal-sounding adjective, not "hairpin". Try Googling "hairpin-like" and "hairpinlike" which are relatively common. Hairpin is still not an adjective in my opinion. Donnanz (talk) 11:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
  • And I think "hairpin/looped" should read "hairpin-looped". It checks out on Google, as well as "hairpin loop". Donnanz (talk) 16:51, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
    They strike me the same way. At best they are rare metaphorical uses, all of which are readily understood in context by likely readers.
    In addition, the first cite strikes me as using very ‎(true) (adjective), which is consistent with the literary-dated language throughout the work. DCDuring TALK 13:09, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
    I wonder whether government would pass this test: 'her style is very government'. It seems to me that nouns actually can be qualified with 'very'. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Hopefully that will remain a hypothetical question. Nobody has been daft enough to make an adjective out of government. Donnanz (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually Wiktionary:English adjectives#Tests of whether an English word is an adjective does say that others parts of speech can be modified by too/very. For example I found a hit for very FBI. So being used with 'very' doesn't make it an automatic adjective. Renard Migrant (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
* Only the 2014 cite of hairpin is an actual adjective; the 2001 is a noun (where very = real, genuine, utter, total). I agree hairpin is only a noun used as a modifier, and since we have entries for hairpin bend/curve/turn, there's no need for this adj def - which cannot be freely applied to other nouns. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


Alt form of panentheism. Questioned by a talk-page anon. Why would this be intercapped like a brand name? Looks a bit odd. Equinox 11:25, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I could write hairPin or interCapped to emphasize that letter or the morpheme that includes it, though a representation like hairPIN would be more common and more effective for the morpheme. DCDuring TALK 12:11, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
It looks to me like the Capital T is there for the same reason that God is capitalized. That would explain the reasoning behind it, but whether people actually do that in the real world is another matter entirely- do people write things like "unGodly"? Chuck Entz (talk) 07:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


rfv of the English section:

  1. Another name for the vegetable name

I've been rewriting everything with this definition, because name is a rather local name for true yams, and shouldn't be used as the main entry. In this case, though, I have my doubts as to whether mapuey is truly an English term. It certainly appears in English texts, but so far all I've been able to find look to me like mentions of it as a Spanish word. Maybe others will have better luck. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

lazy ass[edit]

Rfv-sense for adjective: lazy ass ‎(comparative more lazy ass, superlative most lazy ass): lazy

The quotations in the entry do not use the exact spelling "lazy ass"; they use "Lazyass" and "lazy-ass". And even if they did, would not this be just attributive use of the noun lazy ass? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Maybe. Certainly, most usage is attributive. DCDuring TALK 13:54, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Actually I don't think it is attributive use of the noun. I'd say it's SOP: lazy plus sense 5 of etymology 2 of ass: "used after an adjective to indicate extremes or excessiveness" (examples: That was one big-ass fish! That's an expensive-ass car!). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Could be. It makes some sense semantically. But what sense does it make grammatically? Are lazy ass and big ass adjective phrases headed by the adjectives? Other vulgar nouns can be used the same way. Moreover, is the usage any different from the usage of dictionary in "Those are real big-dictionary words you're using." (~ 8 uses at Google Books). DCDuring TALK 14:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Also a user might look up ass and find a noun or -ass and find a suffix. DCDuring TALK 14:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, the overlap between the sense of ass that I mentioned and the suffix -ass is problematic, as they're clearly the same thing. Grammatically, I'd say it's a suffix that intensifies the adjective it's suffixed to; from the morphological point of view it's no different from Italian -issimo. The difference to "big-dictionary words" is that dictionary in that phrase is to be taken literally: they're words that belong in a big dictionary. But in "expensive-ass car", there is no implication that the car has an expensive ass (not even a metaphorical one). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
The fundamental difference is that I focus conservatively on the grammar, without much regard for the semantics, and you on the semantics, inventing grammar as required. This is one of the cases where the result is different. DCDuring TALK 00:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


A sound engineer. Nothing much in Google etc. Equinox 15:33, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


RFV for the chess sense, please. The chess sense seems to be a literal translation of the English term. But even though it's a correct literal translation from English to Latin, that doesn't mean that this Latin sense exists.
(The Latin term here for king for example is also a literal translation of the Spanish, French, German term, so it's more likely that it exists.) - 19:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I've run it through the Gaffiot which has post-Classical Latin as well as Classical, and it doesn't have it. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:39, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Primary sources for Latin chess piece names:
  • De Ludis Orientalibus Libri Duo is in Latin, uses the word Scachorum and Scaccarium, mentions several names for chess pieces and has "Caroli Magni. / Rex / Regina / Sagittifer / Centaurus / Elephas / Pedes". Later the text contains the word "Episcopus", but it could also refer to the etymology or to religious bishops.
  • Scientiarum omnium encyclopaediae (1649): "Atque hic est ludus scacchiae, de quo circumfertur versus: Turris, Eques, Pastor, Regem, Regina sequatur. Quae nomina sic ferè exprimuntur: Rex, βασιλεὺς : Regina, [Greek] : Turris, seu Elephas, [Greek] : Sagittarius, τοξότης : Eques, ἱππεὺς : Pedes, seu Rusticus, [Greek]."
Secondary sources:
  • In A. v. d. Linde's Quellenstudien zur Geschichte des Schachspiels it is "Rex, regina (= Amazone), sagittifer, miles, elephantus turritus." which should refer to chess pieces.
  • A van der Linde, Der Roch. Zur wissenschaftlichen Entscheidung einer Heraldischen Streitfrage, p. 8f.: "Sein tükischer Sprung machte ihn zum Auflauerer (explorator, speculator, insidiator) und dann später zum Schützen (arcer, arcifer, sagittifer, sagittarius – Vida 1525 sagittifer, Rabelais, um 1550?, und Gruget, Paris 1560, archier; Gustavus Selenus, Leipzig 1616 Schütze)" and "Ein unbekannter lateinischer Dichter des Mittelalters hat die Schachfiguren sogar astronomisch gedeutet: Rex est Sol, pedes est Saturnus, Mars quoque miles, Regina virgo Venus, Alphinus Episcopus ipse est Jupiter, et Roccus discurrens Luna."
  • Antonius van der Linde, Geschichte und Litteratur des Schachspiels. Zweiter Band: After "Die Figuren heissen" Latin names should follow and it should refer to Latin texts related to Chess.
  • H. F. Maßmann, Geschichte des mittelalterlichen, vorzugsweise des Deutschen Schachspieles, p. 40: "wie der Läufer bei Karl dem Großen sagittifer hieß"
  • Chess Player's Annual & Club Directory 1890 has a table with several names. It could have "Rex / Regina / Turris, or Rochus / Sagittarius, or Calvus / Eques / Pedes" and "Turritusfit / Scacchum / Mattum".
So Latin episcopus should be attestable, but sagittarius and sagittifer should be more common. -Ikiaika (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


Nothing in Books or Groups. A WP article has since been deleted. Equinox 20:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


Per the talk page, this has only been used by one author (centuries ago). - -sche (discuss) 03:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


Unattested. Nibiko (talk) 02:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


Is this used in English, especially since it has a tone marker? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's one:
These are hard to find in the sea of false positives, though. bd2412 T 22:32, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
It's not common to use tone markers in English writing. Do we really want to go down this route here at the Wiktionary? If so, wouldn't we have to provide transcriptions for terms like Beijing as well? — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:05, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh my. I see we already do: Běijīng (and see "Category:Mandarin pinyin"). I wasn't aware we were providing Pinyin transcriptions. In that case, we should just change the reference to English in to "Mandarin". — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
FYI, pinyin entries follow a strictly format per vote. Here, it's not a Chinese transliteration being verified but an English entry.--Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 09:27, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
As I mentioned before, then: tone markers are not generally used in English. The entry should be changed from an English to a Mandarin one. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
The question isn't whether tone markers are generally used in English but whether they're used in this specific term as English. That's why it's at rfv. Foreign words are sometimes spelled in English as they are in the original language even though English speakers don't pronounce them the same. If this exists as English, I'm pretty sure the tone isn't pronounced. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Here are two more citations:
  • 2015, Halvor Eifring, Meditation and Culture: The Interplay of Practice and Context, page 82:
    Zhū's critique of his contemporary Xiàngshān 陸象山 was similar to the way he treated Hú Hóng (胡宏 1105–55), the principal figure of the Húnán school. Zhū always considered ’s teaching as Chánnist, because he saw him as pursuing a transcendent, immediate enlightenment and neglecting the cultivation of “principle” that could only come from protracted and gradual moral practice.
  • 2014, Justin Tiwald, ‎Bryan W. Van Norden, Readings in Later Chinese Philosophy: Han to the 20th Century, page 231:
    Xiàngshān 陸象山 (1139–1193) was a contemporary of Zhu Xi, as well as an influential philosophical rival.
That should settle the question of whether it is used in English. bd2412 T 21:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Mmmm, in that case, wouldn't there be many, many Pinyin transcriptions that appear in English texts? Should separate English sections be created for them, in addition to the Mandarin ones? To be honest, it seems rather strange to me that we should have, on each page of a Pinyin transcription like "", separate "English" and "Mandarin" sections with essentially the same content. — SMUconlaw (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
If foreign words are used in English to the extent that they become English words, then we include them as English. The test is generally whether they are used in running text without being italicized, put in quotes, or otherwise set off as foreign (as with the examples above for Lù). Surnames, of course, are particularly fluid in crossing language barriers. bd2412 T 23:40, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
You don't consider having the pinyin immediately followed by the Chinese characters for the name to be setting it aside as foreign? Chuck Entz (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I find that substantially less persuasive than a treatment of the words themselves. That can merely show that the name is identified by a different set of characters in another language. For example, one could write that "While visiting Beijing, Zhang played many games of ping pong (乒乓球)", which indicates what ping pong is called in Beijing without suggesting that "ping pong" is a non-English term. The inclusion of dates in some of these parentheticals also suggests that the information they convey is biographical rather than linguistic. In any case, in the 2015 example the following paragraph starts "Zhū's critique of Chán, Lù Xiàngshān, and Hú Hóng's Húnán school is well known and there is no need to discuss it in detail here", with no qualifiers or other indicia of "foreignness" after the terms. bd2412 T 16:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
A have added one more:
  • 2013, David Holm, Mapping the Old Zhuang Character Script, page 768:
  • As Xíxìng puts it, 'as for phonophores, Chữ Nôm appears rather lax, and allows graphic simplification, rather like the “graphs with simplified phonetic” (shěngshēngzì 省聲字) in Chinese.'
bd2412 T 18:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense Chinese: "abbreviation for Japan". If this is a valid sense, is it read as bèn? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 12:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


Esperanto for male penguin. Nothing on Google Books, Google Groups, or Tekstaro. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 16:16, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


Unattested. Nibiko (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


As above. Nibiko (talk) 16:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I only see one citation: I am not speaking of hodophiles, incurable travelers intoxicated by the sense of motion....Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 17:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

washing bear[edit]

The literal translation of raccoon in various languages is "washing bear". However, there's little evidence to suggest this name is used in English. --AK and PK (talk) 17:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I found two cites which seem to be more than just mentions: [69], [70]. Einstein2 (talk) 18:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
The presence of quotation marks make them seem like less than full uses, though; especially in the second link where it's clearly simply glossing Procyon lotor. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Enough citations: [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] to satisfy CFI it seems; even though originally a translation. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 15:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
The first and third cites are not visible to me. Could formatted versions be placed in the entry or its citations page? The other two seem to me to be mentions not uses, but I could be persuaded otherwise. DCDuring TALK 16:02, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Try changing books.google.ro to books.google.com in the URL. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll look for that kind of solution in the future. DCDuring TALK 12:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Regarding Sonofcawdrey's citations:
The first one (which is apparently quoting Einstein2's first citation) says "... since the dog of some early settler first treed a raccoon and the farmer's son discovered the excitement of shaking the 'washing bear' to the ground. ... When the first dog yelps, the little 'washing bear', one of Nature's comedians, pricks up his pointed ears and starts to travel." This looks like a use to me, though it is in quotation marks.
The second one is clearly a mention.
The third one says "This 'washing bear' or masked bandit has a long nosed and tailed cousin that lives in Texas." This sentence is a clue for a scavenger hunt, and the answer is presumably "raccoon".
I can't view the fourth one, but Google's excerpt that appears on the search results page looks like a mention: "Raccoons have been given the name washing bear."
The fifth one is clearly a mention.
Einstein2's second citation looks like a mention. So it looks to me like we have four mentions (Einstein2 2, Sonofcawdrey 2, Sonofcawdrey 4, Sonofcawdrey 5) and two dubious uses (Sonofcawdrey 1, Sonofcawdrey 3). —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 11:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I labeled this "rare", just in case it would pass the rfv. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi all - I found some other cites where "washing bears" is used as an article heading (in books on mammals) - I guess this counts as a use rather than a mention? - if so, I will add the non-mention citations to the entry, and three should be enough to conclude business.- Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Headline writers are hucksters. They are trying to get folks to buy the magazine, read the article, be influenced by the ads. One would expect them to abuse the reader in this way. And italics and quotes might interfere with the selling process. IOW, I don't think we should treat headlines as use. DCDuring TALK 10:29, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Apologies for my lack of clarity - they aren't headlines - they are chapter headings or article heading within the pages of books - so not really selling points of eyecatchers - sure, they may have the associated attraction of adding interest for the reader, but I can't see that that would disqualify them from being actual uses and not mentions, and since they are in wholly English-language books and are used to refer to the animals. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 08:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

huat ah[edit]

Supposedly English. The example sentences are all "mentions" (use the term in quotes). SemperBlotto (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

As a Singaporean, I'd say this term has not been fully assimilated into English. However, because it is an interjection and thus not used within a longer sentence (e.g., *"She wished him huat for his examinations"), it is going to be virtually impossible to tell from quotations in print whether the speakers were speaking English or Hokkien (Min Nan). — SMUconlaw (talk) 11:02, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I suppose the person who added it believes it to be Singapore English when used in English contexts. I added four citations for the interjection to the entry. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 03:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016[edit]


Tagged by User:Sonofcawdrey, not listed. I've just added three citations. Equinox 18:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks (apologies for lack of listing). - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

salvee might have more meanings[edit]

Examples: "... gave us two or three salvees with their musketts ...", "A canoe was loosed from the shore, salvees were exchanged—in an instant more everything was known ...". 21:03, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

That's salvoes. You have to click the link to check it isn't a scanno. Equinox 21:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Not the first one, but the second one is a scanno, you are right. 21:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
This is a very specific term apparently borrowed from Danish, that's now obsolete except in historical usage referring to a technique developed in Sweden in the 1600s of having two or three ranks taking different postures so that each of the back ranks fire their muskets over the heads of the ranks in front of them. This allowed them to all fire at the same time in a single salve or salvee. I'm not sure whether this is the parent of salvo or a doublet of it, but it apparently predates it. Here's a dictionary entry to dispel any notion of scannos or "eye dialect" and give the etymology of the word, here's a more detailed description of the technique, and here's an illustrated mention, while here, here and here are uses. We have the sense in question for Danish at salve and for Swedish at salva, but we're missing an English one and at least a Norwegian Bokmål one at salve (the latter two would be hard to cite). Chuck Entz (talk) 06:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)


Is this used in Chinese? Also, Unihan gives gòng, but it's currently nū. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 06:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it's a Korean creation. See w:Talk:Gugyeol. —suzukaze (tc) 06:24, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
Of the three Google Books hits, I can't find it in two (but they're Japanese, anyway), and the character Google OCRs as 莻 in the third one is actually something else. zh.Wikt's entry has only ever been edited by bots. Does anyone from this Wiktionary notify our colleagues at zh.Wikt when we find spurious entries like this? We should. - -sche (discuss) 14:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
It is not spurious. Korean-made characters have corresponding pronunciations in Chinese too, which can be used when the characters need to be used in Chinese (e.g. (shí) in zh:李世乭). It is used to represent the native Korean syllable (neuj, root of 늦— (neut-, “late”)) and may be read as , nǎi, nūxi or gòng. See this page for some historical usages. Wyang (talk) 09:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


Alt form of moth-er (moth-catcher). Already discussed at Talk:mother, where CFI-compliant citations could not be found. Equinox 22:16, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I've added two citations to the Citations section at the entry (admittedly one is a pun, but for a pun to work both meanings are activated) - so perhaps if another citation can be located, we're in business.- Sonofcawdrey (talk) 04:03, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
I have now added another citation - from 1949. Should satisfy CFI on this evidence, though only just. I did ask a "mother" I know, and he said the term is commonly used in the community and is currently trying to source a few citations from his library. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 03:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

nomen appellativum[edit]

Is this attested as English? If so, is this rare or obsolete? --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Apparently current in scholarly and academic use. Just Google "as a nomen appellativum" and the first page of results (at least what I got) had English-language hits from 1843 to 2002. P Aculeius (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Well, the 2002 hit is from Petr Pokorný, ‎Jan Roskovec - 2002, two non-native speakers, Czechs. Then I find other hits that appear non-native. There's E. W. Hengstenberg - 2008, a German who per WP has died in 1869. My search: google books:"as a nomen appellativum". --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
How about searching for "a nomen appellativum"? That gives a few more results (though some non-English ones).
Or maybe try "the nomen appellativum". That also has several English results.
The plural "the nomina appellativa" however only gives a few results.
Does it really matter whether natives or non-natives wrote English? English is a melting-pot language anyway, spoken e.g. in Britain, America, India, Australia, spoken e.g. by whites, blacks, browns, yellows.
And why not also RFV for nomen proprium? If that's attested, it should be very likely that there's also the antonym nomen appellativum.
- 18:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Dan Polansky's Google Book search seems to demonstrate existence. As for context labels, is it rare, dated, only used for Latin, what? Renard Migrant (talk) 12:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)


Seems to be a mention-only term except for one use on Google Books Chuck Entz (talk) 15:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


Can this be considered an English word? None of the examples are really in English. "mee siam mai hiam", "Laksa, mai hiam", "Mee pok Ta hiam jio zway zway." aren't English phrases. When people speak multiple languages they tend to mix words, but this doesn't make the result valid in any particular language. I suggest the article for deletion. 16:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

(If it makes it easier to judge the [non-]English-ness of the quotations, FWIW mai means "I don't want" and ai means "I want".) —suzukaze (tc) 17:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Every one of the quotes currently at that entry illustrates quite plainly that this term is not considered to be "English" by the authors themselves. I see no reason why we should disagree with them. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree. There is no evidence that this is an English word. I don't know what it is. Delete (even though this is RfV) SemperBlotto (talk) 20:07, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Admittedly, those citations are most transliterated Chinese. But Google Groups has one that reads "Chef's specialty: Sambal fried rice, mega hiam, $4" - where it means 'spicy', which is a start. And the citation that reads "For example, ‘Laksa, mai hiam’. He could have said, ““May I have a bowl of spicy noodle soup without chilli please”, had he wanted to use Standard English" is English at a stretch. Nevertheless, most examples seem to be of "mai hiam" (i.e. hold the chilli, when ordering a dish) - which may be Singaporean English, but it is unclear if that matches the definition given. There seems to have been a lot of discussion at one point around a Singaporean politician saying "mee siam mai hiam" - i.e. mee siam (a type of noodle dish) hold the chilli - though apparently he actually said "mai hum" which is some type of profanity. Not that any of this helps with the actual sense here. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:01, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I just searched for "very hiam" on Google and there are lots of hits - enough to suggest it is in common use in Singapore English. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Of the first page of hits at google:"very hiam", only one stood out as definitely applicable (towards the bottom -- a blog post entitled "Meeeeeeeeeeeeeee very Hiam"). There were a couple instances of people described as "hiam" ("I not very hiam about it", or "But she very hiam"), which makes me wonder if this might be a different word altogether. All told, Google reports only 245 hits for the whole web, quite a small number really. Paging through, this collapses to just 39. The evidence for this collocation is quite scant. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, scant perhaps, but 39 suffices CFI, does it not? Given that the query here is about the word 'hiam', so not restricted to the collocation 'very hiam' - I just had searched for that as it is a good way to locate adjectival uses. But, more important here is the meaning, as it is defined as spicy in the taste sense, but there is also a fig. sense, as in hot/good-looking/etc. - so that'd need sorting out as well. Hopefully, I'll be able to get around to it sooner rather than later. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 04:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Re: CFI, yes, 39 suffices -- provided that enough of these 39 are actually 1) English, 2) from this same Singaporean etymon, 3) used to express the same part of speech, and 4) used to express the same meaning. Raw googit counts don't actually count for much (pardon the pun). ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 21:36, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I think that the following examples from Google are all good cases of hiam used in English contexts. There is little on Google Groups, but that is only because Google Groups does not contain much Singlish.
* but quality a bit not consistent... sometimes very hiam..... sometimes not tt hiam........ Chelzea.
* Had kacang-ma from the leftover last night.I don't quite like it very hiam, gonna eat those kind of stuffs during confinement next time.
* Most Teochew people would cook in white wine…very “hiam”.
* Very hiam but so very good.
* oic. even if ruyi oil is not very hiam, also cannot?
* Very hiam. Essence of chicken.
* Pepper for adults, but not very hiam.
* Cause forum people say till like very hiam nothing much to eat like this.
* cos my mum happy happy accepted the box of mooncake and quickly put in the fridge and my papa share his very "hiam" rojak with him
* That makes sense, actually. Kim chi - very 'hiam' one. (Very chilli).
* Wow the laksa very hiam man.
* You need this after your very hiam looking lunch.
* Sambal fried rice, mega hiam, $4
* I hear there are two types of ginger – the clean ones not so hiam and not so wangi.
* bluey, xx, the not so 'hiam' version of ruyi oil brand is bao xin an.
* hehe spicy level 3.. my friends say not so hiam..
* Will there be a girl in Singapore who will be content with char kuey teow extra hum extra hiam ($5)
* White Carrot Cake extra hiam $2
* Come and pick me up and bring me out for Jewish food (sorry but I like my mee pok dry with extra hiam)
* "When ordering, always go for extra hiam, extra chor, extra lard. Extra yums!"
* I like it black, no eggs, cut in small pcs, extra hiam, chye poh oso extra chang.
* With extra hum, extra tam, extra hiam.
  • Considering this evidence, I would like to suggest that the word is common enough to pass CFI's "in widespread use" criterion - which it is in Singapore English. Sonofcawdrey (talk) 09:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


Unattested. Nibiko (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

argumentum ad hominem[edit]

Previously rfc not rfv with the same summary. I've looked through the first 50 Google Book hits. This does not seem to be Latin. By which I mean not used in Latin with this meaning (or indeed any meaning). It seems to be used in English and French with this meaning. Obviously it is coined based on Latin, a bit like biology coined based on Ancient Greek, but not Ancient Greek (no Ancient Greek entry at biology ‎(biology)). Renard Migrant (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Looking at books published before 1771 found quite a few in Latin using the exact phrase. I therefore didn't look as those involving other forms of argumentum. I don't know in what vintage of Latin earlier than New Latin this might have occurred. DCDuring TALK 22:09, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Even if it was used in Latin, wouldn't it be a sum of parts of argumentum, ad and homo, roughly "argument at or to human"? -Ikiaika (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)



  1. punitiveness

There are thousands of Google Books hits, but most of them are scannos of impunity or the result of "im-" at the end of a line/page and "punity" at the beginning of the next. There are a few legitimate examples of a noun with this spelling- but not with this definition. If someone would add a definition corresponding to that usage, this should be changed to an rfv-sense. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

[76] [77] [78] [79] [80]. Google can’t file for bankruptcy soon enough. --Romanophile (contributions) 03:59, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

When I won the Publisher's Clearinghouse Sweepstakes the guy delivering the check tracked mud on my carpet. - TheDaveRoss 18:19, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
@TheDaveRoss: the difficulty in finding terms isn’t some trivial inconvenience, but is extremely important to any search engine. The scanners will frequently confuse letters for numbers or other letters, confuse unrelated words for compounds (even in modern texts), misinterpret paragraphs, and will even insert foreign characters into perfectly native texts. Some pages are only partially scanned and are missing words, search options can eliminate completely valid results, the scanner’s interpretations are sometimes replaced with the pages theirselves, and sometimes even an exact phrase won’t appear in the results, but will in the pages theirselves. On top of all this, we have hundreds of books printed entirely in Latin but still have no way to search for Latin books—never mind minority languages. The technology is so shoddy that it could have been designed in the 1980s, just like Google’s closed captions. (Even the ones on my old television were more circumspect.)
Google—an opulent corporation—could solve all of these problems if they desired, but they have decided not to. --Romanophile (contributions) 09:23, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
@Romanophile: I understand that it is not perfect, however there is a good reason we don't all use Bing Books as our first search which questioning a word. Google has probably put more legal resources into Books than they have development resources. Mostly what I am saying is don't look a gift horse in the mouth; we are far better off with Google Books, warts and all, than we would be without it. - TheDaveRoss 11:39, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


No such term exists. --YURi (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The term really exist in the official dictionary, as in the definition of วาบ, วูบ, and ใจหาย. --Octahedron80 (talk) 07:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


Allegedly an alternative spelling of perestroika in English. I won't believe it till I see it cited. (I wouldn't believe it even if I did see it cited but I'd grudgingly accept its having passed CFI.) --Droigheann (talk) 05:55, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

What about these? [81] (1990 book title); [82] (1991 book title); [83] (1992 book title). However, without actually looking at the physical books, it's hard to tell if these are transcription errors. — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:13, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I've only found (a different edition of) the second [84] but it does look to me like the ĭ may just be a GoogleBooks error - note also that in the target of your link the photo of the book cover and the name provided by Google have different capitalisations. --Droigheann (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I should add that a Quiet Quentin search turned up no actual occurrences of perestroĭka in running text. — SMUconlaw (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Quiet Quentin? Who/what is that? --Droigheann (talk) 18:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
It's a gadget that helps to search for citations from Google Books. Go to Preferences → Gadgets → Miscellaneous gadgets, tick the box that says "Quiet Quentin, a gadget assisting in finding citations", and then click "Save". This puts a "QQ" tab at the top of your screen. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


Gothic had pretty much died out as a written language before the 9th century. The country name doesn't seem to be attested until the 9th century (in Old English).

Note: if this is deleted, we'll also need to remove the translation at Denmark. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)



  1. beech

It can be inferred that Gothic must have had this or a very similar word with the meaning of beech, but Gothic is almost entirely attested as biblical translations or commentaries, and the IP who added the sense is notorious for adding unattested Gothic terms. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm of two minds on this one. There is no doubt that this is the correct form and the word is real and meant "beech", and some linguistic sources will even state that as its meaning. However, it is also true that Wulfila clearly only used it in the other senses on the page, and this meaning is technically reconstructed. If the sense is removed, we need to have a usage note to that effect. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Some dubious Gothic translations[edit]

These are all in the translation sections of English entries, so there's nothing to tag:

The problem we keep having with Gothic is that there are people trying to revive Gothic as a language, with online dictionaries and even a Gothic version of Wikipedia, and these websites have fooled even some fairly seasoned editors. The truth is, though, that Gothic died out as a written language by the 10th century at the very latest (for all practical purposes a couple of centuries before that).

Anything after that is either reconstructed based on terms in other Germanic languages and related terms in Gothic, or extracted from a certain nether orifice by modern enthusiasts in order to make up for deficiencies in the corpus of real Gothic.

I've already speedied some translations for things that were unknown in the time of the Goths, such as Iceland and television, but these are just close enough in time that they might be attested (however unlikely), even though sources such as Gerhard Köbler's Gotisches Wörterbuch don't include them. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

  • This seems a good spot to toss in two questions that would rather suit the beer parlour but are at least partially relevant to this issue: 1. I do use Köbler to look up Middle Low German, because he's extensive and free, but is he a reputable source? He's a doctor of law with a focus on legal history and trade, and I can't seem to find a proper documentation of his sources and method of work in creating his dictionaries. So I'm hesitant to use it to create entries here. 2. Purely out of interest: Which condition must be met so that a language is revived enough to allow neologistic entries? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 07:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I see Köbler as an aggregator of reputable sources rather than as a reputable source himself, along the same lines as etymonline, for instance. I wouldn't cite him as a reference, any more than I would cite Google. Nonetheless, he seems to be pretty thorough, so I would interpret absence from his lists as a pretty good preliminary indication that there's likely nothing there. Please note that I'm running this through rfv. If I were placing undue weight on his reliability, I would have just deleted everything.
As for the second question: It doesn't matter how many people speak it, Neogothic isn't Gothic- there's no continuity. It's been a thousand years and any traces of the culture and speech patterns have been dissolved in a sea of other influences and washed away. Languages such as Latin and Sanskrit have never ceased being used, and there's a tremendous body of text and information that can be used to fill out what's missing. The same is true of revived and reviving languages such as Hebrew, Cornish and Manx. Aside from a lack of information on vowels, there's about as much to work with for Akkadian or Ancient Egyptian.
Neogothic is a conlang: an artificial construct modeled after Gothic and designed to look like it, but not really alike at its core. If it has native speakers and takes on a life of its own, we should have entries for it- but not as Gothic. Chuck Entz (talk) 08:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Gothic has an extremely limited corpus. To the best of my knowledge, everything actually attested in Gothic can be found at oldwikisource:Bible, Gothic, Ulfila (original script at oldwikisource:Gothic Bible in Ulfilan Gothic Script with correct i). I regularly delete all Gothic words in translation sections and etymologies that cannot be found on that page. None of the terms listed above is there, so as far as I'm concerned all are speediable. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
There are a few other works in Gothic, none very big. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

My preference would be to dump all of the Gothic protologisms into an appendix. If that’s insufficient, then maybe somebody’s user page. --Romanophile (contributions) 23:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

How about Appendix:List of protologisms/non-English, like this? -Kirsea (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


I couldn't find even a single use in google books. 08:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

You tagged the term for deletion, so I created a discussion at "Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#naked-ape". — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:17, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
There is agreement at that page that the discussion should continue here, so I've copied the discussion below. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

[Copied from "Wiktionary:Requests for deletion#naked-ape".]

An anonymous poster nominated this term on the basis that there are "[n]o uses in google books". I found one (and only one so far), but do we generally create entries for attributive uses of this sort? — SMUconlaw (talk) 10:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

We should just nuke all of these for a) redundancy to hyphenless form b) wrong part of speech (noun, per definition) and c) many of them seem to not even exist. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, my bad. 16:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
"[A]ll of these"?, did you create a number of such entries? If so, please identify them so they can be reviewed. Thanks. — SMUconlaw (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I only created hyphenated versions when actual uses can be found. I didn't create this one. I think hyphenated variants should be in the dictionary when they are used that way. 18:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Renard is suggesting that such variants may not be necessary. Perhaps we could hear from other editors on this issue and reach a consensus before you continue to create more of such entries. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Using a hyphenated form of a multi-part noun, even one that is dictionary-worthy, is basically a matter of style. I sometimes use them to help disambiguate the interpretation of a noun or other phrase.
As the search engine seems to take users to the unhyphenated form when an entry for such is available, I don't see much of a rationale for keeping these. Even for vernacular names of animals that sometimes appear in specialized and dated works, I don't see the rationale. Unlinked alternative forms don't seem objectionable to me. There should be relatively few hyphenated entries in English, IMO. Terms like devil-may-care and Schleswig-Holstein are examples of exceptions, I think. DCDuring TALK 21:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
This is not a new discussion. The usual route has to be to correct them and put them through RFV. I think correcting them could be a bot job. I wouldn't really mind mass-deletion but I don't think there's a consensus for it, not in other discussions and likely not now either. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Put it this way. All words in all languages versus all typographical variants in all languages. Are snow-leopard and snow leopard really different words? They have identical spelling but non-identical typography. Compare clubhouse and Clubhouse. But yes... this is not a page for policy discussion. Renard Migrant (talk) 22:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Send to RFV and hopefully discuss the wider issue somewhere, because I hate these entries too, and agree with Renard that it's similar to having upper- and lower-case words. Equinox 08:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Actually I got that comparison from you in the first place. Just for clarity's sake. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

espacio generacional[edit]

There are a few results on Books, but I doubt that the sense applies to this, mainly because of the entry’s authorship. --Romanophile (contributions) 10:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I think some hits are referring to a very closely allied concept, but they attribute it to Tierno Galván, and it seems to be his pet term for scholarly purposes. Those cites wouldn't be independent anyway. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

solfrino cutter[edit]

A melon baller. One sole hit in Google Books. (And what's the etymology? Solferino in Italy?) Equinox 21:25, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, corruption of Solferino, apparently: see this (solferino vegetables and sulfrino vegetables) – this may not be a very reliable source, though. See also [85] (sulfrino balls). Perhaps solferino/sulfrino (as a variant) should be added instead. — SMUconlaw (talk) 21:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


Virtual reality. May occur in one or two science-fiction books, probably not enough to pass CFI. If it does pass, may require a sci-fi gloss. Equinox 08:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Cited, with sci-fi gloss as suggested. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:00, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


I've created Citations:patrisexual with the two citations that I found on Google Books. I found nothing on Google Groups. Nibiko (talk) 09:47, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I found one more citation on Google Scholar and added it to Citations:patrisexual. Does it count? Nibiko (talk) 01:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Looks good to me. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 06:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


I don't think this meets CFI at all. Three citations have been given, which are non-durable Web sources (I think) and which seem to refer to the same buzzword from a single corporate enterprise. Probably mentions rather than uses. Equinox 14:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The three sources are certainly durable: Two are the New York Times the other is Terry Gross' radio show on NPR "Fresh Air" The audio is durably archived. I think it qualifies as a hot word? 1,700 hits on Google, so it's likely to spread. SageGreenRider (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
What do you mean by a "hot" word? A one-day wonder? Donnanz (talk) 17:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
No, I mean this policy Appendix:Glossary#hot word SageGreenRider (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the sources look durably archived, but unfortunately they are not independent—of the four on the citations page, three are written by Dan Lyons and the other is quoting him. So we still need two more citations to keep this, even as a hot word. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 17:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
OK. If the consensus is to delete, please userfy and I'll continue to monitor as more book reviews come out. The book was only published a few days ago.SageGreenRider (talk) 17:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I found some more and added them. The Cox Business one in 2013 does not relate to the Dan Lyons book but it does relate to HubSpot. Not sure about durability. There was one in 2012 about Italy (Lake Como) but it doesn't look durable. Not sure.SageGreenRider (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I basically agree—currently, the only citations on the citations page that don't appear to come from Lyons are Dharmesh Shah, Rebecca Graves, and Jackelin J. Jarvis. None of these three appear to be durably archived, and moreover the Shah citation is a mention, not a use. So we still need two more citations. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 19:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
OK. By the way, is there a help desk where in can ask a question about WT:ATTEST. I don't understand it. It says As Wiktionary is an online dictionary, this naturally favors media such as Usenet groups, which are durably archived by Google. but most of the internet is equally durably archived at archive.org and elsewhere, so why can't those sources be used too? Just curious... Any pointers appreciated. Found it Wiktionary:Tea room SageGreenRider (talk) 00:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I found one more. Managing Startups: Best Blog Posts, "O'Reilly Media, Inc." (ISBN 9781449370503) and added it. 2013. Durably archived collection of postings. One is by Shah. Talk to SageGreenRider 12:51, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

jus quaesitum[edit]

Supposedly English (and possibly copyvio?) SemperBlotto (talk) 16:24, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

jus repraesentationis[edit]

As previous. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

jus rerum[edit]

And another one. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

jus regendi, jus retentionis, capax negotii[edit]

Sorry - found some more. SemperBlotto (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)


Sense: "shallow, fashion-focused, sometimes sexually promiscuous European or admirer of Eurotrash <--sense 1--> entertainment. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I see two issues here:

  • What does the conjunction "or" signify? I suspect it is two senses lumped into one bullet: (a) <blabla this stupid> European and (b) admirer of Eurotrash.
  • "shallow, fashion-focused, sometimes sexually promiscuous" - who calls these people thusly? Indians? Is this list of qualifiers correct? I'd like to see usage examples for each of them or a ref to a dictionary. Wikipedia w:Eurotrash (term) gives a different definition, citing Webster (I have no access to verify). Staszek Lem (talk) 21:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Isn't it just a slur on some grouping of youngish Continental Europeans? Perhaps we should look to other slurs to find more defensible wording. There are a few definitions at Eurotrash at OneLook Dictionary Search. DCDuring TALK 03:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


I can't find any quotations for sense 1 ("To decorate or improve in appearance through artificial means"), and it doesn't appear in the OED. — SMUconlaw (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I find that almost verbatim at Century Dictionary's entry for fake, here (sense 4) [[86]] Leasnam (talk) 01:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Google Books isn't allowing me to view the link, but I'll take your word for it. There seems to be some etymological connection between feague and fake (the OED says that our sense 4 of feague is the same as one of the senses of fake), but at the moment there still isn't sufficient evidence to show that this is also a sense for the word feague. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


The dictionaries available online identify fellatio as the only meaning: [87] [88] [89] -- 09:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

It is rare and hard to verify - too many occurrences with the verb form. I just found strings in Google books "я сделал ей минет", "делаю ей минет", which can only mean "cunnilingus". I'll try to do proper citations when I have time but the real examples clearly show that that sense is used occasionally. --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:00, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
To properly test I tried using "ей" to make sure that the object of "минет" is feminine, a plain web search also got me a collocation "делает ей минет" - "he is doing/does cunnilingus to her". --Anatoli T. (обсудить/вклад) 11:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Google Books finds just one instance of "сделал ей минет" -- by Даниил Хармс, in an unidentified diary from the 1920s; and no instances of either "делаю ей минет" or "делает ей минет". Comparing to two instances of "делаю ему минет", 47 of "делает ему минет", and 50 of "сделала ему минет" -- this looks rather unimpressive, and so far, doesn't meet the requirement for three sources. -- 13:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


Supposedly German. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

As I wrote: "[I] only found this in German texts, not in Latin texts". Simply search for the given usage examples at books.google and you should find enough results. For example "Verba denominalia" gives results with
  • "Von den Verba denominalia können nun ..."
  • "... statt bei allen Verba denominalia ..."
  • "Auch die Verba denominalia bildenden Suffixe ..."
  • "... wie die der Verba denominalia ...".
Also as I wrote: "declension could be like {{la-decl-3rd-2E|denominal}}, but maybe the nominative is used for all cases". {{de-decl-adj-notcomp|denominalis}} however is incorrect as the examples in the entry show. denominale is used for neuter singular and denominalia for neuter plural.
PS: In case of other words, the Latin masculine and feminine form in -is was or is also used in German. But I haven't seen a masculine or feminine form of denominalis in German. So maybe the adjective is defective and only used with neuters like Nomen, Substantivum, Adjectivum or Adjektivum, Verbum.
PS 2: The entry now has three cites, so it's attested.
-Ikiaika (talk) 19:44 + 20:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC) + 19:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Three cites and no objections for over one week, and I also added two more cites now. So according to the intro it's RFV passed. -Ikiaika (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2016 (UTC)


Unattested. Nibiko (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

This 1951 journal article looks durably archived, but I can't find any other uses. I think medical textbooks on female genital cutting or rectovaginal fistulas might be a good place to look for more citations, if anyone has access to them. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 17:37, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


Unattested. Nibiko (talk) 14:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

STP tooling[edit]

Unattested, and apart from that, web hits on this are scanty, and don't seem to reflect the definitions (one inexact hit, which is the only one that shows an expanded form, says "Straight Through Processing (STP) Tooling", and the eclipse.org hits refer to "SOA Tools Project", and who knows what the others refer to) - the few that do reflect the second definition are merely copy-pastes of that one BBC article ([90] [91] [92]), and the only source for the first definition is this now-dead webpage (and it's copied from there). Nibiko (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Definition #1 is unarguably SoP, and if tooling is a synonym or hyponym of hacking then definition #2 is also. SpinningSpark 17:29, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

pro domino[edit]

Supposedly an English noun. If it does turn out to be English, then it is probably an adverb. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

It probably works like pro bono. From the current definition, I can't really work out what it means. Renard Migrant (talk) 16:08, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
I can't find any English citations except in longer phrases like "such an action was brought tam pro domino rege quam pro seipso". Smurrayinchester (talk) 07:43, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Black's Law Dictionary (7th ed, 1999) says it means "As master or owner; in the character of a master". I suppose another way to put it would be "in the capacity of a master or owner". — SMUconlaw (talk) 07:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


Romanian. It seems to be used on some forums, but it doesn't have any uses on Google Books. Redboywild (talk) 10:57, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Nothing on Google Groups nor Issuu. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:37, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

in detrimentum animi[edit]

Supposedly English. I can't really figure out what it means anyway. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:52, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

ab agendo[edit]

More so-called English. SemperBlotto (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

All the instance of "A Non-Copied Entry" should be deleted, as it's just the editor assuring us that these aren't copyright violation. These aren't reader-facing comments. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Also it's pretty farcical that until now, about 2 minutes ago, nobody has created a talk page for the user User talk:X8BC8x! That really should've been the first thing we did apart from rfv the entries. Renard Migrant (talk) 12:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


Archaic second-person form, i.e. "thou ablest" = "you able" (verb). I can only see scannos in Google Books. Equinox 00:05, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Century says Shakespeare, Donne, Chapman, and Bishops Latimer and Bale used the verb able. Plays, poetry, sermons and speeches could contain something.
OTOH neither Century nor OED use this form in any of their citations. DCDuring TALK 02:04, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I found one, but only one:
  • 1857 (1616?), The Odyssey, translated by G. Chapman, book 12, starting on line 410:
    'Cruel Ulysses! Since thy nerves abound / In strength, the more spent, and no toils confound / Thy able limbs, as all beat out of steel, / Thou ablest us too, as unapt to feel / The teeth of Labour[.]'
- -sche (discuss) 05:22, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
RFV-failed. An IP found the same one citation, with different particulars. - -sche (discuss) 04:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)



  1. (slang) An Arab or Persian man living the lifestyle of a bodybuilder. Similar to a guido, he values appearances, grooming and fashion.

All I can find on Books and Groups seems to be references to a specific bodybuilder, w:Aziz Shavershian, known on the internet as Zyzz. I see nothing supporting a generic sense such as this one. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

  • No, I couldn't find anything either. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Zyzz is a popular term used for many years
  • A Google search for zyzz returns over 350 thousand results
  • An Instagram search for #zyzz returns over 1.4 million images
  • User:Chuck_Entz Please open a couple of pages on the Google and Instagram and you will see many tens of thousands of generic uses
  • Wiktionarians: please be more inclusive to internet and slang related words, even if you are not familiar with these new words due to old age, living under a rock, or other reasons.

I request that the RFV note to be removed. Alternatively, I welcome your counter-arguments. Amin wordie (talk) 10:54, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

If you want to change the rules of WT:CFI you must start a vote to do so. RFVs will not be removed on your whim. Equinox 10:56, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I wonder whether this exists in Persian or Arabic script and associated languages. DCDuring TALK 12:53, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Raw hits mean nothing, since they include the references to Aziz Shavershian and they don't distinguish uppercase from lowercase. Indeed, looking through the first few hundred regular Google hits, the only thing that matches your definition is the definition itself, cross-posted on a variety of sites pretty much word-for-word (what we refer to as mentions, since they only mention the term but don't actually use it). Everything else is random use of the 4 letters for things unrelated to bodybuilding. Even if there were usage, it doesn't count for our Criteria for inclusion. You're certainly free to make up terms and to try to promote them all over the internet- just don't try that on Wiktionary. Unlike Urban Dictionary, we have standards. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Chuck, If "raw hits mean nothing", see the 1.4 million Instagram images published by real human beings tagged with zyzz. Or do a YouTube search for "zyzz hair". You will find dozens of tutorials that don't even mention the person Aziz, but explain how to do the zyzz hairstyle. Zyzz is becoming a niche subculture, and is very similar to the guido which also happens to have derived from a first name. Amin wordie (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Counterarguments
    • Zyzz does not seem to be popular or used for many year. In fact there's no evidence that anyone has used it ever. Do you have any evidence whatsoever yo back you up?
    • You can get more hits than that for aaaaaa but that doesn't mean it's a word.
    • Instagram, who cares?
    • Instagram, who cares?
    • Again why should we include 'words' (Internet slang or otherwise) that have a combined zero uses that we're aware of it? Do you thoroughly reject the idea of evidence? What's your objection to it? Or if you don't object to it do you fancy coming up with any? If you were aware of any evidence instead of 'request[ing] that the RFV note to be removed' you'd cite it and get it over with.
  • Renard Migrant (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
"Instagram, who cares?" .. That's not an argument Renard. If you want to pat yourself on the back for not taking Instagram seriously, you are part of the problem. No wonder mere mortals under the age of 25 have never heard of Wiktionary. Amin wordie (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
At least you agree with all my other points, about the word not existing, and all that. Renard Migrant (talk) 15:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
I never said that Renard. But in all honesty, I have done some research online and come to the conclusion that 'zyzz' as a word (not referring to Aziz) is indeed not well documented online. I became knowledgeable with this term from personal friends, using it casually (I'm zyzz brah or he's such a zyzz). So to me it felt natural that it was indeed a word, worthy of being included. Amin wordie (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


Always scannos, I think. Has to be spelled penny-ante with hyphen or space. Equinox 10:56, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Mostly scannos, but I found genuine uses in Computer Privacy, Why Me?, and National Right to Work Newsletter. Also, The Littlest Stowaway has both pennyante and penny ante (where the latter is a question by a character who presumably does not recognize the idiom in the first instance). Kiwima (talk) 19:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

béar dubh[edit]

Irish by Embryomystic, April 2013‎. Attested? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:22, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Irish is an LDL, so a single mention is sufficient. Here's an entry in a dictionary. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
Provided the mention is from an approved source. Add the dictionary to Wiktionary:About Irish and we're done here. Renard Migrant (talk) 20:06, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

rollóg ispíní[edit]

Irish by Embryomystic, April 2013‎. Attested? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:23, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

taitneamh na gréine[edit]

Irish by Embryomystic, April 2013‎. Attested? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Attested or not, it's SOP as it just means "shining of the sun". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:23, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

blaosc an chloiginn[edit]

Irish by Embryomystic, April 2013‎. Attested? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

neamhthuilleamaíocht eacnamaíochta[edit]

Irish by Embryomystic, Feb 2012‎. Attested? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:28, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Attested or not, it's SOP as it just means economic self-sufficiency. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

scuab shreinge[edit]

Irish by Embryomystic, March 2013‎. Attested? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:29, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

sreang rásúir[edit]

Irish by Embryomystic, February 2011‎. Attested? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

ceapach thalaimh[edit]

Irish by Embryomystic, March 2012‎. Attested? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Attested or not, it's SOP as it just means plot of land. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:25, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


Duden just has an adjektive "hypomorph" (Duden). -Ikiaika (talk) 12:34, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Duden does not really matter but this German would-be word really does not seem to be attested per WT:ATTEST. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
It should be common sense that Duden doesn't matter. But it still can be helpful.
"hypomorph" exists, "hypomorf" not. "Hypomorph" might exist, "Hypomorf" shouldn't.
-Ikiaika (talk) 14:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

saighdiúir linbh[edit]

Irish by Embryomystic, July 2011‎. Attested? --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:35, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Attested or not, it's SOP as it just means child soldier. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:26, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


rfv of both definitions:

  1. monophasia
  2. (neurology, neuroscience) A single phased state of neuronal firing; a pattern of nerve impulses that are negative or positive but not both.

As far as I can tell, this term just means an instance or state of having one phase. I'm pretty sure the first sense is unattested, but the second one will require someone with the correct background to check the handful of neurology-related hits to determine whether they involve polarity.

This editor's modus operandi is to find very technical and specialized fields where it's hard to find anyone who knows the subject, then guess and/or make stuff up. I'm seriously considering shooting anything they do on sight just to discourage them. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:04, 18 April 2016 (UTC)


There's no such word. --iudexvivorum (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

The right word is สวัสดิ์ (สวัสดิ-) which becomes สวัสดี. สวัสดี is not come from สวัส+ดี. Additionally, all of them do not mean happiness. (We could request for deletion instead?) --Octahedron80 (talk) 07:06, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

If lack of existence is its problem, it's in the right place. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)


The third def is "In written language, the intentional use of misspelling and/or incorrect grammar to effect the vernacular of a particular dialect" - it was added very on in the entry's life - seems to be a definition of eye dialect not solecism. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 03:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)


A useless subject. Equinox 07:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Having added a third quote, I would say this is cited. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:15, 21 April 2016 (UTC)


To multiply by five. A Google Books search finds no inflections, and possibly only adjectival usage, not a verb. If this fails RFD, please also remove the antonym link at quinquesect. Equinox 10:17, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Latin countries[edit]

In some cases I don't doubt that these names are used, but that there are durably archived Latin sources. For example, Finish Nuntii Latini and German Nuntii Latini don't seem to be durably archived but might use some of these New Latin country names. -Maggidim (talk) 01:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

  • @Maggidim: This is a rather counterproductive thing to do. I know for a fact that some of those are citable, and you didn't even check. Try Google Books and please remove the ones that can clearly be cited (which, I suspect, is most or all of these). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:27, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I didn't search for all of these at google books, but I searched for some and wasn't able to find any results. Now I've searched for all and removed those which I was able to cite. Kenia and Tanzania can be cited. With some good will and turning a blind eye to some doubts one could say that Quataria and Tzadia exist too.
  • Chilia gives many results and might exist. But I wasn't able to find an example.
  • Searching for Dzibutum gives two results. One is in Latin and has "in urbem Dzibutum (Gibuti, Djibouti)". That could attest Dzibutum as a name for a city, but not as a name for a country. But Dzibutum could also be the accusative of Dzibutus like one can find "in urbem Romam" where Romam is the accusative of Roma.
    In another Latin text one can find this: "[...] Somalia Gallicam cuius urbs primaria (Gibuti, Djibouti) appellatur Gibutum, i, n." The text might include more Latin terms related to Africa like Somaliensis (Adj.), Mogadiscium (Mogadishu), Congus (i, f.) or Congus Leopoldopolitana (a Congo), Chenia (Kenya), Chenianus (Adj.), Nairobia (Nairobi), but is from 1964 and doesn't seem to have Tanzania or Tansania (the country was founded in 1964).
  • Searching for Iracum gives some results. But Iracum could also be the accusative of Iracus like Iraci could be the genitive of Iracus, and in "in urbe Iraci persici Qom" which should mean something like "in the city Qom of the Persian Iraq" Iraci or Qom has another meaning as Qom is a city in Iran.
  • Searching for Irania has too many non-Latin results and adding other Latin words gives results with OCR errors for ironia.
  • Omania often gives results for "om- nia". In a 21st century results one can find "Omania", but according to the book title "Documentos medievales del Reino de Galicia: Doña Urraca, 1095-1126" it's related to the Middle Ages and thus it should have another meaning.
  • Searching for Papua-Nova Guinea one can find "atque Papua-Nova Guinea Apostolicum Delegatum" in a text which should be related the Catholic Church. That might refer to the country, but is spelled differently anyway.
  • Searching for Quataria gives few results. One is in English and could refer to the country. One is in Latin and in a section entitled "Exercitia militaria americanorum" there is "Americani in Quataria exerci- [...]". It's just a snippet, so I can't read the whole text. That could refer to the country, but I can't verify it.
  • Even simply searching for Swazia didn't have any Latin result.
  • Kenia and Tanzania brought up a Nuntii Latini text (in the 1990s some of the news were printed) in which one can read "in Kenia et Tanzania sunt". That should be ok. But if that's the only source, shouldn't there be any note informing the reader that the word is rare and was coined in the 1990s?
  • Tzadia brought up a Nuntii Latini text in which one can read "In Tzadia, quae civitas Africana desertis [...]". It's just a snippet, but could be ok.
-Maggidim (talk) 03:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
@Maggidim: Well, I am of the opinion that three cites should be required for Neo-Latin, but we don't actually have an official position on that yet. Regardless, it appears that you did not bother to search for inflected forms. Searching google books:"Iraniam" haec shows that Irania is easily citable. I've removed the easily cited ones from your list below. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 06:07, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm ok with one cite, but IMHO recent or modern New Latin (20th/21st century) with just one cite should have a note.
In some cases I also searched for inflected forms, but not in all cases and not for all possible inflected forms.
  • Iraquia: Ok. That can be found in 20th/21st century Latin. And there's also Vietnamia, Afganistania.
  • Chilia: I'm not sure if that can be found in classical New Latin (like 15-19th centuries), but in the 20th/21st century it can be found, and one can also find Aequatoria, Uruguaia. But it would be interesting to mention dates. There are classical New Latin terms for Chile. So Chilia could be classical New Latin too, or it could be a modern New Latin invention most likely from people who didn't know the older terms.
  • Swazia: One can find the name Suazilandia. So it might rather be spelled Suazia instead of Swazia. But there could be many other forms using u, v or w and using s or z.
  • Irania The word Irania can be found in those results. But what about the meaning? Old texts from the 19th century obviously do not refer to the modern Islamic republic. The entry Iran mentions two English meanings. So Irania could refer to all "regions inhabited by Iranian peoples" or a geographical region, and not necessarily to a country or political state (be it an old monarchy or a modern Islamic republic). dictionary.com states: "In 1935 the government of Reza Shah Pahlavi requested governments with which it had diplomatic relations to call his country Iran, after the indigenous name, rather than the Greek-derived Persia." That makes it more likely that Irania refers to something like "regions inhabited by Iranian peoples" and not to a state. Also in old lexica one can find definitions of Iran referring to a geographical region which includes countries like Afghanistan and Persia. That meaning might be the same as the second definition in Iran#English, but might also be another meaning. One can find Irania (or Iraniam) in 20th/21st century texts too and there it might refer to the country. But the google books results don't seem to convey any meaning.
  • Iracum: I don't know what you searched for and I don't know your results, but here could be to problems: 1. Iracum might be the accusative of Iracus, and some inflected forms of Iracum could be inflected forms of Iracus too. So one needs a result with the nominative or a result which indicates the gender. 2. Similar to Irania, Iracum could have another meaning. In older lexica one can read that Iraq or Irak was a geographical region, maybe partly or at some times a province of Persia. With that one can explain the example "in urbe Iraci persici Qom". It says that Qom is a city in a certain region, and does not refer to the country Iraq.
So while the words Irania and (nominative?), Iraci, Iraco, Iracum, Iraco exist, I can't see a cite for the meaning Iran (country) or Iraq (country) respectively.
-Maggidim (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Niger (as a country)[edit]


Papua Nova Guinea[edit]








Is this attested per WT:ATTEST? google books:"pixelfucker", google groups:"pixelfucker", pixelfucker at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky (talk) 07:31, 23 April 2016 (UTC)


In the entry there was this rfc tag: {{rfc|Are all these senses real?}}. By the comment it's not a matter of rfc but of rfv.
For me the senses seem to be be valid, though some senses might be dated nowaydays like linguistics should be the usual term and glossology or glottology should be rare and dated nowadays.
Garner's Modern American Usage, Oxford University Press, 2009, p. 897 (books.google) still mentions some of the senses, but uses the words "old-fashioned" and "rarely". -Ikiaika (talk) 14:43, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

RFV is for disputing existence not whether 'glottology' is more common nowadays or not. The glossary sense seems to be easily attestable on Google Books, google books:"glossologies", the medical one seems harder to cite but real and I think the linguistics sense is real as well. Let's put it this way, it definitely means something as there are thousands of Google Book hits for it. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:53, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I've found two for the tongue one though they both refers to the same person, Benjamin Ridge, one by him and one by another author (and I don't know who specifically) commenting on his work. Both from 1844 so far so not spanning a year yet either. Renard Migrant (talk) 18:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Maybe you misunderstood me. This wasn't really my rfv request, and I know that rfv is unrelated to the commonness of a word.
Thanks. Maybe here is a third cite:
  • MacBryde's Signs and symptoms, 1983, p. 118: "Indeed, by 1844, glossology had become so important a part of the medical art that a physician named Dr. Benjamin Ridge proposed the fantastic theory that the viscera were represented by definite areas on the tongue and that an abnormality in a viscus was reflected in this predetermined area." — It refers to Benjamin Ridge too, but should be a usage and not a mention.
  • The essence and scientific background of tongue diagnosis, 1989, p. 4: "Moreover, the Classic of Internal Medicine recorded that tongue diagnosis, or glossology, can be used to predict the prognosis of a disease."
Greetings, Ikiaika (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter whether you tagged it with rfv or it was someone else; it still needs citing (this is true of anything apart from an obvious bad nomination, like where thousands of citations are easily available). It looks like the medical definition needs a usage note or context label to say that all the usage refers to one person. Which by the way, doesn't mean it's not valid usage for CFI purposes. Renard Migrant (talk) 13:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)



  1. To effect the laxative properties of cheese.

There is a single quote in the entry from a poem by w:George Herbert, which I can't seem to locate, but so far I haven't found a scrap of evidence corroborating anything in this entry, nor anything about the derived sense added at culver.

There are thousands of hits on Google Books to sort through yet, but this smells strongly of a hoax. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorting through many of those thousands of hits, and they all seem to be scannos - mostly for calve, but sometimes solve, etc. Kiwima (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes. I did the same, with the same results. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:02, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I doubt if this is verifiable. OED doesn't even acknowledge the existence of the word. A search of the book The Complete English Poems (1991, reprinted 2004) by George Herbert turned up neither a poem entitled Of Purgatory or the word culve. — SMUconlaw (talk) 13:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Speedy, based on the negative evidence? This doesn't look like it should get 30 days, IMO. DCDuring TALK 14:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)


Where is this term really used? Is it really "archdemon" or is it just "great yokai"? ばかFumikotalk 03:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Probably, it is only used in the context of games for powerful spirit characters. Literally there should be no implication of the demonic, only the supernatural, but I imagine the implication comes on the side. Results on Google all seem to refer to characters in games or a game-original archetype of powerful spirit character judging by a quick look. 天人了 (talk) 17:42, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


The adjectival sense, as discussed here [93] Donnanz (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


In addition to the Marvell quote there appears to be one more: "Neither was Verbatim when it said: "Your adlubescence at this romp-through should be undiminished, and that's no fadoodle."" but I am unsure of the context or if this is a quote from some other work. DTLHS (talk) 03:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

A quick search on Google Books suggests that Marvell is the only person to have used the word as anything other than an example of a linguistic curiosity. All of the others, including the quotation above (from 1978) seem to be listing it among other weird and wonderful words that aren't actually used by anyone. The quotation appears to be a silly example of two such words being used for no other purpose than to give an example of their use in a work mentioning or discussing them. That said, knowledge of the word is widespread, even if usage is not; the meaning is well-known, and it isn't something recently coined. It seems unlikely that there are three actual uses of the word outside the realm of "here are some strange words you've never heard of!" But is there an appendix for words like this? P Aculeius (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
The word does appear in the OED labelled as "rare", and adds the following usage note: "App[arently] revived from dictionary record." In addition to the Marvell quotation and the 1977 one from Verbatim, there is one dated 1656 and an album review from "New Rec." in 1981. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
@P Aculeius Appendix:English dictionary-only terms DTLHS (talk) 02:00, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Talk to SageGreenRider 02:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad there's an appropriate place to keep it, but those "citations" really don't satisfy me, since every one is either a definition of the word, or an example made up for the express purpose of using the word in a sentence. Only Marvell seems to be using it in any sense other than, "I bet you've never seen this word before!" P Aculeius (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


This word does not appear in Perseus' corpus, and the only citation that a Google search yields is this book, which was published in 1728 (making it strictly Modern Greek.) —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 16:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia states, "The name Barcelona [...], in Ancient Greek sources as Βαρκινών, Barkinṓn", and gives two references. -Kirsea (talk) 16:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Ah, thanks. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 20:56, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


"[A] title adopted by a church with no monastic history for reasons of pretentiousness" – seems like a bit of unnecessary editorializing going on here. — SMUconlaw (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

What would criteria would a supporting citation have to meet? How would one find support for an element of the definition like "for reasons of pretentiousness"? Letting an entry fail by reason of neglect on RfV denies us an opportunity to kill it on legitimate grounds that would be a helpful precedent for how we apply CFI. DCDuring TALK 22:41, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Can't we simply eliminate the editorializing in that definition? The crux is whether we can support the definition of minster to refer to a church with no monastic history. Kiwima (talk) 02:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)


"A person that one has an affection for despite usually not favouring people of that gender." Can't seem to find. Equinox 19:56, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Appears to be just an application of 'something that confuses one' - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

open bobs[edit]

Equinox 23:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

In addition to the one cite already in the entry, I found one more:

  • 2016, “Periscope's new update comes with Global 3d map – Eugene Tech Time”, in Daily Star Gazette (Albany):
    Trolls are rampant on the service and the term 'Open Boobs' or 'Open Bobs' is very popular.
    Kiwima (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. It's a mention, not a use, though. Equinox 11:28, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

For what it's worth, i'm a user of Blab.im and Periscope (both video stream apps) where the term open bobs is used every day, and everyone knows what it means Amin wordie (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Couldn't find it at Google Groups (ie, UseNet +). DCDuring TALK 22:22, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't think this is the type of phrase for which we will find cites on durably archived sources. Which makes it a decision on whether it is sufficiently common. Amin wordie clearly thinks it is so. Does anybody else? Kiwima (talk) 18:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I didn't even find it at non-Usenet portion of Google Groups, but it is visible on the WildWoolieWeb. DCDuring TALK 19:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I feel a dire urge to impishly clear my throat and blush before typing this, but: I happen to have two friends who are rather more liberal in their sexuality than I am and spend some of their spare time broadcasting on cam sites with their partners. The phrase 'open bobs' is so absurdly abundant in these fields that they already use it in their own language regularly as a sort of in-joke. In general they use 'open' for all kinds of actions. I'll add an etymology, because it raises the question whether 'English' on Wiktionary is meant to cover 'English as used by non-native speakers'. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 12:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Can we shut this down as "clearly widespread use"? Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 10:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


No citation in Perseus' corpora or Ptolemy's geography, and the Wikipedia citation is to a Turkish dictionary which I can't read. The classical name of the town was Ἀνισός, citable in all of the major geographies. I found a couple of citations of Σαμψοῦς using Google, but they are all post-1500. —ObsequiousNewt (εἴρηκα|πεποίηκα) 23:23, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

May 2016[edit]


This was marked for speedy deletion by User:Fumiko Take on the grounds that "Furansu is not normally written in hiragana". Given that the entry has been there for 8 years, and that there are hits in Google Books, I didn't think this merited speedying. Of course, hits aren't necessarily actual usage, especially since Google has problems with non-Latin scripts and with languages without clearly-visible word boundaries.

Note: if this passes, there's the possibility it could be challenged in rfd as a rare misspelling. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:42, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

All the previewable Google Books results are of children's textbooks (except for this one bizarre "Glossika" result), and all of the same sentence. Katakana is one of the basic Japanese scripts alongside Hiragana, and I'm guessing the textbooks are for children who haven't learned it yet. It is as legitimate a spelling as English FRENCH or french. —suzukaze (tc) 03:49, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Meh. Attestable, albeit not very common. It's valid, and there's no harm in us retaining this. Keep. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:32, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
    • I said "not normally" which means some authors do use the hiragana form for ruby in certain ways in their writings. It's not a "normal" (=commonplace) practice though. ばかFumikotalk 03:52, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


I can't find a single use for this, whether on the web or on Google Books. Nibiko (talk) 12:36, 1 May 2016 (UTC)


Really? SemperBlotto (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

chanter en yaourt has a better chance of meeting CFI. Equinox 20:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
I do like it when someone cites a source that suggests the word may not exist: "There's nothing available from Gallica, nor from wordreference.com, nor from the Dictionnaire de l'Académie Française, so (pending asking Francophone friends) I need to fall back on general web search." Renard Migrant (talk) 10:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Even better it's in the Dico des mots qui n'existe pas (Dictionary of words that do not exist). Renard Migrant (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)


I couldn’t find any results on Google Books, and only one on Groups. --Romanophile (contributions) 06:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dmol, can you explain how you found this term? --Romanophile (contributions) 06:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I've heard of this, but it's definitely difficult to attest. Jimmy Savile (UK celebrity later "outed" as a paedophile) supposedly used to talk about "gamaroosh", and that word can be found all over the Web. There are a lot of spellings and it's tricky to meet CFI. Equinox 06:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
It seems to be a borrowing (or a hypothetical borrowing) from French gamahucher, which helpful states it's derived from itself. Renard Migrant (talk) 10:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I have no records of this spelling - whereas gamahuche is very commonly attested in Victorian porn. Perhaps it was misspelled when it wad added back in 2005 (when there was no entry for gamahuche and the web may not have had many examples). - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 22:28, 7 May 2016 (UTC)



  1. I wonder if I should run around aimlessly.

As far as I can find, this is only used in English texts discussing how you can say a lot of things in Finnish with one word. I don't doubt that it's a valid word according to the rules of Finnish morphology, but it doesn't strike me as the kind of thing one would use in actual speech to convey meaning. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:45, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

  • If the entry at least showed how this broke down into morphemic units, this entry could perhaps be useful as an example for constructing a Finnish verbal phrase. As it currently stands though, the entry just gives the headword and the English gloss, making this ... well-nigh useless. Expand, or delete. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 17:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Phrasebook? ...Just kidding! Equinox 12:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
While a bit artificial, with its 2000+ Google hits this form seems to be a popular example on how to construct Finnish verb forms. I added a break-up under the etymology section. --Hekaheka (talk) 08:21, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
@Hekaheka are any of those hits in a Finnish text? I was only able to find mentions of the word in English texts. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I checked the first 15 pages and found only this [94]. The "word" doesn't make more sense than its English translation and it is not actually a surprise that hardly anyone ever uses it. What remains is this: it is a completely viable combination often used as example on how to construct Finnish words, nobody just ever uses it. Here are some other similar structures which are attestable:
ottaisinkohan ‎(I wonder if I should take) < ottaa ‎(to take)
olisinkohan < olla ‎(to be)
kävelisinköhän < kävellä ‎(to walk)
--Hekaheka (talk) 19:58, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Added a usage note. --Hekaheka (talk) 06:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


Latin verb "to measure". Not in Lewis and Short, who do have emodulor ‎(I sing or celebrate). Needs formatting if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Added some cites, although I cannot verify the meaning. DTLHS (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


As some of you know, I periodically search through the requests for definition, trying to reduce the list. There is one on going-to for an uncountable sense - but there are not cites, and I can't find any, which makes it hard to come up with any definition. Can anyone help here? I suspect that the desire was for going-to future, but every example I can find of that meaning lacks the hyphen. Kiwima (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@DCDuring: you created this article, with this undefined sense, two and a half years ago. Do you remember what uncountable sense you were thinking of? —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Amazing how such a thing seems to have been done by someone else into whose intentions I have no insight. "Promised future action or achievement." would make sense as a definition, but I couldn't find any support at Google Books in fiction, which might have had some dialog containing such uncountable usage. Let's just give its 30 days. Maybe someone will come up with something. DCDuring TALK 19:55, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


Lasch gives this word as ewi, which is proved correct by the reflexes later recorded. This form on the other hand is not clearly reflected in later reflexes, nor do I see how it would come into existence. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 18:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@CodeCat Projecting the Cat-signal into Gotham's sky. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Does Koebler's dictionary have anything? —CodeCat 20:14, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Ten minutes of futile navigation attempts and two search engines later, he only lists the word with a single consonant. Korn [kʰũːɘ̃n] (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Two observations:
  1. The etymology for euwi is copypasted from the entry at eowu, with "Old Saxon ewwi" replaced by "Old English eowu", but otherwise unchanged (notice the position of Dutch in both).
  2. Philippa's dictionary at etymologiebank.nl (here) mentions both ewi and euwi, which, if I'm not mistaken, should be sufficient attestation for a less-documented-language term according to CFI, though one could quibble about the lack of a list of accepted sources at WT:AOSX. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


Not even the usual set of bullshit dictionaries include this. DTLHS (talk) 00:10, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The citations page now has four citations. The 2009 one is part of a list of obscure sexual practices, so it might be a little iffy, but the others look good. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 06:06, 6 May 2016 (UTC)


Citation given is not adequate. DTLHS (talk) 00:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

  • I added one. bd2412 T 00:25, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Two issues with that citation (one possibly minor): if you search most editions of Auden's collected works (same editor), this verse doesn't seem to appear. I can't find a title or anything to identify it, although I did find one version that contained it. Why would different editions exclude it (apparently)? Secondly, in the quoted passage, it's spelled nemorivagrant. This could be a typo (since I could only find it in one copy), or Auden may have confused "vagant" with "vagrant" (understandable, since they mean the same thing and probably spring from the same Indo-European root, but one is Latin and the other Germanic). It's clear what word is intended, but I have no idea how to treat a citation in which the word is misspelled. It's still valid in the sense that he meant to use the right word. But does it still qualify, or would it be grounds for a usage note (you can't tell from a single instance whether it's a common misspelling, can you? Although I would expect it to be, if the word were more widely used)? P Aculeius (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The title is 'Bestiares Are Out' (now added to the citation); the poem also appears on page 738 of the 2007 hardcover Collected Works, and on 739 of the 1991 paperback, both in print. The word appears in Humphrey Carpenter's biography of Auden; although obviously a derivative usage, it is notable the discussed spelling or printing error is silently corrected.
Ah, good. More satisfying if the passage can be identified and definitely occurs in multiple versions (I wonder why Google Books was unable to locate it?). Reasonably satisfied with the citations now. P Aculeius (talk) 12:15, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  • RFV failed. I would say the Auden quote shouldn't count, but even if it did, we'd only have two cites. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: I'm too late, and I'd be on the fence about this anyway, but, there is also this:
`Few would go to the wall to save the mellifluous 'nemorivagant' ('wandering in the woods'), but there are head- words in seventeenth-century dictionaries, ignored by Johnson, that I would miss, had not Thomas Blount, lawyer, antiquarian, and country gentleman, taken pains to...;'
It is the sole result in scholar.google.com for this word, appearing in an International Journal of Lexicography, 2005; it seems people do talk about not talking about this word. Isomorphyc (talk) 16:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
@Isomorphyc: I'm afraid that is a clear mention, rather than a use (see w:use-mention distinction) and thus cannot be used as a quote to save this word (but it's never too late if you find more evidence that meets our requirements). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
@Metaknowledge: You are right, I had forgotten. Isomorphyc (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


New sense 2. "Not accepting the racial nomenclature but only the empathetically humane (not necessarily genetically human) race." Equinox 16:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Creator also added some unattestable synonyms at multiracial (0 ghits), which I've removed. Equinox 16:55, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
...for which reason I've now decided to speedily delete this. Equinox 00:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


Moved to: Wiktionary:Requests for cleanup#ngaa


Entry claims this is the lemma. Please verify that this is the lemma.—This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 05:12, 7 May 2016‎ (UTC).

That's not the kind of verification that we do on this page. Which form to use as the lemma is an editorial decision, not a feature of the language nor of its usage. This should probably be discussed in the Tea room. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:25, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

higher being[edit]

Rfv-sense: "When not classified by a specific religion, common title for the indefinite belief in a god of some form." Not sure what that is supposed to mean exactly. A being is not a "belief" is it? ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Apart from that bad phrasing, it seems redundant to sense 1. Equinox 11:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Is this an RfV, an RfD, or an RfC? Or should obvious errors (eg, def worded for wrong PoS, wrong hypernym, eg, "A being is not a 'belief'") be corrected in lieu of RfC? DCDuring TALK 11:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


Not in Google Books or Scholar. Only seems to occur attached to pre- or post-. Equinox 12:27, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


Esperanto for thermal. I can't find anything on Tekstaro, Google Groups, or Google Books, though there is some interference from English and Finnish. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 13:46, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Any Finnish interference must be coincidental. I would rather connect this to Swedish varm ‎(warm). --Hekaheka (talk) 08:24, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


This Esperanto suffix is mentioned in the Plena Analiza Gramatiko, which gives varmala, fortala, and acidala as examples, but I can't find any evidence that those words (or any others with this suffix) are actually used. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 13:56, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

arctic lime[edit]

A shade of green. Not enough to pass from G.Books and Groups. Equinox 23:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense - colour. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I'd never heard of it until now, but I can find enough citations to attest it (Citations:eminence, google books:"eminence purple"). The colour itself seems to have been a fad of the late 1800s, and the word might be historical. It's also possible that the HTML colour swatch we and Wikipedia label 'eminence' isn't quite the same as the older colour, which one source describes as "rose purple" and which another calls "a bright violet tinge, verging on petunia, with a dash of red in it". - -sche (discuss) 07:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

drop dimes[edit]

To murder. That's what Urban Dictionary says, but everything else I can find says that it means to inform, or turn someone in, e.g. telling the police (so I've created drop a dime on someone). Equinox 11:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I was under the impression it meant drop + dimes (either the monetary sense or the assist one) Purplebackpack89 11:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Most of the usage I find at Google books shows this as a synonym of drop a dime (on) "to inform (on)". DCDuring TALK 12:54, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

etlich, einig[edit]

"er ist etlich" and "der etliche" (with der as article and not as relative pronoun) shouldn't exist, "ein etlicher" might exist but should be colloquial or dialectal. Similar "er ist einig", "der einige" and "ein einiger" shouldn't exist for the sense "a few". Note however that "einig" also means "united" as in "ein einig Volk von Brüdern" (Rütlischwur) which is missing in the entry. Maybe compare with [www.canoo.net/services/OnlineGrammar/InflectionRules/FRegeln-P/Pron-Indef/Pron-einige3.html canoo.net].
Also the masculine or neuter genitive singular of both words should be cited with at least one quote as it could also be "einiges" and "etliches" (compare with jeder, manch and adjectives which could or can have both endings). - 13:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Wiktionary's entries on words like this are often messy; compare the words described at User_talk:-sche#German_ordinal_numbers, many of which still need to be standardized as to the placement of the lemma and the labelling of the part of speech. Bare etlich is attested in older works (google books:"etlich und" has many citations well into the 1800s; citations ostensibly from more recent centuries seem to all be quoting works from the 1800s or earlier), but the lemma form where the content is should probably be etlicher, based on modern usage. Bare einig with a relevant meaning is similarly (infrequently) attested but obsolete (Citations:einig); the lemma should be einiger, reflecting modern usage. The Duden reaches that conclusion in both cases, though it prefers forms with -e rather than -er — I have no strong preference for one or the other, but Wiktionary's practice has been to lemmatize -er rather than -e when not lemmatizing a bare form. - -sche (discuss) 19:09, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
The examples with einig seem to mean one: einig und zwanzig, einig und dreißig, einig und sechzig, that looks like ein und zwanzig or einundzwanzig etc., that is 21, 31, 61. Well, it could also mean "twenty and a few more". But then ohngefähr in "ohngefähr einig und zwanzig" could be pleonastic. As one can also find "etlich und zwanzig" etc., it might actually mean twenty and a few more. "ohngefähr einig und zwanzig" then could mean twenty and a few more, maybe just ten and some more, maybe even thirty and a few more, like 15 till 35 and not just 21 till 29. However, after searching for "einig and zwanzig" etc. these phrases should be very rare and just barely attestable.
einig as in "wir sind uns einig" is still common, so it shouldn't be moved. Maybe it should be split like einig as an adjective meaning united and einiger as a pronoun meaning a few. In any case there should be two different declension tables. Adjective: das Volk ist einig, ein einig(es) Volk, das einige Volk; pronoun: einiger Wein, einiges/einigen Weines, pl. einige Weine, einiger Weine, and no der Wein ist einig, ein einiger Wein, der einige Wein.
Regarding einiger and einige: Other sources might use the plural as the plural is more common and as the singular is used in "special" cases like with singularia tantum, material nouns, uncountable nouns, abstract nouns. By semantics, "some" and "a few" are in the plural. einiger Wein (Wein as material noun or uncountable noun comparable to water) means a little more amount of the liquid wine, while einige Weine (Wein as an appellative and countable noun) means a few bottles of wine or a few different kinds of wine.
As for etlich, it should be a pronoun etlicher, but as with mancher and manch there is also etlich (eg. "Von etlich[en] anderen vierfüßigen wilden Thieren", "Nachdem sie sich etlich[e] Tag[e] erquickt", "noch etlich[e] Meilen sey geritten"). The declension should be like etlicher Wein, etliches/etlichen Weines, pl. etliche Weine, etlicher Weine, and no der Wein ist etlich, ein etlicher Wein, der etliche Wein. - 10:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense - Latin noun. Not in Lewis and Short. Needs headword correcting if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not really a Latin word, it's an Aramaic word in Latin transliteration. Many English translations also use "raca" in Matthew 5:22, but that doesn't make it an English word either. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, strictly speaking, it's a Latin transliteration of a Biblical Greek transliteration (ῥακά ‎(rhaká) of an Aramaic word (ריקא ‎(reika, empty one)). My Vulgate spells it as racha and my Peshitta spells it as ܪܰܩܰܐ ‎(raka)/רַקַא ‎(raka). Chuck Entz (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
In Latin there's also āmēn, which can also be found in dictionaries. So raca could be Latin too.
Georges' dictionary has raca, see raca in Georges' dictionary at www.zeno.org: "raca (see note below), eitler Wicht, ein Schimpfwort, Vulg. Matth. 5, 22. Augustin. de doctr. Chr. 2, 11, 16.".
Some Vulgates have the spelling raca, like Latin Vulgate (Clementine), others have racha, like Wikisource's Biblia Sacra Vulgata (Stuttgartensia) and Nova Vulgata.
So the word should be attestable in Latin. However, gender and declension could be unknown. -Ikiaika (talk) 11:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Some additions:
  • Note to Georges' text quoted above: The Semitic characters at www.zeno.org are different from the characters in Georges dictionary. They seem to be similar to but different from ריקא.
  • Augustinus Hipponensis - De Doctrina Christiana libri quatuor - Liber II spells it Racha. Other editions have it as Racha or racha, often with italics or quotation marks, but there could be an edition with raca.
    BTW: Different spellings of the other foreign words in this example are: Amen, Halleluja (Halleluia, Alleluia), Hosanna (Osanna).
  • Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur contains "et raca". Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte has the same example (though it has Geennam and not gehennam) and mentions a source: Hieron. adv. Jov. II, 20, which can be found at Hieronymus - Adversus Jovinianum Libri Duo - Catholica Omnia (PDF page 54, column 328). Latin text: "Qui fratri dixerit fatue et raca, reus erit gehennae (Geennae)".
    Is this the same word? Georges has another raca, see racana: "rācāna (rāchāna, rāchēna, racēna, rāca od. rāga), ae, f., eine Art Oberkleid, bes. als Mönchstracht". Without reading the text and just by the context with Gehenna, i.e. Hell, I'd guess it also contains the word meaning idiot. This English translation translates it as: "He who says to his brother, 'thou fool,' and 'raca,' will be in danger of Gehenna."
  • This Latin text seems to dicsuss the word Raca.
-Ikiaika (talk) 00:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


--Dixtosa (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)


RFV-sense "(Australia) To clean drains." Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 04:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

This is almost certainly spurious. However, when searching for it, I came across an apparently dialectal Scottish term puggled, meaning "drained" (in the sense of "tired"), which we don't have (see [95] and Chambers Crossword Dictionary). This, that and the other (talk) 11:13, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


RFV-sense: verb. Tagged but not listed. - -sche (discuss) 04:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Easily cited. I have added three quotes to the entry. Kiwima (talk) 19:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Cool. DCDuring TALK 20:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


RFV-sense "(algebra, order theory) join, supremum". Tagged in diff but not listed. Google Scholar is able to find mathematical symbols if you search for their Latex input codes (\vee, \lor), and Google Books almost certainly OCRs this as "v" most of the time, which should help when searching for examples. @Kephir, Msh210, are you familiar with this and if so can you think of collocations / find examples? - -sche (discuss) 04:53, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm almost completely sure this is correct, but I haven't time now to look for cites, I'm afraid. Not a collocation but just another word on the same page can be poset or meet or infimum.​—msh210 (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


The "adjective" - just a noun modifier, isn't it? Donnanz (talk) 16:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I think so. Also, the given citation is for cocktail music, which seems to be a term of its own. Equinox 16:28, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh right. You could move the quotation perhaps? Donnanz (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Equinox 20:30, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
However, there does appear to be an obsolete adjectival meaning - from the cites I find I think it probably means something along the lines of dashing or ostentatiously sophisticated:
  • 1830, Sporting Magazine:
    It looks very cocktail to be seen riding through the streets of London in a scarlet coat ;
  • 1840, The Sporting magazine:
    The Prince had nothing particular about him but a monstrous smart whip with a gold stag for a handle, which was pronounced a very cocktail looking instrument by the Leicestershire farmers, with whom His Serene Highness is no favorite
  • 1998, Boulevard - Volume 14, page 137:
    A model dressed in a Santa's suit: red crush, white cuffs and collar, a stocking cap. A Very Cocktail Christmas.
  • 2008, Christine Kelly, Mrs Duberly's War: Journal and Letters from the Crimea, 1854-6, ISBN 0191579912:
    She always goes about with a brace of loaded revolvers in her belt!! Very cocktail and no occasion for it
Kiwima (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
It meets attestation standards, but it follows a general pattern by which many (any?) noun meanings can be exploited in the way we call an adjective. IMO it adds no value whatsoever to early-stage learners, ESLers living in an English-speaking country, or native speakers. It's too uncommon for an early-stager and the others can decipher this kind of thing and put it in its insignificant place. I suppose there may be some others who find this useful. DCDuring TALK 21:36, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Are we not to follow the adjectival criteria that you have long advocated for? I don't understand your objection. DTLHS (talk) 21:55, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that isn't being used as an adjective in those citations. I'm arguing that the adjective sense is trivial. For example, any proper noun can be used this way, eg, This argument is so DCDuring. [He] went to a grammar school and then to a university, very red brick and provincial. DCDuring TALK 22:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Seriously? I find nothing trivial or obvious about the connection between a scarlet coat or a brace of pistols or a huge whip --- and a cocktail. If you see such a connection, perhaps we need another definition of cocktail as a noun. Kiwima (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Have you ever heard of connotations? Do you think all connotations should be rendered as definitions? DCDuring TALK 21:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
It's hard to know what obsolete sense is meant in those quotations and we shouldn't jump to conclusions. I agree with DCDuring. Donnanz (talk) 08:57, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


Possibly a straight translation of English "world's oldest profession". But the existence and usage of such a term in the Thai language are in doubt. --YURi (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC)


Probably nonsensesuzukaze (tc) 23:36, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

There is some, other results are more specific and refer to 水火雷電神. However in Chinese, seems 雷電神 is used generally to refer a god of thunder and lightning? Perhaps it is a new adaptation from the Chinese to expand the Japanese? 天人了 (talk) 03:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


Is this an incorrect form of 個子? — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:40, 12 May 2016 (UTC)


Rfv of the sense:

  1. (slang) Combo (or hybrid) of pumpkin and blueberry.

This seems to be a meme on the (non-Usenet) web intended to fool unsuspecting people into using an outrageously vulgar term in non-sexual contexts. I haven't been able to find this at Google Books or Google Groups, though there's interference from a surname at the former and from the other sense at the latter, so I might have missed one, somewhere. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:05, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

They are not foolish they want to also know that combo (or hybrid) of pumpkin and blueberry is called blumpkin because of it being totally possible in real life. --CasetteTapeMaster (talk) 15:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

tidely 2[edit]

RFV-sense: alternatively form of "tidily". Are there more citations of this? And is it an intentional alternative spelling, or an error? The presence of both "tidely" (meaning "tidily") and "tidily" in a work, or the presence of other misspellings, would help answer the second question. - -sche (discuss) 03:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)


Probably the legitimate name for this species, but Google results are meager at any rate. —suzukaze (tc) 23:48, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

This reminds me of the kind of English common names that are really just calques of the taxonomic names made up so scientists can pretend they're speaking English. According to FishBase, this was originally described in 1937 as Propseudecheneis tchangi, and was transferred to the genus Pseudecheneis in 2008. I'm sure people in Yunnan were familiar with this fish for thousands of years before Mr. Zhang entered the picture, and I wonder about the "褶鮡" part of the name: is it specific to Pseudecheneis, or does it refer to a specific type of catfish, whether they're classified as Pseudecheneis or Propseudecheneis? If "褶鮡" is specific to Pseudecheneis, then the name can't be more than 8 years old- you'd have to look for the translation of Propseudecheneis tchangi before that. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:28, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
After looking at the 2008 paper (see especially p.222- "The status of Pseudecheneis tchangi and its collection locality"), it would seem that the species is only known from a single specimen described in a 1936 article by Dr. Tchang/Zhang without recognizing it as a separate species- no one is even sure where in Yunnan it was collected. Something this obscure is probably unknown to Chinese lay people, and has probably only been referred to by its taxonomic name in the very rare cases it's been referred to at all. I suspect this name was created on the fly by the folks at Chinese Wikipedia. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:14, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

mission impossibles [edit]

Verifiable or not? Donnanz (talk) 15:06, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

verifiable. For example:
Kiwima (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Please remember to check the lemma. Two citations of each plural (I stopped after 7 in total, including 3 for the singular) were documented in mission impossible before the plural entries were created.— Pingkudimmi 02:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
It is technically / grammatically incorrect, which should be noted in the entry. Donnanz (talk) 09:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Usage notes added; RFV withdrawn. Donnanz (talk) 12:07, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Well, they were added, but a certain admin who isn't worth naming deleted them. Donnanz (talk) 22:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Let's see if the label "nonstandard" sticks better. --Hekaheka (talk) 07:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


A waiter at a restaurant who offers to grind pepper onto customers' meals at the table. Definitely a thing (Pizza Express used to do it!) but not sure the word is real. I found two or three Web sites where it seems to be introduced as a protologism. Equinox 15:41, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

If there were a specific name for this position, I'd expect it to be poivrier (but not in the attested sense, of course). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 15:56, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
I can find many books giving this definition of peppier - but as a mention, not as a use. For example:
  • 2005, Rosanne D'Ausilio, Lay Your Cards on the Table: 52 Ways to Stack Your Personal Deck, ISBN 1557533946:
    PEPPIER (pehp ee ay) The waiter at a fancy restaurant whose sole purpose seems to be walking around asking diners if they want ground pepper.
  • 2008, Steven Pinker, The Stuff of Thought: Language as a Window into Human Nature, ISBN 0141921072:
    peppier n. The waiter at a fancy restaurant whose sole purpose seems to be walking around asking diners if they want ground pepper.
  • 2014, John Lloyd, ‎John Mitchinson, ‎& James Harkin, 1,411 QI Facts To Knock You Sideways, ISBN 0571317782:
    A peppier is a waiter whose sole job is to go round with a pepper grinder.
There might be some uses out there, but I can't find them in the sea of false positives from the adjectival meaning. Kiwima (talk) 19:39, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
  • 1999 October 8, Jessie (Loa), Pedants... don't read this. =), in alt.books.m-lackey, Usenet:
    Actually my parents found something very interesting at one place .... they did a "take time off, travel north america" trip last year, and found this place ... name escaping me ... I think it was something like Hot Tossed Buns. Well, they walk in ... and sit down ... and not only were the portions amazing, they had two things. Instead of peppiers, they had people who walked around, with the side dishes of the day, offering you more and more, if you wanted more at any time, you got it.
  • 2001 February 18, Tim Hall, Spilero 15/2, in uk.media.radio.archers, Usenet:
    Shirley the pepper mills are whipped away by the peppier after use, so no danger there. But what about the candles?
  • 2001 February 20, Lady Archer, Make me laugh, in alt.astrology, Usenet:
    Widdershins <sini...@concentric.net> wrote:
    > 7. PEPPIER (peph ee ay') n. The waiter at a fancy restaurant whose
    > sole purpose seems to be walking around asking diners if they want
    > fresh ground pepper.
    Ah, Norway is still a peppier-free zone!
There are a few more citations on Usenet. - -sche (discuss) 00:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "To lay open; to expose to view; to examine or exposit." What does this actually mean? It is not mentioned in the OED. ---> Tooironic (talk) 12:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it refers either to laying some physical thing open to view with the eyes, or to revealing something, as opposed to the other sense (to explain and lay a topic open to understanding with the mind). I can find some citations where the object of the verb is a physical thing rather than a concept, but even there it seems to refer to "explaining" the thing, not the RFVed sense. For example:
  • 1639, Michael Jermin, A Commentary: Upon the Whole Booke of Ecclesiastes, chapter 9, page 343:
    One such righteous man, one such wise man, is able in danger to deliver a City, for so it followeth. [...] They who expound the city to be the body of man, expound this poore man to be synderesin & dictamen rationis, [...]
- -sche (discuss) 17:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
The usex in Webster's 1913 had the object of the sense in question being "both his pockets", ie, something physical, not a topic of discussion. The sense was labelled obsolete. But even Webster 1913 didn't use the verb exposit in the definiens. DCDuring TALK 12:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Volapük words for sexual orientations[edit]

jivotageniälan, hivotageniälan, hiotgeniälan, jiotgeniälan, votageniälan, otgeniälik, votageniälik, otgeniälan. —Mr. Granger (talkcontribs) 20:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)



  1. naturism, nudism, social nudity.

There's been a sort of half-edit-war between User:Xanderox and User:Dmol over this. Obviously, naturism and naturalism aren't the same thing- but that doesn't mean that some people don't use the one term for the other. If they do, we have to include it, but we might tag it as proscribed, or the like. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 01:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Whether it's right or wrong, it does exist, and fairly commonly. As you say, it could be marked as proscribed, or a usage note added. --Dmol (talk) 02:58, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

How does one mark "proscribed" or add a usage note? I'm not sure how "fairly commonly" can be defended... Ex: http://www.wikidiff.com/naturalist/naturist User:Xanderox (talk) 14:10, 17 May 2016 (UTC) Also: https://sites.google.com/site/emilyrussavage/prescriptivism

We have a template for labeling things: {{lb|en|US|UK|proscribed|nonstandard|etc.}}. For usage notes, you just put a "====Usage notes====" section after the definition and say something like:
Usage notes
  • Referring to nudism as naturalism is often considered an error, since the primary term for that is naturism, though some people do use it that way.
As for evidence: there are a couple of mentions in reference works here and here, and actual uses here, here, here and here. See our Criteria for inclusion for details on our requirements.

As for evidence that the "couple of mentions" are just that - a very small proportion of "improper" usages - please note this section from the Google Sites page I listed earlier:

"There were 1888 total tokens for the word "naturist" in Googlebooks. The word came into the corpus just before the 1900s and has since enjoyed increased popularity, especially in the 1920s, the 1930s, and the 1990s. Early on, most of the tokens dealt with the religious sense. It wasn't until 1937 that naturist came into the corpus meaning "nude". It actually came from a direct translation of a German magazine "Nackt Leben". The next usage of the word "naturist" referring to nudity came in 1959:

    "One such setting is the British Sunbathing Association, in which several members recently fomented division by proposing that "naturist" be used as a substitute term for "nudist."  

It wasn't until the late 1970s that "naturist" became frequently used as "nudist", but now the term is almost exclusively used for practices of nudity.

There were over 300,000 tokens in Googlebooks for the term "naturalist". The usage for "naturalist" has decreased slightly over the last 200 years, but still remains constant. In the first 100 tokens for the 2000s, 97 referred correctly to art and/or nature. The remaining three, however, dealt with the incorrect use of religion." Xanderox (talk) 08:34, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


No usage. DTLHS (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


This word is variously cited as Vulgar Latin and Late Latin, sometimes giving the seventh century as a date. It is not classical and I am not sure where to find an example if it is indeed Late Latin. If it is Vulgar Latin, the Romance language etymology citations ought to be changed, and the word ought to be moved to the appendix for VL. reconstructions. I am not sure that the nineteenth century German dictionary implies there is an actual Latin source, but the word is also referenced as Late Latin here: https://archive.org/details/etymologicaldict00diezuoft The word is also described here thus: `spoken Latin camminus, first documented in Spain in the seventh century.' (hyperlink: https://books.google.com/books?id=8c2k5GSn8eAC&pg=PA6&dq=camminus&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjioKfY8-TMAhXMK48KHSiGBysQ6AEIQTAF#v=onepage&q=camminus&f=false ) I do not know if spoken implies not written. Isomorphyc (talk) 00:47, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

I cannot judge the context of these cites, so they may be invalid.
1663, Johannes Heringius, De Molendinis[96]:
Rudiergo & simpliciori secule camminorum usus fuit incognitus.
1804, Jacopo Durandi, Notizia dell'antico Piemonte Traspadano[97], volume 2:
[] et dictum Jacobum Vidalis certos nuncios et ambaxatores universitatis ad petendum et recipiendum a vobis securitatem camminorum, et ad tractandum vobiscum ea pedagia []
1716, Sancti Aurelii Augustini Hipponensis[98], volume 12:
Christiani enim secundum Evangelium spiritus prompei sed carne infirmi, a sacrilega contaminatione camminorum reperto compendio suas animas rapuerunt, imitati presbyteri Raziae in Mechabaeorum libris exemplum: nec frustra timentes.
DTLHS (talk) 01:05, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for looking. The first and third are misspellings for caminorum. The Johannes Hering citation itself corrects the double-m spelling to caminis in the chapter heading and camini in the passage numbered 28, which also speaks of smoke and fumes. Saint Augustine is talking about pyres, and in other texts the spelling is caminorum. In the Italian and Spanish translations the words are roghi and hogueras (regrettably I can't find an English translation).
Where the translations speak of `imboccata la scorciatoia' and `encontrado el atajo,' that is, `taking the shortcut,' this is for `reperto compendio,' not a sense of `camminus.' Of course it would be more than surprising to find Augustine to use it in the fifth century.
The second citation seems to be a genuine mediaeval usage; the text offers the date of the cited document as 1268. One would not be surprised by this usage, though it is far from Late Latin. I would like to mark the sole definition as mediaeval and offer this text as a citation, with a pointer to the seventh-century comment in the references, if this seems reasonable to others, and pending earlier citations.
Isomorphyc (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


"A big, unintelligent, and balding North American ape with a short temper and lacking a chin." This is the word's original sense as used as a joke word in The Simpsons. Does it have that sense in reality? The tone of the definition is inappropriate (for an actual dictionary) at least. Equinox 12:31, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


This is a new concept that seems like a quasi-brand-name, but doesn't seem to be quite attested in English or in French, and I'm not sure about the capitalization. There also seems to be an unrelated Scots term. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "To travel in economy class on an aeroplane or other form of transport.". I can find no evidence. DTLHS (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks to me like someone meant coach. Kiwima (talk) 19:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
That occurred to me too. — SMUconlaw (talk) 19:27, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


Is this used anywhere? It seems like it's back-formed from a modern language, as the older Latin word analysis has -s-, and so does the Greek original. —CodeCat 20:19, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

The Ancient Greek verb is ἀναλύω ‎(analúō), so if anything I'd expect the Latin verb to be analyō. (There is a verb ἀναλύζω ‎(analúzō), but it means 'hiccup'.) —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:32, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "Particularly pleasing or agreeable.". "Peachy" maybe. I don't see any evidence that something agreeable can be "very peach" or "more peach" or any other common adjectival collocations. DTLHS (talk) 20:59, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

It possibly should be classed as a noun modifier if anything (see noun sense 4). In fact Oxford doesn't list an adjective, not even for the colour [99]. Donnanz (talk) 09:16, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
A noun, yes - "His goal was a peach." not "His goal was peach."   — Saltmarshσυζήτηση-talk 10:17, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
"I was just peach to deal with" ? [100] Siuenti (talk) 21:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
"Balotelli's goal was just peach, an absolute stunner." [101] Siuenti (talk) 21:15, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Here's a third one:
2000, Marc Behm, Afraid to Death, ISBN 1901982653, page 174:
'That'll be just peach with me.'
Kiwima (talk) 22:44, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Neither of Siuenti's examples are "durably archived". DCDuring TALK 10:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

cosmic latte[edit]

Challenging the adjective. Equinox 20:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "To belittle a government emissary or similar on behalf of a more powerful militaristic state." Never heard of it. DTLHS (talk) 20:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hope that doesn't have any association with Condoleezza Rice :\ Leasnam (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Been on our premises since Nov 1, 2008, ie, just before a US election, sole contribution of User:Riverrafter. Highly likely that it had a political purpose,however implausible the possible help to the contributor's favored side. DCDuring TALK 22:22, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Not in OED (surprise, surprise). — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)


Is this spelling actually attested? I see it in some phrases in non-Estonian texts as a novelty, but the Estonian citations all seem to have it as jää-äär (as pointed out by a native speaker on the talk page). I suppose this might be a case where it would be okay to leave a redirect. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:09, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I would also support the hyphenated spelling. The Institute of Estonian (Eesti Keele Instituut) publishes a web dictionary [102]. They don't have an entry for either spelling but there's this usex: Jää-äärne veeriba oli toitu otsivaid metsparte täis. Also, there's a rockband and an art gallery named "Jää-äär". --Hekaheka (talk) 06:57, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Instead of redirect one might consider "misspelling of..." --Hekaheka (talk) 06:59, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


"Bearing a hook or hook-like structure." Apparently only in word lists. Equinox 13:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Cited IMHO. Not much use, probably kept alive only by Translingual use as a genus name (Uncifera) and specific epithet (uncifer). DCDuring TALK 14:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


Also "sleer-rib", but do not find any usage of either spelling. DTLHS (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I added this so perhaps I am conflicted. It also appears as slerrib and alternative forms may even include slerk and slake.John Cross (talk) 09:30, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "Any organic material rich in proteid molecules considered a dietary source of essential amino acids." --Is this obsolete like the other definitions? Or just another definition for "protein"? --Hekaheka (talk) 06:29, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

It looks for complicated than that and more than our definition as well. See this, taken from Webster 1913. DCDuring TALK 11:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Also see “protein” in Douglas Harper, Online Etymology Dictionary (2001).. DCDuring TALK 11:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
To me this boils down to one definition instead of current three: proteid is an obsolete term for protein. --Hekaheka (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)


Dutch, Rfv-sense: "A ridiculous, undignified person, notably female". If it is actually true and citable, it's probably dialect-specific. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

I live in the Netherlands where I've been speaking Dutch for over 25 years. Kont means 'butt', but I have never heard of the term being used to refer to a person. Amin wordie (talk) 22:00, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Same here, I speak a Hollandic dialect and have never heard any senses other than "butt". Now the person who added that meaning is Belgian, so it could be dialectal, but then again he was also weirdly obsessed with butts. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:52, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "(Brazil) American dollar". Tagged but not listed. DTLHS (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

ทรงพระเจรียม; ทรงพระเจียมเริญ[edit]

Never seen these. --Octahedron80 (talk) 07:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


Created by an anon. Seems plausible enough, and it was already linked to from some other pages, but I don't speak Swedish myself and I'm always wary of anons creating vulgarities, so I'd like it confirmed by someone who knows Swedish. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:44, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

It seems OK, it is in the Swedish site [103], and listed by SAOL [104] and Norstedts [105] ''Donnanz'' (talk) 09:08, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
And here [106] ''Donnanz'' (talk) 09:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, those look good enough to me. I'll take the tag off now. Thanks. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:02, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


Afaik this word is not widely used in Belarusian. Лыжнік is used in the meaning "one who skies". --Jarash (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

No results at google books:"ірцяр". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)


RFV per Talk:siraxta, where I express doubt that this word isn't merely Neo-Gaulish, and Angr cites sources which lack it. If it fails, the link at hiraeth should be removed as well. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Full disclosure: the sources I mentioned are not ones that I would necessarily expect to cite this form if it exists, so the argument from their silence is very weak. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 10:42, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


According to De Vaan (under the entry lībō), this isn't actually attested; he places an asterisk in front of it. —CodeCat 22:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

  • I don't know why he did that, but a cursory glance at Google Books shows that it is indeed attested. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:51, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


Good health: noun and verb. Entry is a bit of a mess. If real, needs a regional gloss: where is it used? Might also just be subtle spam for a Nigerian health Web site of the same name. Zero Google hits for the given usage example "I am kangpe". Equinox 14:43, 25 May 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "to dispose of". Other dictionaries do not seem to recognize this sense and the only citation does not appear to support the definition: "Here are blank warrants of all dispositions; give me but the name and nature of your malefactor, and I'll bestow him according to his merits." --Hekaheka (talk) 14:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC) Also the sense "give in marriage" seems to be missing from other dictionaries. --Hekaheka (talk) 12:34, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The marriage-related sense reminded me of sense 3 of give away in marriage, which at least some dictionaries have as a distinct sense. MWOnline, for example does not have it as a distinct sense as the identity of the subject (eg, father), object (bride, object's relationship to subject, or the name of the bride) and "in marriage" amply restrict the way in which give and away can be interpreted. DCDuring TALK 17:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
I found a quotation from Shakespeare to "give in marriage" -sense, and consequently removed rfv-tag from that sense. Sense "to dispose of" remains. --Hekaheka (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
bestow in The Century Dictionary, The Century Co., New York, 1911 has both senses, each with a single citation. Webster 1913 had the same citation for the marriage sense, which I am about to add to the entry. I still have trouble seeing the marriage sense as not just a trivial specialization of other senses of bestow. DCDuring TALK 21:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
A further consideration: should the two senses be labeled "archaic" as they are missing in current dictionaries? --Hekaheka (talk) 04:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
The "dispose of" sense seems obsolete to me, The marriage sense seems SoP and dated.
The "dispose of" sense makes etymological sense as directly from be- + stow, the other senses seeming to be developments, but I can't base it on our "Etymology" as we don't have definitions for the Middle English terms or entries for them. DCDuring TALK 05:27, 31 May 2016 (UTC)


"Any member of the family Remora, the suckerfishes." @DCDuring I can't find usages of this, and the entry looks odd in any case: Remora is a genus, not a family — the family is Echeneidae. Wikipedia redirects to Remora (the English word) which is also a redirect for Echeneidae.— Pingkudimmi 15:18, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks as though Remorid might be a French surname. (Oh, it's a scanno for Rémond.) Perhaps it got onto a word list and someone made a bad guess at the meaning? Equinox 15:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
The same, now-blocked user's entry for Remora had it as a family. I found one possible cite for an adjective use and many mentions in Scrabble books. DCDuring TALK 15:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it looks like it only existed in that user's mind. Apparently there never has been a family called Remoridae, so the normal formation of "-id" words doesn't apply here. It's kind of scary how many other sites copy from us... Chuck Entz (talk) 02:05, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

fourth cosmic velocity[edit]

All of these newly-added cosmic velocity entries are a bit encyclopedic for my taste, but this one has only 7 Google Books hits, and none of them unequivocally support this definition. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The synonymous version "fourth cosmic speed" U.S.A.F. military document from 1977 escape velocity of the Milky Way (second sense - the orbital velocity of the Sun in the galaxy is also presented) -- 04:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

fifth cosmic velocity[edit]

Zero Google Books or Google Groups hits. 19 Google hits so far. Chuck Entz (talk) 01:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense -- this doesn't make sense, novae have all sorts of luminosities, saying 1000x times the luminosity of a nova does not make sense. -- 11:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

2013, Koutarou Kyutoku, The Black Hole-Neutron Star Binary Merger in Full General Relativity, page 11:
This event is named a “kilonova” in [55], because it is brighter by a factor of ~103 than a nova.
This suggests that scientists might be willing to informally use both nova and kilonova as measures of the brightness of typical astronomical events of the type mentioned. That this use might be imprecise is not a problem to them and less so to us. DCDuring TALK 12:42, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Although that sounds reasonable, the only cites I can find refer to the event rather than the luminosity. Not being a physicist, I am not always sure, however. Here are the questionable cites I found:
  • 2013 November, V Paschalidis, SL Shapiro, “A new scheme for matching general relativistic ideal magnetohydrodynamics to its force-free limit”, in Physical Review D:
    Moreover, during merger neutron-rich matter can be ejected that can shine as a kilonova due to the decay of r-process elements [2–13].
  • 2013 December, YZ Fan, YW Yu, D Xu, ZP Jin, XF Wu, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, volume 779:
    The observed energetics and temporal/spectral properties of the late infrared bump (ie, the "kilonova") are also found to be consistent with emission from the ejecta launched during a neutron star (NS)-NS merger and powered by a magnetar central engine.
  • 2015 January, R Fernandez, D Kasen, BD Metzger, “The effect of black hole spin on winds from neutron star merger remnant accretion disks”, in American Astronomical Society, AAS Meeting #225:
    Disk winds generally contribute to a ~week long transient peaking in the near-infrared (kilonova), although an optical precursor can manifest as a signature of delayed black hole formation or high black hole spin.
  • 2015, R Fernández, D Kasen, “Outflows from accretion discs formed in neutron star mergers: effect of black hole spin”, in (Please provide the title of the work):
    This component can give rise to an ≲1 d blue optical 'bump' in a kilonova light curve, even in the case of prompt BH formation, which may facilitate its detection.
Kiwima (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm with you. We certainly don't have any unambiguous evidence that it is used that way. I saw some uses that referred to the radiation pattern rather than the hypothesized cause. I'll leave citations to the astrophysicists. DCDuring TALK 22:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense for second definition of -- "eight dou (斗) of rice". This definition isn't in any of the regular English (dictionary) online sources I've checked. I haven't checked older non-English sources such as the KangXi dictionary. Bumm13 (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

It is defined thus in the Kangxi. ---> Tooironic (talk) 01:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


"Cantonese: rotten, muddled". A Google search suggests that 毈 read as wo2 might exist. —suzukaze (tc) 05:22, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The character looks like 'rotten egg' to me. Does it mean rotten egg or rotten egg gas? --Octahedron80 (talk) 04:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


Slang for bankrupt. Added by an IP today. I couldn't find it in Google Books (also tried "banko", thinking it might be the Australian slang -o suffix). Equinox 17:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


LWC. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


This isn't an Italian word, but a Venetian alternative spelling. IvanScroogeNovantotto (parla con me) 18:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

  • Isn't the Venetian word something like "góndoƚeta"? SemperBlotto (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
If there's no evidence for usage in Italian, we can convert it to a Venetian entry. Either way, there are thousands of Google Books hits, so we can't delete it. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:59, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the correct spelling in Venetian would be gondołéta or gondoƚéta, but since there are so many hits, I propose a conversion as a Venetian alternative form linking to the correct spelling. IvanScroogeNovantotto (parla con me) 12:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016[edit]


Rfv-sense Australian slang contraction of "no worries". Even if it's real, I doubt it's capitalised. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

No chance. This, that and the other (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "A small hand tool or material-handling implement specialized for specific types of processing such as is used in the kitchen or a laboratory." Seems redundant to the first definition: "An instrument or device for domestic use, in the kitchen, or in war." BTW, the OED only lists the one sense. ---> Tooironic (talk) 04:23, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I've revised def 1, added a new def 2 and would delete def 3 as redundant to 1 & 2, ie, treat it as an RfD matter. DCDuring TALK 09:19, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
My impulse would be to keep def 3 and get rid of 1 & 2 as overly specific. But I agree that this is an RfD matter, not an RfV matter. Kiwima (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Definition 3 is about twice as long (in syllables) as a typical definition of a competing monolingual dictionary. Many competitors only have sense 1. Some have both senses. I have not yet found one that has a definition as long-winded as definition 3. DCDuring TALK 19:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Incidentally, MW Online has an exemplary discussion of the "synonyms" tool, implement, instrument, appliance, and utensil. I wish Wikisaurus had something similar. DCDuring TALK 19:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Ngò-hài-ngò and Oi-sâ-nì-â[edit]

RFV two Hakka PFS words: Ngò-hài-ngò and Oi-sâ-nì-â. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 20:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)


Slang for "coffee". Couldn't find this with the obvious searches ("cup of brown" etc.). Equinox 23:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I made this up for the obvious reason (as coffee is brown) and decided to add to it at least for a little while. PlanetStar (talk) 01:58, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
We don't allow made-up words or definitions. See our Criteria for inclusion. Speedily removed. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


"An older male virgin, particularly one over 30 years of age". The given citation only says that if you reach 30 as a virgin, you will become a wizard, i.e. wizard in the normal sense, a magical man. It doesn't show that "wizard" means "old virgin". Equinox 03:38, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


Was RFVed before and passed, in error I would say. This is generally a nonsense word and we do not have three senses on the citations page that support any single given meaning. Equinox 02:32, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

There may be questions about what the word actually means, and how it is spelt, but my feeling is that the word is surely notable enough to include. It even has a Wikipedia entry. 02:56, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
I added some citations. Some of them are rather mention-y... Kiwima (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2016 (UTC)


What kind of "Egyptian" is this? Where is it used? ばかFumikotalk 12:29, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Knowing the IP that added it, this is from Bing translate. It's easy enough to find raw Google Books hits for it, but I suspect those are transliterations of foreign terms. Someone who knows Japanese will have to sort through them. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:54, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
TL;DR version: エジプシャン ‎(Ejipushan) on its own seems to be often used to refer to the Bangles song, “Walk Like an Egyptian”, per the Kotobank entry from Daijisen and a cursory look at google:"エジプシャンは". Past there, it's the first element in a number of compounds borrowed from English, such as エジプシャン・マウ ‎(Ejipushan Mau) from Egyptian Mau ‎(a breed of cat).
‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Google search throws up a few seemingly "native" uses of エジプシャン, for example (just one at random), 最初にベリーを始めたとき(5年位前かな)、先生がエジプシャンだった。("When I first began belly dancing about five years ago, my teacher was Egyptian"). However, my Japanese is not good enough to tell whether this is normal usage or something special or different. 11:48, 7 June 2016 (UTC)


From WF. Good luck searching for it. —This unsigned comment was added by SemperBlotto (talkcontribs).

I've added four citations, though some are rather "mention-y". Also tweaked the definition slightly. Equinox 16:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Well done. Yes, that's fine. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Really? Man, I created that as blatant tosh. Thanks, Dictionary! --J19idf (talk) 08:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


"The effect or result of tracking something down." Google Books doesn't seem to bear this out. There does seem to be a pair, downtrace-uptrace, relating to oceanography, perhaps upstream and downstream traces? Possibly other senses too. Equinox 21:49, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I also could find no evidence for the supplied definition. I did, however, add the three senses for which I could find enough citations. Kiwima (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Kiwima you are an unstoppable definition machine <3 Incidentally, the place where I found this word was Wikipedia:Typo_Team/moss, since it had been misspelled "dowtrace" in 164th Quartermaster Group (United States): I see that you have added that sense. Equinox 00:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "to fill a tooth". Wiktionary seems to be the only dictionary which has this sense. I tried to look for usage in Google but with no success. E.g. "tooth was inlaid" produces one hit of a Fiji tribesman whose tooth was inlaid in the club which killed him. --Hekaheka (talk) 04:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

I have added four cites, but found many more. I would, however, suggest adding "dated" to the entry, as the cites are all rather old. Kiwima (talk) 05:32, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
From the citations as presented one couldn't tell whether inlay refers to a special technique, a standard technique using different/non-standard materials, or to filling teeth in general. I suggest that we keep this in RfV until this question is resolved or that we remove the definition. DCDuring TALK 10:14, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
inlay#Noun implies, but doesn't clearly state, that an inlay is something that is formed outside the tooth and inserted into it. That differs from filling#Noun. Presumably the nouns' semantics transfer to the verbs'. This 1922 dental dictionary (p 152) makes it clear that the formation of the inlay does not occur in the mouth. The same source's definition of filling makes filling seem either a hypernym of or a technique distinguishable from inlaying. DCDuring TALK 10:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
I agree with DCDuring. That is what I picked up when I was huntin for cites. Kiwima (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2016 (UTC)


This is obviously PAM with a different service provider- the IP range is different, but the poor lexicological judgment is unmistakable.

This has exactly one Google Books hit that matches the definition- everything else is a scanno or unviewable. The only Google Groups hit is "self-anxietist", which isn't the same thing. There are only 29 hits on all of Google, and even some of those refer to other types of anxieties. The few that match the definition are on web pages. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

If it weren't for that one Google Books hit, I would have done so myself already. That shows that it's not completely imaginary, even if it's not attestable, so I decided to give it a chance, just in case. There was a companion entry for bipolarist that I almost rfved, but all of the Google Books and Google Groups hits were for a completely different definition, so I just deleted it. Chuck Entz (talk) 07:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

micreafón carbóin[edit]

Irish. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 09:05, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

keep the wolf from the door[edit]

Rfv-sense - to delay ejaculation.

Well, I'm familiar with the concept, but I don't recall hearing this meaning, and can't see anything on a quick Google book search. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I'm certainly familiar with one use:
1997, Steve Coogan as Alan Partridge, “Alan Attraction”, in I'm Alan Partridge, written by Peter Baynham, Steve Coogan and Armando Iannucci:
Do you mind if I talk?