Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English

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

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

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

Requests for deletion/English
add new English request | 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 verification/English
add new English request | history | archives

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

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

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

Requests for deletion/Non-English
add new non-English request | history | archives

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

Requests for verification/CJK
add new CJK request | history

Requests for verification of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.

Requests for verification/Non-English
add new non-English request | history | archives

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

{{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfd-redundant}} • {{rfe}} • {{rfex}} • {{rfi}} • {{rfp}}

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

This page is for entries in English. For entries in other languages, see Wiktionary:Requests for verification/Non-English.

Newest 10 tagged RFVs

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 “green 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 (emboldened), indicating what action was taken. This makes automatic archiving possible. 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 should be archived to the entry's talk page. This is usually done using the aWa gadget, which can be enabled at WT:PREFS.

Oldest 100 tagged RFVs

July 2021[edit]


surjection??⟩ 12:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Searching for "PMV" "music video" I find it standing for several other things (see Talk:PMV), but not this. I also found enough citations to attest "public motor vehicle" as a sense; see Citations:PMV. - -sche (discuss) 14:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to exist. See e.g. "I hope you enjoy this PMV" [1] or "I know this song has been in other PMV's by other YouTube bronies" [2]. Searching for PMV my little pony yields more. Mihia (talk) 17:41, 7 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was unable to find any durably archived citations other than a single rather mentiony one. I did, however, find and add a number of other initialisms. Kiwima (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can't claim "clearly widespread use", but I do think we can claim "clearly in use", and I hope that this might be enough to save the entry. These kinds of terms are by their nature unlikely to appear in traditional "permanently recorded media", but I don't see that as any good reason why we should not include them. This is exactly the sort of thing that someone might encounter and would want to look up. They would find it in Urban Dicktionary, and we wouldn't want to lose readers to that, right? If necessary, can we upload screenshots as a permanent record of use? (I know this has been mentioned before, probably by me.) Mihia (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it is clearly in use, although it does not meet our CFI. I also think this is another example of why our CFI is in need of updating, as we are in danger of becoming less relevant for modern users. Kiwima (talk) 22:01, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What about screenshots uploaded to Commons with lots of metadata about url, time and date of capture, etc. with multiple confirmations that the url was authentic? DCDuring (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
Never having done this before, I am not sure I have done it correctly, but I have tried to create a vote for handling entries like this. Please weigh in! Kiwima (talk) 20:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 2021[edit]


Fear of black holes. Equinox 17:16, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fear of made-up phobias. – Jberkel 10:45, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This means a fear of a black Sun – not even a black star. A black hole would become μέλαινα ὀπή (mélaina opḗ) when translated (by calquing) to Ancient Greek.  --Lambiam 12:57, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the poor construction (as many words have poorly selected roots), the meaning is clear from the way people on social media keep re-stating the definition, as the fear of black holes. #melanoheliophobia. -- 02:42, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, people repeating a word, and saying "what a funny word this is", doesn't demonstrate actual usage or adoption into the language. (People have made good money selling books that are just "lists of phobias" that no doctor in the world would recognise, and perhaps have never been genuinely used at all.) Currently we don't usually allow tweets as citations either (WT:CFI), but I suppose that will change some day, since even the OED cites tweets. Equinox 02:49, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've only been able to find the one (repeated) usage on Google Books. No hits on Google Scholar nor Issuu, and I've seen no news articles thus far. AG202 (talk) 04:09, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is one of those humorous pseudo-Latin coinages like necrohippoflagellation where half the joke is being able to work out the intended meaning with a basic knowledge of Latin roots. Sadly, it doesn't seem to be attestable by our standards at the moment. The Killers of the Cosmos cite is a use and CFI-compliant. The books have melanoheliophobic as a use, but only a mention of melanoheliophobia. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 03:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Someone has put a lot of (not durably archived) quotes on the page, but as @WordyAndNerdy says, all we really have is Killers of the Cosmos, unless you want to count the rather mention-y quote from Omnidoxy. Kiwima (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See Wiktionary:Votes/2022-01/Handling_of_citations_that_do_not_meet_our_current_definition_of_permanently_archived. Kiwima (talk) 20:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 2021[edit]

sin flattening[edit]

Nothing obvious on Google Books, Google Scholar, or Issuu. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 09:30, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Earliest reliably-dated uses I can find on twitter or elsewhere on the 'raw' web are from 2018 (in both cases). It's used in online exvangelical discourse (possibly coined by Kristen Rawls and popularized by Chrissy Stroop), but not often enough to have made it into anywhere durable AFAICT. - -sche (discuss) 04:02, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Rfv-sense "(Internet slang, sometimes derogatory) A live streamer, particularly one who makes uninteresting and repetitive live streams" — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 15:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely exists, usually as the second part of a compound: KnowYourMeme, reddit. Probably won't pass RFV though. Fytcha (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

January 2022[edit]


If the usage note is true, then maybe it can be moved to Appendix:English dictionary-only terms. But who knows, maybe someone can scrape together 3 actual usages. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Has two uses (citations tab) and a mention (talk tab) so far. The uses are kinda mentiony though but maybe that's par for the course with more technical-sounding terms. Arlo Barnes (talk) 20:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This does not seem durably attestable per Google Books and Google News, and the definition is probably wrong anyway. Attested use seems to mean "Christian cuckservative". ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:01, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


With the meaning "The alfaproteobacterid organism Gluconobacter oxydans.". Moved over from Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/English#gox. Tagged by User:Pious Eterino here. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 20:34, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to have been used attributively in gox 1122 and gox 0499, referring to genes of the organism, in perhaps two articles. GOx can also refer to glucose oxidase, which unfortunately occurs in many articles that also refer to G. oxydans. GOX might be in attributive use in those articles with either meaning. My biochemistry is nowhere close to good enough to tell which.
GOX and GOx can also refer to "gaseous oxygen", as used in rocket engines. DCDuring (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 2022[edit]


Only one internet news article mentions this location- I added it to Citations:Gezlik. Does not yet have two more cites unless there are some maps or unsearchable sources. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we use the Arabic spelling? It should be easier to find. The Uyghur Wikipedia has it .... I searched for gezlik and got this .... [[3]] .... but its only using Gezlik as a transliteration. It might be better to just use the Arabic spelling and then respell it in the definition the way we do with some other languages using foreign alphabets like Russian.Soap 10:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. Minor geography like this will always be hard to nail down with the three cites system. If you find examples of any of the other spellings, those would be helpful long term, even if the three cites for one of the spellings can't be found. At minimum, they could be saved on the Citations page in case this location got more attention in the future. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


ergative video game verb, "to kill". Equinox 10:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This term is definitely in usage (search "oofed" on YouTube as an example), though I think it's going to be difficult to find durably archived cites, as it's mainly used within the Roblox-playing community it seems, especially from a much younger demographic. See also Oof sound effect on Wikipedia and OOF on KnowYourMeme. AG202 (talk) 09:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


--Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks citable from Usenet: [4] [5]. 00:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I get no results there; logged in to gmail. What does it look like? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have tried to add a usenet cite- this is my first attempt ever. Let me know if my usenet cite is correctly done (that is- you can find the post I'm citing and it was appropriate to cite that post). --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
LGTM. The only thing I would add is |url= with the link to the Google Groups post, but I suppose it's not required by our rules. 01:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 2022[edit]

street shitter[edit]

Rfv-sense 2. A cat added claims it to be 4chan slang. --Richard-of-Earth (talk) 14:57, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is a 4chan meme about "designated shitting streets", documented here on KnowYourMeme: [6]. Equinox 17:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've added two cites. But from them, it seems more like a generic insult for street people rather than someone of a specific ethnicity or who literally defecates on the street. Kiwima (talk) 05:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This has failed before, and no citations have been added, so it could probably be deleted immediately. However, now that the CFI has been updated to allow for online sources, this term could potentially be cited using Twitter and various other websites, provided that the community agrees with it (compare dorcassing, sniddy). 07:06, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, agree with that. Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have added a bunch of cites to the citations page. Does anyone know how we go about voting whether they are acceptable? Kiwima (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Rfv-sense "(video gaming) A mottled black-and-green enemy in the video game Minecraft, which attacks the player by chasing them and exploding.", see WT:FICTION. Tagged as RFD here and removed out of process here. See also WT:RFDE#creeper. I've restored the sense as this is clearly an RFV issue. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 16:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why bother really? I don't see how this can be cited independent of reference to the game universe, since even the definition mentions Minecraft! Equinox 17:33, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You could've at least had this discussion first. See also: Pikachu, Scooby-Doo, which unsurprisingly you nominated for deletion yourself, Jigglypuff, Count Dracula, and more in Category:en:Fictional characters. Regardless of how you personally feel about these entries, consensus and CFI point towards finding figurative usages before deleting the entry, so you really should not have speedily deleted it, especially considering that you've participated in these discussions before. Let alone the fact that someone else already suggested that it was an RFV issue before you speedily deleted it, and then you then chose to ignore repeated suggestions to move it to RFV. That overall bothered me. In terms of the RFV though, @WordyAndNerdy I know you mentioned cites for it specifically in the RFD discussion, and I can look for some as well later. AG202 (talk) 18:32, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I remember stating that I'd seen this used figuratively in the wild. I don't remember stating that I'd already found CFI-compliant cites for it. I would've added them to the citations page if I had. I haven't had much luck with this even using precise search terms. "Like a creeper" mostly nets comparisons to clinging plants and creepy/stalkerish people. "Creeper" + "blow up" returns equal parts Minecraft game guides and science-fiction novels where various monsters called "creepers" are destroyed with explosives. I encountered the same signal-to-noise problem when I tried to attest figurative usage of Chewie. The cites are out there but there's only so many times I want Google to force me to identify boats and traffic lights because it thinks using advanced search functions means you're a bot. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I dug deep and found some diamond blocks...I mean, eleven years of Twitter cites. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The three quotes given are not durable. This meaning does not show up in the first 10 pages of my googling of "troids". Seems to be the dominant use of "troids" on Twitter, although that isn't saying much.--Simplificationalizer (talk) 02:06, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CFI has never explicitly precluded online sources. It was just commonly interpreted that way for a long time due to unclear wording. A recent vote updated CFI to explicitly allow online sources for attestation provided editors reach a consensus through "discussion lasting at least two weeks." It's unclear whether that means a two-week discussion to consider each online source (e.g. one for Twitter, one for Reddit, etc.) or every single term attested with online sources. The latter would be an unnecessary and obstructionist consumption of editors' limited time.
In any case, I'm satisfied with the provided citations. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 20:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This was closed as RFV-passed in 2020 without providing three durably archived cites: Talk:wehrb. Google Groups has nothing. — Fytcha T | L | C 〉 16:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


SURJECTION / T / C / L / 20:16, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Quick peek at GBooks: the word does seem to exist, but rare, and probably coined as a nonce independently each time. Various senses, e.g. being like an elf, and other things... Equinox 02:04, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cited, but only using online quotes as well as Google books. How do we put these up for vote? Kiwima (talk) 00:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


SURJECTION / T / C / L / 10:15, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appears on on 4chan, LooksMax, r/okbuddyretard, and various other sites [7], [8]. I would doubt there are many durably archived uses. Whether "widespread usage" is/can be established, I'll leave to other editors to consider. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 23:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 2022[edit]

hang tight [edit]

Rfv-sense "to remain in one's current location" - I've never heard it used this way before, is this an older meaning ? I've added sense #2, which is how I typically hear it used. Leasnam (talk) 05:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like sit tight. Equinox 05:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither definition seems right to me, nor to MWOnline. DCDuring (talk) 10:30, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I’d have to inspect a bunch of citations, but off the cuff the idiom suggests to me the sense of hang on (sense 6, persevere) in a situation in which one may be tempted to let go, like a blend (or even mix-up) of hang on and hold tight .  --Lambiam 13:20, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To me the MWOnline definition seems, well, spot on. DCDuring (talk) 14:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added the "wait expectantly or in anticipation" sense to the RFV, because it does not seem to match the cites any better. I have made a stab at a definition, and backed it up with a boatload of citations, plus a more literal definition (also with citations). Kiwima (talk) 01:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 23:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cordate [edit]

This is for the noun sense: "Any animal with a heart." It was added last July in the edit preceding mine. When I looked up the word "cordate" on multiple dictionaries, none of them gave a definition for it as a noun. Merriam Webster, Oxford, Collins, you name it, give only the adjective sense ("heart-shaped"), with no mention of a noun sense. See for yourself here: This page is a list of links to dictionary entries on "cordate" on several online dictionaries. Inner Focus (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Added 3 cites. Equinox 00:10, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The 2012 cite looks to be an error for chordate. Drosophila fruit flies have hearts, so it is (admittedly possible, but) unlikely that "animals with hearts" is what is meant. On the other hand, it would be very logical to appose arthropods and chordates in that context, especially reading the surrounding paragraphs.
If the other two cites are the best we can find we had better mark this as (rare, philosophy) and give it a usage note... This, that and the other (talk) 10:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cited (I removed the Drosophila quote as suspect). while it is true that most of the occurrences one finds are variations on Quine's classic example of the coextension problem of cordates and renates, I managed to find some other cites that are completely independent of that example. Kiwima (talk) 03:05, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:37, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

quadran [edit]

Simply defined as "square", with no context. @SemperBlotto created it. Equinox 07:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's in OED (SB was apparently doing a trawl of Latinate numeric prefixes in OED that day) but in true OED fashion, none of the noun cites are actually spelt this way - Quadern (1578), quadrons, Quadraines, Quadren, Quadrains (1653). The purpose of the entry seems to be a catch-all for forms of quadrant that showed a loss of final -t. This, that and the other (talk) 08:12, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oof. If none of the cites are of this word/spelling, I don't think we can just assume like the OED that the other words/spellings support this, particularly if the forms in -s above could be taken to be renderings or borrowings of Latin quadrāns instead (where the -s is part of the base word, not a plural of *quadran), like seems to be the case here. - -sche (discuss) 14:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The OED uses in -s are definitely plurals. Nonetheless, I don't think this is worth keeping. This sort of rare alternative spelling can be collected at quadrant, I think. This, that and the other (talk) 22:36, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cited Kiwima (talk) 04:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Only two of those citations contain "quadran". The first has "quadern". 18:34, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And can we be sure that the second cite isnt just a variant spelling of cauldron? Given the fungibility of medieval English spelling, and the many other odd spellings in this text specifically, writing qua for /ka/ in a French loanword is perfectly reasonable, and we already know that the L was silent. Soap 09:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

uninferant [edit]

Apparently a nonce word only used in the single (Faulkner) citation given. Equinox 10:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cited Kiwima (talk) 22:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, the citations do not all have the same meaning. Definition: "From which an inference is unable to be made." The 1975 one is pretty much gibberish to me, but the 2020 one refers to a person, so apparently it means the person cannot make an inference, rather than that no inference can be made from the person. Equinox 22:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that the definition is substitutable into any of the citations. Can someone see how to reword it? The 1975 Willams cite seems so unwilling to depart far from how Faulkner used the term that it scarcely seems independent. We are stuck trying to infer a definition from morphology, as in non-so-well-attested dead language. DCDuring (talk) 01:07, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't realized that Faulkner could be as bad as Joyce in this regard: often worthless as a source of unambiguous cites and a positive geyser of lexicographic time-wasters. DCDuring (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite as bad as Joyce, Falkner is more at the level of Shakespeare. Kiwima (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Snopes" in the title of the 2020 source looks like a clear Faulkner reference. I think I'm starting to see a theme here. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 22:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. Can the definition as written be substituted into any of the citations? I think not. I don't think any of the other authors could figure out what Faulkner might have meant by the word and nor could the author of our definition. The 1975 cite is little more that a copy of Faulkner's usage.
Is the meaning supposed to be "not providing a basis for inference"? If so, that would not fit the 2020 cite, as Equinox suggests. Accordingly we do not have three cites that support a plausible definition and no cites that support the definition as written. DCDuring (talk) 00:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ungreen [edit]

"Of plant or vegetable matter: decaying". Needs to be distinct from sense 1, "not green", which seems the more likely intended meaning when referring to a plant. Equinox 06:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Equinox 03:24, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP redirect was deleted multiple times before it got ECP salted. But then someone created it again and it still stands. 2600:387:9:9:0:0:0:26 18:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What is "ECP snowed"? Equinox 02:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the IP means "ECP salted". See [9]. This, that and the other (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, got confused with W:WP:SNOW and W:WP:SALT. 2600:387:9:3:0:0:0:1C 12:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
what 21:59, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Someone put a citation. Check please. 2600:387:9:9:0:0:0:5D 17:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not durably archived, but that shouldn't get in our way anymore. Now let's have two more good ones. Apparently this figure was royalty back in the day [10] This, that and the other (talk) 10:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have empirical evidence (See #for all intrinsic purposes.) that linkrot for "non-durably archived" citations removed 4/6 from 2007 to ~May 1, 2022, ie, a half-life of ~9 years. DCDuring (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are ways around this, such as the Internet Archive. Theknightwho (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

swinge [edit]

RFV for the claimed past forms swonge and swongen. This, that and the other (talk) 04:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be surprised if these exist; swinge has been a weak verb since its first attestations (as Old English swenġan). Perhaps our editor misinterpreted a ME or EModE past tense of swing? (Middle English swyngen can mean "to beat"; off the top of my head, this use persisted into EModE). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 13:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found one for swongen, but none for swonge. Given that we are only verifying an inflection, and not the existence of the word, it seems excessive to require three instances of each inflection. I am going to call this RFV-resolved, with swongen passing but swonge failing. Kiwima (talk) 21:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to the Preface of the book, these poems were written in the reign of Edward II (1307-1327), so they're Middle English. I'll move the quote to Middle English swengen. If the work is a 19th-century publication but the text looks surprisingly archaic, chances are it really is a little bit older than the publication date suggests... This, that and the other (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

westaboo[edit] 19:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"...enjoys western media" is a poor definition, too. It means popular entertainment like films and music, doesn't it? Not western media like The New York Times. Equinox 20:19, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added Twitter cites spanning 12 years over here. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 05:46, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

get out at Haymarket[edit] 21:27, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You could probably cite get off at Haymarket, but this form is going to be tough to attest. This, that and the other (talk) 05:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This obviously doesn't exist at all. Let's congratulate the creator on a troll well done. Can you spot the totally fake entry I made in 2022? There is one, precisely one, only. Equinox 05:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-failed, moved to get off at Haymarket. This, that and the other (talk) 05:17, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Is this spelling right? I came across the spelling subpœnaed, which I included in a quote under the verb subpœna. DonnanZ (talk) 22:06, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Donnanz It already has cites at Citations:subpœnæd. Probably should just be marked as an alternative/obsolete spelling. There are some hits on Google books from the past 5 years, but I wonder if the Wiktionary entry could've affected that. AG202 (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AG202: Oh, I didn't spot those. But we still need to incorporate subpœnaed, surely? DonnanZ (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AG202 Only the 1800 cite shows the ligature when you click through to the source. The 1921 one shows unlinked "a" and "e", and 1948 one has "subpnaed". It looks like it's text generated by OCR, not the original, and the missing "œ" is what one would expect from OCR software that doesn't know about ligatures.
The problem with citing a ligature is that it's strictly a matter of typography, so you have have to have visual confirmation- people don't pay attention to such details when transcribing texts, and OCR does all kinds of conversions (or just gets things completely wrong). Chuck Entz (talk) 03:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can confirm the 1921 one from all five of these Google Books results. I can't find any corroborating evidence in Google Books for the ligatured version of the 1948 cite. This, that and the other (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is it possible that theyre all misspellings? From what I know, æ cannot cross a morpheme boundary. The scan of the book from 1800 is surely not the original, right? Maybe someone overcompensated for the style of the day by substituting æ for every ae. Soap 05:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be fully supportive of deleting this entry as a rare misspelling. This, that and the other (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Surely æ can't do that. Thanks Soap for saying "cross a morpheme boundary", as I don't have the terminology, I'm just wondering why my Chomsky's weevil (that's part of the brain that deals with language) is screaming and screaming. Equinox 05:54, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does "not crossing a morpheme boundary" apply to plurals too? Witness subpœnæ. DonnanZ (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But -ae is the Latin feminine plural ending ... it's not two morphemes, because there is no "-e" that can be separated out from this as a plural marker. I've always seen Latin feminine plural -ae analyzed as a single morpheme, so a spelling with an æ would be valid, and not a hypercorrection. Soap 23:19, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If subpœnaed can be further attested, can the entry in question be moved there, lock, stock, barrel and citations? DonnanZ (talk) 09:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Which is “the entry” you wish to see moved? And aren’t the current three citations enough attestation?  --Lambiam 11:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If subpœnæd is deprecrated, move all to subpœnaed, which can be verified by quotes such as this one. DonnanZ (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


SURJECTION / T / C / L / 07:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seeming nonce-word. Other than the citation given, this Web page is all I can find: [11]. Equinox 23:05, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Tagged by @Numberguy6 but not listed. Binarystep (talk) 05:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cited Kiwima (talk) 21:43, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

black widow[edit]

US law enforcement: A black-colored, unmarked police vehicle. Equinox 04:58, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This one is very hard to search for, because of all the false positives. I did find the following:
  • 1957, Flying Wheel, page 7:
    The Black Widow - that's what hotrodders are calling the “unmarked” state highway patrol cruiser prowling these parts.
which is a mention, not a use, but which may be a clue about where this came from. Kiwima (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Noun: "The state of having overeaten." I can see at least one Google Books result, one of those silly book of rare words, that misuses the adjective to refer to being stuffed after a meal (it's actually a botanical term), so the creating IP may have picked that up, and also mistakenly called it a noun... Equinox 12:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can cite an adjective meaning having overeaten, as well as one meaning being completely full, but as for a noun, I could only find one use:
  • 2014, Carole McCall, Lotus Generation:
    A friend of mine had warned "If you go on a cruise ship be careful of catching farctate.”
Kiwima (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Equinox 22:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added two cites to the Citations page, but we still need a third. Kiwima (talk) 23:03, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ex testamento [edit]

I just created this one from a red link on ab intestato, and it appears in a couple of old law dictionaries (Blacks, Ballentines), but I am having trouble seeing any actual non-Latin usage. I would assume that if this was a legal term which was actually used it would not be hard to find since there is so much searchable legal text on the internet. - TheDaveRoss 12:53, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bit of a struggle to find citations on this that aren't merely dealing with contemporary Roman law. However, I've so far found:
  1. Commentaries on Roman-Dutch Law vol. 1 p. 411 from 1881, which clearly uses it in reference to Dutch inheritance in the 18th century.
  2. Cavanagh's Principles and Precedents of Modern Conveyancing, 1882 p. 189, in the context of English law.
Theknightwho (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As nom I am satisfied, though it seems like rare and/or archaic tags might be merited. - TheDaveRoss 18:31, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 03:27, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The entry for the noun "goode" lists the Middle English definition only as 1. n. (Late Middle English) Alternative form of gode. [12]

The Century Dictionary, under the definition of "stead", lists the following quote from the York Plays, p. 127. Lorde God! that all goode has by-gonne, And all may ende both goode and euvll,... .[13],

Can the definition of "goode" be updated to reflect such usage? And are there additional possible meanings that might be included, such as that which is desirable or an object of desire? Or that which is a personal possession, or a ware? --Penman1963 (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hazarasp may be able to sort out this situation. This, that and the other (talk) 13:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-passed. Updating Middle English entries is outside the scope of this page. Kiwima (talk) 03:50, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

squirrel friend[edit]

A friend who is a drag queen. This seems to be a specific quip used by RuPaul. Can't find in GBooks. Equinox 22:21, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cited. Kiwima (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


(Internet slang) Pronunciation spelling of no, representing Australia English.” Tagged by Jberkel on 7 April, not listed. J3133 (talk) 09:51, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks more like Geordie to me. Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited this from Google News. Kiwima (talk) 04:18, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably the most inaccurate ‘pronunciation’ spelling to have ever passed the verification process but unfortunately you have done an impressive job of attesting it. The question now is what pronunciation should we add to the entry? Should it be the same as the Scottish naw? (by which I mean IPA(key): /nɔː/ not IPA(key): /nɑ/ of course, I see no logic in listing a Canadian pronunciation for a Scottish pronunciation spelling at all but that’s a different issue). I suppose we could just use nəʉ along the lines of the Australian pronunciation we have for go but the spelling naur is crazy, we’ll be having gaur for go next! Overlordnat1 (talk) 18:31, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Tangent about naw: I suspect we should just expand the label "(Scotland, US, Jamaica)" in naw to "(Scotland, US, Canada, Jamaica)". I also regard naw as being, like nah (or yeah, or paw vs pa), a colloquial word for no rather than a "pronunciation spelling"; it is found even in text that spells things standardly. Indeed, I'm going to change the entry [naw] because I find it used by speakers who also use no in the same sentence ("but naw, no girlfriend"), clinching that it's a distinct word and not just "how certain dialects pronounce no". (Compare e.g. google books:"yes sir, yeah".) Naur, OTOH, seems to indeed be an attempt to represent Australian pronunciation of no, whether accurately or not, rather than a separate word. - -sche (discuss) 05:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You’ve succeeded in improving the entry. I shall, however, continue to roll my eyes at any and all North American or Irish attempts to represent what is clearly an ah sound ‘phonetically’ as aw (and also the naur abomination) 😂 Overlordnat1 (talk) 09:18, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

human being [edit]

Rfv-sense "Another, extinct member of the genus Homo." It's a plausible way to use the term human being, but it would be best to have the three cites for this one because it is definitely not the mainstream meaning- human beings are homo sapiens as far as I have ever known and as far as I have ever used "human being" myself. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:23, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cited, although maybe the second sense should be "Any member of the genus Homo, including extinct species." because people who use it in this way don't mean to exclude Homo sapiens. The current definition is okay though.
There's also an {{&lit}} wordplay meaning of human being, as in Scatman's World: "I want to be a human being, not a human doing". I'm split on whether to include it since on the one hand it relies on the idiomatic meaning, but on the other hand, unlike the main meaning, it's using being as an adjectival participle rather than a noun. 22:13, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I've changed the wording. That's an issue that's come up in a fair few entries, like how prostitute formerly had "male prostitute" as a sense; some people think that if a term means either "specifically X" or "either X or Y", they should just put "X" and "Y" as definitions, but...that's not how to do it... - -sche (discuss) 19:51, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 04:25, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

beme [edit]

Yet another word that fails to appear in the usual sources (i.e. the OED and EEBO). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 12:33, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added one mention from 2008. I've also added the "historical" label. I will have to check later for additional cites, but this might be a word like ceorl, fyrd, etc. Leasnam (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are 3 cites now. Leasnam (talk) 03:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first of those seems to only be a mention. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 03:53, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it is. I'll look for another, but I'll keep this one too. It's informative. Leasnam (talk) 15:41, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Added a third attestation-worthy cite. Now complete. Leasnam (talk) 04:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it is. Cited. Overlordnat1 (talk) 08:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 04:26, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


See Wiktionary:Requests_for_verification/English#beme; this is suspect for fundamentally similar reasons (the OED only has one cite, which we'd classify as Scots) Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 12:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added two cites to the citations page, but could not find a third. (There were a lot of false positives, especially scannos, so I cannot definitively say there isn't a third out there). Kiwima (talk) 03:44, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Gawin Douglas - a famous Scots writer - is the author in the OED cite mentioned by Hazarasp. So we only have a single Modern English cite here. This, that and the other (talk) 03:19, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This form clearly existed in Middle English, but even there I'm not sure whether it was specifically plural. (Someone who knows more could say.)

The citation on Citations:wheche is actually a usage example from Wiktionary itself. 18:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Appears in the OED only as an obsolete spelling of which. (The two anagrams look very suspect.) — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect the author used the Internet Anagram Server or an equivalent, and didn't realize that anagrams on Wiktionary are supposed to be single terms only, not combinations of terms. 18:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This is claimed to be the third-person singular of aby, but that entry gives abys as the correct form. It doesn't seem like the verb was used much in this form, so it could be hard to verify either way. (I can't think of any other English verbs in -VCy where the final -y is a stressed diphthong from which to make an analogy, but that might be more of a TR question.) This, that and the other (talk) 11:28, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Category:Rhymes:English/aɪ/2 syllables for a few. Etymologically, they seem to be all from Old French- so they probably aren't good models for an Old English inheritance like this one. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Created by an indef blocked user. Could just about be speedied. This, that and the other (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Rfv-sense: to digest. This is apparently a clipping of a sense of defy which we lack. OED has only Middle English evidence for both terms, except for a single modern citation from 1540 at defy. This, that and the other (talk) 11:43, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A-erh-t'ai [edit]

A not obviously attestable synonym of Altai in some it Altai's senses. DCDuring (talk) 19:22, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A few potentials: [14][15][16][17][18][19] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the dumbasses up at encyclopedia britannica "Altai Mountains, Russian Altay, Mongolian Altayn Nuruu, Chinese (Pinyin) Altai Shan," Unless they mean pinyin beyond Hanyu Pinyin bro [20] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 01:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"The A-erh-t'ai mountains are famous for the production of gold" 02:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 23:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This, that and the other (talk) 08:00, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Curiously I don't see any real cites for it, but I would bet 100% that it gets used all the time: As they were f***ing, I heard several queefings come out of her vagina - or something similar. Leasnam (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or just watch some old Patrice O'Neil clips - I'm sure you're bound to hear the word eventually :p Leasnam (talk) 22:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I reckon people would say queefs in that scenario. The pluralisation of abstract action nouns to -ings isn't exactly natural to English speakers. This, that and the other (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you get that from ? Yes it is. Compare rambles/ramblings and rumbles/rumblings, stumbles/stumblings, fumbles/fumblings...however, in the case of queefings, I would have to agree queefs beats out queefings, but not for the reason you state, but because 'queefings' hasn't caught on yet Leasnam (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Rfv-sense: "in danger of failing". This, that and the other (talk) 05:01, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems real, but uncommon: e.g. [21]. Equinox 17:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


No decent hits for this. Pious Eterino (talk) 13:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had found some, but on further examination, they proved to be scannos for non-carbonate. Kiwima (talk) 00:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Given name. ·~ dictátor·mundꟾ 15:18, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Sexual arousal from water (as opposed to urine). I think somebody may have been confused re "water sports"... Equinox 16:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

vest buster[edit]

This term is absolutely unattested; two of the three references are from the same source, a gun control advocacy organization, and the remaining reference is from the lone author who coined it. This term is nowhere near widespread—not even within the firearms community.

Oktayey (talk) 23:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW the Wikipedia article was deleted. This, that and the other (talk) 03:45, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cited Kiwima (talk) 23:40, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also recently did a brief search on Google Books, and failed to find any uses of the term you hadn't already cited. As it stands, the shortest length of time between any two recorded uses is two years. Oktayey (talk) 00:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Rfv-sense: novel coronavirus pneumonia

Apparently the official English name of COVID-19 in the People's Republic of China during part of February 2020. I don't know if this ever caught on. Cross-listing at CJK as well. Cnilep (talk) 06:04, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Google Scholar results. --H2NCH2COOH (Talk) 06:26, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I found four independent uses spanning more than a year; see Citations:NCP. Cnilep (talk) 03:21, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Creator has also linked to it from many other entries, so if deleted, please check for incoming links. Equinox 08:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I found and added two citations to the citations page, but have not yet found a third. Kiwima (talk) 01:40, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Rfv-sense: One who works by the job (i.e. paid per individual piece of work) and recruits other people. An IP at WT:RFC#jobber was convinced this last part is a necessary condition, but I'm not so sure. This, that and the other (talk) 10:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Did the IP offer any support? —⁠This unsigned comment was added by DCDuring (talkcontribs) at 17:52, 20 April 2022 (UTC).[reply]
Nope. However, the IP was presumably not the same user who added that wording to the entry in 2014 (how likely is it that someone without a watchlist would watch the page so closely over such a long period of time?), so it seems plausible for it to be accurate. This, that and the other (talk) 01:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I always consult other dictionaries using {{R:OneLook}} and {{R:Century 1911}}. I didn't see a definition that had the "recruiter" condition. DCDuring (talk) 04:02, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cited, but I see no support for the recruitment part of the definition. Kiwima (talk) 02:47, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


J3133 (talk) 07:36, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably inspired by supercentenarian and semisupercentenarian (a mouthful with two prefixes). DonnanZ (talk) 09:05, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Challenging sense 2: "(British) to taunt maliciously" (as opposed to sense 1, Australian, to do so in jest). I've never come across this word in British English at all! Equinox 09:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect it can be found in obsolete and/or dialect British English but it should be labelled as such, I’d never come across it until now either. There is this example in 1865 Devonian dialect of someone talking about chiacking a fox, though it seems odd that he would be merely taunting it instead of hunting it:- [22]. Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Created Citations:chiack. Overlordnat1 (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Purity of Virgins[edit]

Captain of Man's Salvation
Father of Heaven and Earth
Fortitude of the Martyrs
Glory of Heaven
Joy of Angels
King of Glory
King of Patriarchs
Light of the Prophets
Light of the World
Redeemer of the World
Sanctity of Confessors
Sun of Justice

Being an epithet of some (real or fictional) entity does not, in my opinion, by itself imply a term is entry-worthy. Satan has been called “the adversary of man”.[23] To fully understand the significance of the epithet requires some background, in particular (1) that Hebrew שָׂטָן(śāṭān) as a common noun means “adversary”, (2) that in the common Christian conception “the devil” and “Satan” refer to the same supernatural being; and (3) that the author of First Peter warns us, human beings, “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.” It only becomes lexical when writers use the term adversary of man, while readers are supposed to understand, without being told so, that this term refers to Satan. Likewise, if we read “Jesus, Purity of Virgins”,[24] this use does attest to this being one of many Christian epithets for Jesus Christ, but verification requires more: uses attesting to the epithet’s having become lexicalized.  --Lambiam 18:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I agree mere use as a descriptor or epithet in a form like (e.g.) "Jesus, Captain of Man's Salvation" does not (itself) suggest that "Captain of Man's Salvation" lexically means "Jesus"; we need, at a minimum, more cites like the "when the Captain of Man's Salvation visibly ascended" one. (Even then, cf Talk:Prince of the Power of the Air...) - -sche (discuss) 23:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That quotation is lifted from a sermon on the Ascension of Jesus. In the context it will be clear to anyone who understands English, including people who have never before encountered the collocation Captain of Man’s Salvation and are also otherwise quite ignorant of the doctrines of Christology, that its referent is none other than Jesus Christ. Otherwise it would be like claiming that Stetsoned billionaire[25] is a lexical term for Jeffrey Preston Bezos.  --Lambiam 09:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. These don’t seem like set phrases. — Sgconlaw (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. (Reminds me of what I raised with regard to "Prince of the Power of the Air", that "forty-third President of the United States" likewise always means one specific person, but . . . ) - -sche (discuss) 15:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the meaning is understood because the term is a transparent sum of parts, like “the oldest son of Emperor Frederick III of Germany”. It is not particularly relevant that this means one specific person; the same issue applies to “the descendants of Emperor Frederick III of Germany”. Captain of Man’s Salvation is in contrast rather opaque and not a priori particularly meaningful; to assign it the idiomatic meaning of Jesus in our dictionary, we need to make sure the term is used by itself and meant to be understood as having that meaning.  --Lambiam 18:20, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those are random descriptive phrases that have just happen to have been been used as epithets. King of Glory seems more like a set phrase, especially since (like Ancient of Days, which comes from Biblical Aramaic) it preserves something of the construct formation of the Hebrew original. I would note, however, that it originally referred to God- its application to Jesus is secondary and not deserving of an entry on its own. Light of the World feels like a set phrase to me as well. As a member of a church choir I've encountered it many times in prayers and anthems where the context implies a set phrase, though I'm not sure I can find them online. Also, it's used as part of organization names such as "Light of the World Ministries", which again implies a well known set phrase.
Looking at the google hits for "Oh, Light of the World" I also see some non-Christian usage where it refers to someone seen as the epitome of brightness. Perhaps it might be better to generalize it and make the Christian epithet a subsense. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If there are senses meeting our CFI, they can be added. This holds equally for any subsenses, but a subsense does not automatically become entry-worthy by dint of the worthiness of its supersense. This RfV is an {{rfv-sense}} specifically for the (non-gloss-definition) sense “an epithet for Jesus Christ”.  --Lambiam 18:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


RFV-sense "(obsolete, Northern England and Scotland) Courage, heart, valor; also vim and vigor."

Discussion moved from WT:RFM.

This [the phrase with main and mood] currently exists in the usage notes of mood and a non-English quotation under its last sense-line. If this phrase is attested, it should have its own entry; if it's not attested three times, it's not worth a usage note IMO, we can just put any cites that do exist under that last sense-line. - -sche (discuss) 08:57, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@-sche Would it make sense to send this to RFV, then? - excarnateSojourner (talk | contrib) 02:20, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'll move it over now. - -sche (discuss) 03:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OED has "2. a. Fierce courage; spirit, vigour. Also: pride, arrogance. Obsolete." with the only post-1500 evidence being two quotes we'd describe as (Middle) Scots, both spelt mude, and a quote from 1579 that they enclose in square brackets for reasons unclear to me. This, that and the other (talk) 02:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As for "main and mood", OED has one post-1500 cite (again Middle Scots, again spelt mude) specifically for this phrase. This, that and the other (talk) 08:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Only appears in dictionaries (and probably only Wiktionary and sites that copy our content) Pious Eterino (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two uses: [26], [27]. (The reported ghit in an article “Square-wave adsorptive stripping voltammetric [sic] behaviour ...” is a false positive.)  --Lambiam 19:55, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Rfv-sense: “initialism of police lives matter”. Graham11 (talk) 04:27, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Found one use on Usenet. There might be more, but PLM isn't an easy term to search for. Binarystep (talk) 11:09, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


"3rd person singular present indicative of veg#Verb."

Attestable? How pronounced?

For that matter is the noun plural attestable?

The word "vegs" (alternative spelling of veges) is pronounced like /vɛdʒɪz/. 3rd person singular form would likely to be attestable, like the plural form. 15:32, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Citations:vegs. 15:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to act like an abbreviation: the actual pronunciation and morphology is for the expanded form, not what's actually written. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't we be nice to our users and provide, in cases like this where the pronunciation isn't obvious to a learner, the pronunciation that we believe to be the one in use. Do we have a policy against providing pronunciation of inflected forms? DCDuring (talk) 18:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DCDuring: I don’t see why we shouldn’t provide the pronunciation where it is unexpected. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. In fact the same pronunciation /vɛdʒɪz/ should be given for vegs(verb) and vegs(noun). Overlordnat1 (talk) 23:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]





Not English, not Greek mythology and obviously created just to promote a (probably) unreliable etymology. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 20:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primary source is Histories (Herodotus). Main subject is Greek mythology. Main page is Targitaos. The text is overall English.--Anton Hougel (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is not Greek Mythology, but Scythian Mythology via a Greek author, who tried to tie it into Greek Mythology. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then I confused two different mythologies. Feel free to overwrite the old stuff. That's all I could find on this.--Anton Hougel (talk) 22:15, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Taking the example of "Targitai", it does appear in some English-language books: [28]. Some of these look like translations (from Russian?), which still counts. Some may be originally English. The more common English spelling appears to be Targitaos or Targitaus, assuming these refer to the same character. 20:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're too diplomatic- the etymology is utter nonsense. I speedied the "Targitai, Targitaus or Targitaüs is recognised by some as the Torgamah of the biblical annals" sense: it's not a definition, it's etymological speculation. Really, though, all four of the remaining "definitions" read like lines in an etymology. Chuck Entz (talk) 20:51, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The removed sense also seems to be "borrowed" verbatim from an earlier version of the Targitaos page on Wikipedia Chuck Entz (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Written by an editor with no contributions outside of that particular topic, as if the account was created solely for that purpose? Don't tell me... — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 21:14, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Rfv-sense "(rare) To make something that was right become wrong; to add error to." All I can find are scannos and cases of "incorrected" to mean "uncorrected" i.e. "not corrected". — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 15:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can find "someone who 'incorrects my English'", but this would be either archaic, obsolete, rare, or even nonstandard. 15:52, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did a search for "incorrected" on Usenet, bust most results are people mistakenly using the word in place of "incorrect". Binarystep (talk) 03:29, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See Citations:incorrecting. 06:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That poor quality citation is probably the best we can do, the best I could find is the following [29] but this seems to be mistakenly using incorrected when it should say incorrect, rather than using it to mean made incorrect. I can’t see this passing. Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that your citation is mistake. However, the word "incorrected" in your citation means "added an error" rather than "not corrected". 13:51, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, it’s too poorly worded for me to be sure. The mathematics isn’t difficult, the author is saying that 24 terms should be summed instead of 25, but it’s weirdly worded. The citation for incorrecting makes even less sense semantically though and is an uncheckable snippet view containing the scanno ‘develoption’. We have at best found one citable use so far of a form of the alleged verb incorrect being used. Overlordnat1 (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The citation is an artifact from gluing incorrect in one column of text to another speaker’s -ing in another column of text. Incorrecting the decolumnization results in:
(Mr. Davis Casey speaking:)
As I understand the posi-
tion, the honorable gentleman is incorrect
in believing that Australia sought permission
for Royal Australian Air Force aircraft to land in Indonesian territory.
(Mr Davidson speaking:)
Therefore, the department is, in
common parlance, flat out in attempting to
get ahead of the demand that it sees develop-
ing in the various areas. I am satisfied that
the department is expending...
 --Lambiam 14:29, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great analysis. You must’ve found this link:-[30] (on pages 315 and 316). Overlordnat1 (talk) 20:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: I blocked this user today for having created large numbers of rubbishy entries based on obvious scannos of this sort. I think they've used several IPs over many months.) Equinox 23:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Current etymology says it's "from an Afrikaans slang word for 'horny'." Which term is that, and is it used in an English context (as oppose to code-switching or similar? -- 21:22, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This word features a few times at w:List of South African slang words. Most significantly, under "List of Afrikanerisms" we have:
jux/juks/jags – Meaning "horny". For example, "Jinne meisie, jy maak my nou sommer lekker jags."
We have an entry for jags. Urban Dictionary (the November 2, 2009 entry) and this slightly NSFW tweet (noting the meaning of piel) suggest the spelling jas is in use in English, although finding durably archived cites may be a challenge. This, that and the other (talk) 10:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


tagged but not listed, and it looks cited as well. Kiwima (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFV-passed This, that and the other (talk) 05:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


SURJECTION / T / C / L / 14:59, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly common Internet usage. Not citable from the respectable sources. Equinox 17:01, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is used all the time online, but since it's not in any books, it's probably gonna be impossible to cite. The fact that our citation policy forces us to ignore common internet lingo is a problem that will only get worse with time. Binarystep (talk) 23:39, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The CFI policy has been modified to allow for web citations on a case-by-case basis. As for which cases we want to allow, I'm not aware of any guidelines. But see e.g. sniddy and dorcassing which were deleted after the CFI change despite the existence of ample Twitter usage, so I guess we want to hold words to a higher standard than that. And westaboo (listed above), which has been extensively cited using Tweets, whose fate remains to be seen. 23:43, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Have any terms actually been kept because of the CFI change? So far, it seems like no one wants to be the first person to invoke it. Binarystep (talk) 01:17, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The fail at dorcassing was pretty unilateral by the closer, and cut off a discussion that was clearly reaching some kind of consensus towards keep, albeit with time being required to find additional acceptable online cites. I don't think it's a good example to use as a precedent of the standard. Theknightwho (talk) 10:24, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion for carbrain was also unilaterally closed despite the change to CFI. The new policy on online citations was needed a decade ago. Now that we finally have it, the prevalent mood seems to be to ignore it, and keep stonewalling against any kind of meaningful change. I rolled up my sleeves for westaboo, creeper, Nazi bar, and blorbo from my shows (still a hot word), but I'm not committing any more time or energy to a lost cause. WordyAndNerdy (talk) 07:46, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see apathy rather than stonewalling - nothing's stopping you, yourself, from figuring out how one of these votes would work. I've even considered doing it myself, but the dorcassing RFV was closed before I got around to the effort. As for the terms you mention, I'd love it if, for the sake of Wiktionary's image, the first word we endorse by vote is something other than a race-related term. Once we're off and running, let's wade as deep into the racial and ethnic mire as we need, but imho the first one should be WOTD-worthy. This, that and the other (talk) 11:12, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


With capital F, in English? Why? It's not a genus. Equinox 19:42, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It used to be a genus. See e.g. w:Ebolavirus#Classification. 00:54, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not finding very much at Google Scholar for either the genus (which should be capitalized and italicized) or for Filovirus as an alternative form of filovirus. What cites I have found are now at Filovirus#English, but the italicized ones are arguably for the taxonomic name, though they appear in seeming medical articles, not virology articles. I believe that the ICTV nomenclature rules were not widely accepted until the last years of the last millennium. DCDuring (talk) 01:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The modest volume of usage of the capitalized term, which use often seems erroneous in form or reference (eg, family Filovirus), makes me disinclined to search further for support for the English term. The cites that show italicized, capitalized usage should be in the Translingual section. DCDuring (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it used to be a genus, we should probably convert this to Translingual and define it as the historical genus, yes? (I see DCDuring has added a Translingual section. Thanks.) Equinox 18:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

snowshoe disease[edit]

Can't find this anywhere outside of one mention, in Dictionary of the American West (2008, Win Blevins). Equinox 21:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Figurative sense: without artifice; above-board. Equinox 21:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

for all intrinsic purposes[edit]

AFAICT, none of the cites of Citations:for all intrinsic purposes are from durably archived sources and at least one has already disappeared. DCDuring (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The ones that were listed as "Google groups" are actually Usenet cites. As far as I can tell, the first three all remain available. This, that and the other (talk) 22:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Great. How can we be sure that they are Usenet groups? DCDuring (talk) 01:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A few reasons: (a) the alt. and rec. hierarchies are Usenet hierarchies; (b) Google Groups didn't come into existence until 2001 and the first three posts predate it; (c) the groups all can be found in the Usenet Info Center: [31] for example. This, that and the other (talk) 02:17, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That leaves us with 4 potentially good cites, only one after 2001. I'll have to make Usenet Info Center a favorite on my browser. DCDuring (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I examined the "cites" a little further. Four of the six cites that were not durably archived were not available to me on clicking the links provided. One of the five Usenet cites was blocked because of spam by someone with the power to do so, namely Google. I could not contact the owners of the group or join the group through Google groups. Also the failure to provide message id makes verifying the claimed usenet cites tedious and probably makes verification using a gateway/archive other than Google impractical. All of this link rot occurred since August 2, 2007, ie, in less than 15 years. I think this demonstrates empirically why we need durably archived media for citations. DCDuring (talk) 00:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A very interesting experiment. How many of the non-durably-archived cites are available in the Wayback Machine? That would be an interesting test of that service's value for durable archiving, should we have to vote on it one day. This, that and the other (talk) 01:44, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I never adequately appreciated the value of message-id, which was part of {{quote-usenet}} (2010-2016) and is part of {{quote-newsgroup}} (as "id"). It offers freedom from what amounts for our purposes to book-burning by Google.
As long as it is funded the Wayback Machine seems adequate. A WMF-operated or -funded archive of citations with some extra context seems likely to be better. DCDuring (talk) 10:50, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have added non-Usenet citations that might help with this entry. I am still not entirely familiar with {{quote-book}}, so please forgive any resulting errors in formatting or missing information. If needed, there are a few additional results from texts archived in the Wayback Machine. Amadeusine (talk) 03:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Challenging sense 2: "depressed" (long-term? in general?), distinct from the everyday sense 1: "sad because of a recent disappointment". Equinox 18:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]



This sense was likely generated by a Russian trollbot and should probably be deleted outright? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, this isn't a troll. I've seen this before from Marxist-Leninists on Twitter and Reddit. Could be a good test of the recent CFI change. Binarystep (talk) 22:56, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
so any contribution that is different or unique is automatically the work of a Russian trollbot? 2602:306:CEC2:A3A0:1D6:3656:BF36:FEAF 03:49, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But is this an acronym of North American Terrorist Organization or North Atlantic Terrorist Organization?

May 2022[edit]


Not much evidence for this in English. Much more for argyraspid. DCDuring (talk) 01:43, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Rfv-sense "A righteous infliction of retribution manifested by an appropriate agent." Removed by (probably the same) IP twice out of process. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 17:34, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems similar to senses 3 and 4, and I'm not sure how well we could distinguish them in quotations. I think sense 3 is supposed to be uncountable, though, so that's a difference. I'm also not sure what the "manifested by an appropriate agent" part is adding. 17:41, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge senses 3, 4 and 6 into “(usually in the singular) Retribution.”  --Lambiam 09:49, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The definitions (3, 4, 6) seem distinct, but have no citations. After merger we still need an RfV. I also wonder which of these definitions should be viewed as, at the very least, dated. MW 1913 and Century 1913 only have definitions for Nemesis, which fact might speed searches for citations for the definitions of the lower-case form. Google Books shows only ~2% of usage for N/nemesis to be for the lowercase form in 1900-1909. DCDuring (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Searching for the (pleonastic) deserved nemesis finds some lower-case citations ([32], [33], [34]), as well as upper-cased uses of deserved Nemesis ([35], [36], [37]).  --Lambiam 09:17, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those cites seem to fit defs. 4 and 6 equally well. Some other dictionaries combine the punishing act with the result thereof to make a single definition. DCDuring (talk) 18:31, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This sense duality, the act and the result, is shared by punishment and retribution.  --Lambiam 08:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of words have defs. that cover both an act (etc.) and its consequence. DCDuring (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is meant by sense 3, “the principle of retributive justice”? Does that mean something different from retribution being viewed as a deserved punishment?  --Lambiam 08:11, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It must be an abstraction from and depersonalization of Nemesis. DCDuring (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not having citations puts us in the position of relying on each of our idiolects or somehow amalgamating other dictionaries' definitions without violating copyright. To me that means we need citations. Shortening the definitions to their essentials should help. The chance of finding citations that simultaneously and unambiguously support even three aspects of a definition is nil. DCDuring (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Uses in English seem to be the capitalized form Sejms. -- Medmunds (talk) 21:45, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be several uses in books, eg at https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/A_Short_History_of_Lithuania_to_1569_Cen/qJBFEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=sejms&pg=PT240&printsec=frontcover A Short History of Lithuania to 1569: Centennial Edition (1921–2021) By Josef A. Katzel · 2021
https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/Between_Rome_and_Byzantium/_ureDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=sejms&pg=PT212&printsec=frontcover Between Rome and Byzantium The Golden Age of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania’s Political Culture. Second Half of the Fifteenth Century to First Half of the Seventeenth Century By Jūratė Kiaupienė · 2020
https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/The_Polish_Lithuanian_Commonwealth_1733/g2cOEAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=sejms&pg=PA22&printsec=frontcover page 29, 89 & more The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, 1733-1795 Light and Flame By Richard Butterwick · 2021
https://www.google.com.au/books/edition/The_Struggle_for_Constitutionalism_in_Po/aOggDAAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=sejms&pg=PA32&printsec=frontcover The Struggle for Constitutionalism in Poland By M. Brzezinski · 1997

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reformatted this entry as "plural of sejm" so that the cites can go at the lemma. Can someone help by creating the entry sejm with a proper definition? It seems to be some kind of governing assembly or committee in Poland and surrounding areas. This, that and the other (talk) 05:46, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is sejm an English noun (borrowed from Polish)? Or a Polish noun (that is referenced in English texts discussing Polish government)? Medmunds (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty likely to be both. All three links found by Graeme also use "sejm" unitalicised in their running English text. And I don't know Polish, but it stands to reason that it would exist as a generic noun in that language as well. This, that and the other (talk) 05:38, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


  1. The state or sphere of being in a tank, especially sea creatures.

This is apparently from Finding Nemo. Is this used anywhere else? Chuck Entz (talk) 00:39, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Can't find any quotation with the non-hyphenated form. The google books search omits hyphens in words but if you see the page of the book, you'll find the hyphenated form. —Svārtava (t/u) • 10:02, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Google books has quotations of both hyphenated AND non-hyphenated forms. Stop being a child. FishandChipper (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The previews in Google Books Search are notoriously inaccurate. When you view the actual pages themselves, it is clear that hyphens are present in all four cites that were added. I removed them. This, that and the other (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in IA. I can't even find anything on the wider web, which is usually a very bad sign. This, that and the other (talk) 12:17, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I did raise eyebrows at the lack of spaces. I'm not surprised that the citatons give it hyphenated. @This, that and the other Do they fit fish-and-chipper? Theknightwho (talk) 10:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they do, although I doubt they would add any value beyond the three cites already at that entry. This, that and the other (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


At the risk of, if not arousing hate, then at least placing myself in receipt of scornful disdain, I'm challenging this alt form. I looked in a few places, notably Google Books results from 2004/5 when Gmail was in its infancy and people might have been confused about how to write it, but found nothing. The case-sensitive search at https://www.english-corpora.org/googlebooks/ may be useful if anyone has access to that (it wouldn't let me register). Any attempt to search Usenet is obviously hopeless unless a case-sensitive search mechanism can be found. (Presumably one could download an archive of Usenet posts and search it oneself, but I lack the time and the disk space to do it.) This, that and the other (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The BYU interface that Google seemingly has is great. The Davies BYU datasets were good, but Google's is almost certainly better. I used to use COCA and COHA, but access became difficult. It looks DCDuring (talk) 00:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am also amazed at how many corpora Davies has organized. See them here. There are seven corpora of 1 billion words or more, making BNC (100 million) seem quite modest. DCDuring (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. eccl. phil.[edit]

SURJECTION / T / C / L / 13:48, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The few web sources I can find all pertain to the Jewish University of Colorado (arguably misleadingly named, as it is actually Messianic Jewish/Christian). Those web hits may not even be durably archived. 22:03, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Rare --Geographyinitiative (talk) 09:47, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Geographyinitiative: you created this entry. Did you try to find at least three qualifying quotations spanning more than a year before doing so? It doesn’t seem to be a productive use of other editors’ time for you to create entries that you aren’t even personally sure will pass RFV. — Sgconlaw (talk) 11:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No I did not. You're saying I should just go for the speedy delete? Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Geographyinitiative: no, since this entry doesn’t seem like it obviously violates the CFI I think RFV is the correct place to challenge it. But rather than challenging your own entries, in future you should only create new entries after at least making a reasonable attempt to ensure that CFI is complied with. — Sgconlaw (talk) 12:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Very true, I agree and understand. My goal then was to just try and see what was out there. My goal now is to clean up the areas I have worked on and make them nice. Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

daddy's carrot[edit]

(vulgar, Internet slang) a penis”. Tagged by Jberkel, not listed. J3133 (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly SOP if "carrot" by itself can be attested as a phallic euphemism. 21:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I can find it used as such (“Put your carrot back in your pants”, “I ... wondered if I should snap my carrot like Toobin did”), but not in permanently recorded media.  --Lambiam 08:16, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with penis euphemisms is that almost any object of that shape can probably be attested as being used that way. This is likely SoP though. Theknightwho (talk) 10:55, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Some potential permanently recorded uses: [38], [39], [40]. 19:22, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

knee splitter[edit]

Maybe from the same torture tool-box as the infamous Spanish tickler. No IA hits before 2007. – Jberkel 22:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]



  • (obsolete) Secured by thrift; well husbanded.
  • Having a pleasant appearance; looking or being in good condition.

OED gives only a Shakespeare cite for the first one (what does that gloss even mean?) and lacks the second sense. Webster 1913 marks the second sense as "Obs." and gives a Chaucer quote, which is placed by OED under a sense "Respectable, decent, becoming, proper" that has only Middle English evidence. This, that and the other (talk) 04:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Naize'er Bage[edit]

A page which is seemingly uncitable. (I did not create it) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:26, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


"(slang) Anything moaned about; a gripe." Needs to be cited distinct from the other two senses. If real, it suggests there may be a plural "icks", which doesn't seem easy to find. Equinox 11:44, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


"To punish as though one were using a stick, bundle of twigs, or rod made of birch wood" (but not actually using those things). Couldn't find in Google Books, looking for "birched him with..." etc. Equinox 15:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cambridge has a def. for birch#Noun "a bundle of thin sticks". That def. would allow the defs. for beating with birch and non-birch sticks to be combined and obviate the need for an RfV. DCDuring (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've cited the verb as currently defined. DCDuring (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

accurater, accuratest[edit]

I cannot find native English web pages that use this comparative and superlative, except for those that copy data from Wiktionary and one lone entry in Urban Dictionary. Technically, these word forms could exist but they don't. —⁠This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 15:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC).[reply]

You can't have searched very well. Look at all these results in Google Books (printed books, better than Web pages): [41]. The famous poet John Milton wrote "accuratest thoughts" in his Areopagitica. Equinox 15:43, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Both cited. —Svārtava (t/u) • 16:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say both of these are dated, notwithstanding the newer cites, which seem authored by academics for whom English is not their first language. DCDuring (talk) 16:23, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

possession of interest[edit]

This is bizarre: an old 2006 import: "The act of one caring for or one's interest over something. You are always talking about your clothes, but that is not in my possession of interest." That sentence sounds unnatural to me and I cannot easily find any comparable sentence in Google. I think it might be confusion over a sentence like "you have nothing in your possession [that is] of interest to me", which of course doesn't work with this entry lemma. Equinox 15:38, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Converted from a speedy deletion by User:IlovemydoodleSURJECTION / T / C / L / 08:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Converted from a speedy deletion by User:IlovemydoodleSURJECTION / T / C / L / 09:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Rfv-sense: Chaucerian past participle of rede. The past participle of read is not really in doubt. This, that and the other (talk) 10:12, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chaucer stuff tagged as Webster 1913 should just be converted to Middle English. W1913 did not distinguish between OE, ME and ModE. Equinox 10:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Chaucerian past participle of reave. This, that and the other (talk) 10:13, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chaucer stuff tagged as Webster 1913 should just be converted to Middle English. W1913 did not distinguish between OE, ME and ModE. Equinox 10:25, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's worth checking these. They were certainly used outside Chaucer and survived pretty much up to 1500, according to OED - if not after. For instance, I can find several uses of rafte in EEBO, but I can't immediately be sure whether they (a) are Modern English and (b) belong to the verb reave. This, that and the other (talk) 10:33, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Rfv-sense: "(intransitive) To speak; tell; talk; discourse. <!--obsolete? dialect? certainly not standard-->" OED has Middle English evidence only for this sense. This, that and the other (talk) 10:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Another one of a3a0's "I read or heard one person use this word so it must exist" words, I reckon — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 20:38, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cited. There appear to be many Google Groups for the singular and the plural forms. Non-Usenet quotes are also probably available, such as [42] (see in comments, I think it can't be waybacked?): "So see, it’s possible to love all three and not have to be a cry baby like many turdlers I see here". —Svārtava (t/u) • 07:53, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The first Usenet cite seems to be a derisive susbstitution for toddler used by people who dislike kids, and not a racist slur. The usage in the video game forum is unclear but may not have anything to do with either of the other meanings. If we have three citations but they are not for the same meaning, does that mean it isnt sufficiently supported after all?Soap 10:29, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Moved the first quote to Citations:turdler. Yes, the cites need to support the given sense as far as possible. This, that and the other (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Should be Middle English if anything? Webster's Chaucer source can't be found. Ultimateria (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ultimateria: Chaucer: “Now wol I speke of woful dauyan Þat langureþ for loue.” (MED) J3133 (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ultimateria good catch; I should have moved the Chaucer bit to Middle English languren. There's nothing modern for this spelling in OED. In EEBO one finds a couple of noun uses and two post-1500 verb uses: one published from 1528 (not clear when it was written) and the other a 1670s modernisation of Julian of Norwich. This, that and the other (talk) 00:58, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This entry was tagged for cleanup with the message "Chaucer and Mallory are Middle English (enm), not English (en); the quote looks fake (modernised and not real, original)". I can't find the Mallory quote provided. OED has nothing for this spelling, whether Middle or Modern. MED notes that this spelling exists but doesn't appear to offer any supporting quotes. So consider this an RFV for English and Middle English at once, if you will. This, that and the other (talk) 03:38, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@This, that and the other: (also here)
1470–1483 (date produced), Thomas Malory, “[Sankgreal]”, in Le Morte Darthur (British Library Additional Manuscript 59678), [England: s.n.], folio 353, verso, lines 16–18:
Whan the quene ladyes / ⁊ jantill women knew of thys tydyngꝭ they had ſuch ſorow and hevynes that þ̃ myght no tunge for þo knyghtꝭ had holde them in honõre and charite
1470–1485 (date produced), Thomas Malory, “Capitulum Octauum”, in [Le Morte Darthur], book XIII, [London: [] by William Caxton], published 31 July 1485, OCLC 71490786, leaf 311, recto; republished as H[einrich] Oskar Sommer, editor, Le Morte Darthur [], London: David Nutt, [], 1889, OCLC 890162034, page 621:
Whanne the Quene ladyes & 20 gentilwymmen wyſt theſe tydynges / they had ſuche ſorowe & heuyneſſe that ther myght no tonge telle hit / for tho knyghtes had hold them in honour and chyerte
J3133 (talk) 15:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@This, that and the other: See the MED entry. J3133 (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that! It's terribly confusing; MED also lists chierte as an alternative form at their entry for "charite", which is what I was looking at.
From the MED link I've learnt that the OED lemmatises this word at "cherte | chertee" (obviously), but there is only 1 post-1500 cite (although it is from as late as 1614).
Chaucer apparently also used this word in Wife of Bath's Prologue, with no more certainty about its spelling: "He Wende þat I hadde of hym so greet chiertee [v.r. chierte, cherte].".
Anyway, I'm satisfied with the ME now - I suppose we leave the modern English lemma to wait out its 30 days. This, that and the other (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Per turdler above. I think this user is creating terms mainly on the basis of their usage on the specific anti-black forum chimpmania.com... and am quite tempted to speedy them as low-effort, but I've been scolded about speedying lately. Equinox 18:44, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I want to say that I too am tired of getting scolded in connection with rfv. I just avoid this page as much as possible, because I know I'm going to get my ass whooped if I post here. Even this post will be used against me, as if I am in the wrong. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

crab market[edit]

The meaning and etymology can not be verified. --Millbart (talk) 15:42, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems cited by (talk). This, that and the other (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

straight supremacy[edit]

Sense 2: not the ideology (sense 1), but: "a situation in which straight people are privileged over other people in society". Equinox 20:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see we have similar "A situation..." defs at "white supremacy", "black supremacy". I think I see what it's trying to cover, in that X supremacy can be a system that exists/operates in the world, not just an ideology per se, but I don't think "situation" is a clear way of wording it. (Compare how e.g. communism expresses the difference between "ideology" and "system".) I can find citations where it's more of a system (if we change "situation" to "system"), and other cites where it's more of a doctrine, but I'd be tempted to just fold the two definitions together along the lines of "An ideology or system that holds that straightness is superior and privileges straight people over others". - -sche (discuss) 02:22, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Can't find anything in Google Books -- at least unhyphenated. Equinox 20:52, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The forms "Āngirasa" and "Āṅgirasa" might be citable, if you want to count those as English words and not code-switching. "Aangirasa" has some uses as a name/epithet, but I could not find any using the calendar sense. 23:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Rfv-sense "That which discriminates; mark of distinction, a characteristic."

Seems plausible, but I don't know if it's real. As a user of Wiktionary rather than an editor, I want to see full-blown top-of-the-line cites there. Also for the other senses. You care so much about internet racist slang, but 'discrimination' literally has no cites but one I just added. When will 'discrimination' as an entry be ready to be considered as a word of the day? cf. Wiktionary_talk:English_entry_guidelines#Hyperfocus_on_Crudity --Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that editors don't care about ordinary terms like discrimination, but that there are some people who, for whatever reason, delight in including these offensive slang terms in the dictionary. The terms are then duly (and rightly) challenged, which then means the RFV procedure has to be applied. Personally, to discourage the inclusion of such entries, I would not object to a rule applying only to offensive terms that would require an editor to include three qualifying quotations satisfying CFI at the time when the entry is created, otherwise the entry may be speedily deleted. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When I see several senses, including the one hard/rare sense I mention above specifically, getting bare-bones treatment for an important entry like this, it's FLABBERGASTING. You all and your processes and schemes and cites are NOTHING if discrimination gets no more treatment than what it has now. I leave it all to you. Enjoy Wiktionary's irrelevance if you don't ever work on the real words. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:31, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are millions of entries that are deserving of improvement. For my own sanity I’ve decided to focus on entries that have been nominated for WOTD. Frankly, it’s not particularly productive to rail at other editors and claim they are not doing enough. Feel free to take the initiative to improve entries you feel are important. — Sgconlaw (talk) 19:38, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It exists, but is old; see NED's entry, sense 2. This, that and the other (talk) 09:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For the most common definitions of common words it should be much easier to add usage examples than to fully provide contemporary attestation. Usage examples would serve to help users and provide some focus for evaluating the adequacy of the definition exemplified. RfVs would follow if there is a problem that an individual contributor cannot solve. DCDuring (talk) 14:45, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just like determination can mean “the act of determining, or the state of being determined”, I think discrimination can mean “the act of discriminating, or the state of being discriminated”. This is basically the current sense 1, but in the sense “an act” it is clearly countable. It can be seen heree used in the plural form. I tend to think that the citation from 1789 given at the sense to be verified actually also has this sense. A better definition for the sense in the NED is (IMO) “A distinctive characteristic; that by which a distinction or classification can be made” – which can be a mark, but also a colour, a shape, a sound, an odour, ..., or any combination of suchlike.  --Lambiam 15:43, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I note that MWOnline has five definitions, but does not have the obsolete/rare definition, whereas we have four, including the obsolete/rare sense, which raises the possibility that we lack at least two definitions. DCDuring (talk) 17:16, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lambiam OED lists the sense seen there separately; it is a countable US-specific sense relating to discrimination in trade. This, that and the other (talk) 00:32, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This word was unilaterally changed to Scots by an IP. This, that and the other (talk) 01:06, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Etymology 2 somehow got excluded from the RFV of this word; if I recall correctly, I wasn't able to find any post-ME cites of it. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 05:28, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiwima, the cites you provided for this aren't any use, as they appear to be (Middle) Scots, not English. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 03:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Hazarasp They should be moved to Scots instead of being removed. J3133 (talk) 06:24, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree, but I currently lack the time and energy to create the appropriate Scots entry. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 07:53, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


This is taken from Uncleftish Beholding, a demonstration of what technical English might have been like if Latin had never existed- not conveying meaning. I have my doubts whether there's anything out there that isn't basically quoting or referring directly to this passage. I did see at least one use of another sense having to do with actual coal as a raw material in some industrial process. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:11, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Verb: "(fantasy fiction) To enter the body of an animal." I believe this is only in A Song of Ice and Fire, not a general term, and thus could fail WT:FICTION. Equinox 16:02, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, be careful how we word the definition if it stays.... Zumbacool (talk) 18:03, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Slang for a young female. "I saw a pretty tits on the bus"? Or is it meant to be a term of address: "come here, tits"? Both sound unlikely to me. Equinox 20:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

there's some usage in the film "Blue Velvet" (directed by David Lynch):
"Excuse us por favor! Hey. let tits see her kid."
"Hey. Tits. I'm taking your neighbor to the country. maybe something for you too." 2602:306:CEC2:A3A0:3DB6:12F4:36BA:EDF9 20:58, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. In those two examples it seems more like Tits is being used as a (proper noun) nickname for someone with tits, like "Hey, Glasses", "Hey, Board Shorts" (from Pretty Little Liars) or "hey, buzzcut!" (found on the web). (I think we've tended not to include that kind of transparent, productive use of words as nicknames.) Maybe there are other cites showing this to be a common noun (is a countable? "titses"?), but I wouldn't interpret those two that way. - -sche (discuss) 01:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


An old redirect. This form is out there, but in mentions only. It seems to come from everybody's favourite "list of phobias", the same one that gave rise to coulrophobia. All the uses I can find is the cite for this spelling already at defecalgesiophobia and a painfully crappy self-published volume in GBooks. This, that and the other (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well it should be clear that it's a typo .... an o looks a lot like a g, and a lot of people just dont know Greco-Latin very well .... but on the other hand, both coulrophobia and koumpounophobia have made it to established usage despite deviating from the classic model. On the other hand, in this case we have a clearly established proper form alongside the misspelled one. Soap 09:47, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly a typo, but it has escaped the Petri dish of typographical error and made it to the zoo of published mentions. Did it escape into the wild jungle of durably archived uses, though?
I was sitting there wondering whether the typo/scanno that substitutes an o for a g could unlock some kind of secret to the true origins of coulrophobia, but I'm not seeing it... This, that and the other (talk) 15:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sweet home Alabama[edit]

WTF? Zumbacool (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This definitely exists as an Internet meme, and would be citable using web sources. Finding offline durably archived citations is more difficult if not impossible. 19:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Marketing term for a combination of grape and apple flavors. Tagged by @ but not listed. Binarystep (talk) 04:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Rfv-sense: To legally remove funds from an organization for personal use. --Shouldn't it be "illegally"? --Hekaheka (talk) 20:53, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was my first thought too but it can be used to refer to people immorally, but not illegally, removing or being paid money - especially if it’s an excessive amount. The wording of our current definition for this sense does seem rather off though. I can only find one hit on GoogleBooks from tabloid journalist Richard Littlejohn (‘Derry Irvine, Blair’s old boss, trousered a pension fund worth £2.3 million after just five years as Lord Chancellor - all courtesy of the taxpayer’)[43]. Overlordnat1 (talk) 19:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cordate (2)[edit]

Rfv-sense. This was RFV'd recently, but, as Soap pointed out in a recent edit, it is questionable whether the first citation is using the word to refer to an animal with a heart as opposed to just a typo for chordate. So, I am opening this RfV as a technicality, as suggested by Equinox in a reverting edit summary, even though I think the word clearly passes based on the citations from Loptson, Mulligan, and Akiba.

  • The Douarin quote is almost certainly using it to mean "chordate", both because it just makes sense (vertebrates are a clade that evolved from the larger clade of chordates), and because they are referencing a particular work by Gans and Northcutt (1983) which explicitly uses "chordates".
  • Quine is using it to refer to animals with hearts: [44]. But you can't tell this from the quotation we give in the entry. Might be worth adding some context, with {{...}} as needed. (Can anyone find the 2009 edition text?)
  • McCarthy is unclear: see the page. He's a philosopher of language partially drawing on the work of Quine, just like all the other valid usage examples are (note that they are all using it as basically an example word for the purpose of discussing logic; the word does not seem to be used in biology). But nothing in the quotation or its immediate context suggests a connection with hearts. He doesn't mention 'renates', like Quine did, and in the context either one would work. (Since both 'chordates' and 'cordates' are supersets of 'tigers'). I'm open to removing it (as Soap wanted) or keeping it (if we want to give the benefit of the doubt).

Btw, maybe we should add a sense that explains it can be a misspelling of chordate, using the Douarin quote, [45], [46], etc. 22:35, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the adjectival sense, the use of “cordate” in the quotation from the Great Soviet Encyclopedia is definitely a mistranslation or misspelled translation of хордовых (chordate).[47]  --Lambiam 10:30, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Rfv-sense "A colony established thus." I think this sense must be obsolete or dated, because I would never have dreamed that this word could be a synonym for "colony". I imagine cites for this outside of the obvious ones related to Rhode Island will have to come from some old old books or documents I probably can't search up. Is such a sense for this word a former reality in English? Should the definition be made clearer? --Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:39, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Its very old, yes, but it wasnt just Rhode Island. The Wikipedia disambiguation page at w:Plantation (disambiguation) gives more details. Another Wikipedia article, w:Plantation (Maine), suggests that the sense had become obsolete even before the American Revolution and that it had evolved to mean a settled community that was not yet recognized as a town. It may be that the sense of colony here is not a large state but a single settlement by colonists. Soap 20:26, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This sense of the noun is related to sense 7 of the verb to plant: “To furnish with a fixed and organized population; to settle; to establish.”  --Lambiam 07:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Related: w:Church planting. DCDuring (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the biggest example is the Plantations of Ireland. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • plantation” in The Century Dictionary, New York, N.Y.: The Century Co., 1911. has dated and historical senses we don't have. DCDuring (talk) 14:49, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Used in permanently archived media? —Mahāgaja · talk 10:07, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

economic need[edit]

Was added as Economic Needs, I applied standard formatting and moved it. Seems pretty poorly written tbh but I decided to bring it here to see what people say and whether they think it's SoP or not. User: The Ice Mage talk to meh 15:44, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure we could find economic need being used in many ways, including even in accordance with the dreadful definition given. But I strongly suspect that those uses will be SoP, reflecting various definitions of the component terms. DCDuring (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Rfv-sense "An overweight person." To me, this usage would be very unusual. I am imagining sentences like: "Yes, this is our patient Steve, he is an overweight." I suspect this may really exist, but I have NEVER used the word like this myself. I was prompted to look into this when I was reading an HHS website about Overweight [48] where people are described as "having Overweight"; also an extremely bizarre formulation to me. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What doesn't sound too weird to me is "to suffer from overweight", not that I would say it. DCDuring (talk) 04:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Tagged but not listed by an IP with the message “is this term actually used in English?”. Old Man Consequences (talk) 21:26, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most uses I found were capitalized. Some were italicized but some weren't. 04:30, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Rfv-sense: A basket - apparently there's a Wyclif quote Zumbacool (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

{{RQ:Wycliffe Bible|IV|2 Corinthians|XI|33|392}} and {{RQ:Wycliffe Bible|IV|Deeds of Apostles|IX|25|534}} but those are Middle English, and they use "leep" and not "leap" anyway. 03:50, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Rfv-sense: sigh. Not in OED. If kept, Swedish word should possibly be changed to stånka Zumbacool (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the EDD ({{R:EDD|stank|v.4 and sb.4|730|noformat=1}}) with a couple example sentences, but I'm not sure if those are taken from published works. If you look up "stanked" on Google Books, you can find some hits related to cows, and EDD also has examples related to cows. The EDD explains that the term is used for cows sighing in pain, but it seems like "stank" is being used differently in the cattle-related quotations I found. Not clear if it can be cited outside of that particular context, but it would be good if possible. 04:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Rfv-sense: The act of making bright, or the state of being made bright; enlightenment; brightening, as of the mental powers. Zumbacool (talk) 22:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to me to be four distinct definitions, which would require three citations each. Maybe a better definition is that it is a verb form, an alternative form of lightening. DCDuring (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Liquor from Barbados, anyone? Zumbacool (talk) 22:17, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Found some hits for mobby being used in the Barbadian potato drink sense (not using apples or peaches as the current definition states, but that sense also exists). 04:13, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]