Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English

Definition from Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Jump to: navigation, 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/Non-English
add new non-English request | history | archives

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

{{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{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.

Scope of this request page:

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



See also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Deleting or removing the entry or sense (if it failed), or de-tagging it (if it passed). In either case, the edit summary or deletion summary should indicate what is happening.
  • Adding a comment to the discussion here with either RFV failed or RFV passed (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 may be archived to the entry's talk-page. This consists of removing the discussion from this page, and copying it to the entry's talk-page (using {{archive-top|rfv}} + {{archive-bottom}}). Historically, it could also include simply commenting on the talk page with a link to the diff of the edit that removed the discussion from this page. Examples of discussions archived at talk pages: Talk:non-lemma, Talk:accident-blackspot.

Oldest tagged RFVs

July 2017[edit]

grow tender and growtender[edit]

Any takers? (difficult to search for because of the verb + adjective sense) SemperBlotto (talk) 16:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

You can search for the plurals and for article+noun/possessive pronoun+noun. There seems to be some rare usage in stories on newspaper websites- but I have no idea if those appeared in the durably-archived print editions. There are also a few legitimate uses on websites that definitely don't qualify for CFI. I would call this real, but possibly unverifiable. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:26, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

August 2017[edit]


Dubious contributor, not in OneLook. - TheDaveRoss 19:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually - the first of the three supplied cites (from Forbes, The Chorus Lady) is an error. The text actually runs: "Moind yir own business, Patrick," she ordered, with her old-time domineering manner. "It's the ex-[page break] coitable man ye are careerin' all over town an' us waitin' supper for ye. Run out an' rush the growler, if it ain't too late." So it is excoitable, an Irish eye-dialect pronunciation of excitable. So if that reduces the cites to 2, it fails verification. But, maybe there are other cites. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 11:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

gob up[edit]

British slang for "shut up". Gob is slang for mouth but I only know it as a noun. Equinox 16:00, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

I found two cites, but we still need a third. While looking, I found a number of other meanings for gob up, and added them. Kiwima (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

September 2017[edit]


Rfv-sense of the horse disease. The definition is taken from old dictionaries (17th c. etc.), but it's not very easy to attest because of the surname. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:23, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Seems like it might be a dictionary-only term. OED only has one quotation (which is a mention anyway, not a usage, so no good for us) from Phillips' The New World of English Words (1678), and then mentions Bailey's An Universal Etymological English Dictionary (1721) and the 1753 supplement to Chambers' Cyclopædia but they will again just be definitions rather than uses. BigDom 06:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I found one citation in books. One needs to add a lot of additional terms to exclude at least some of the hits for the name "Carney". I tried "tongue", "furred|coated", "horse|equine" "disease|pathology" in various combinations at Books, Scholar, Groups, and News. I also tried volume 1 of Frederic G. Cassidy, Dictionary of American Regional English, Volume I, A-C. Harvard University Press, 1985. ↑ISBN.. Perhaps DARE's 6th volume or the online version would have it. DCDuring (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Good find! I had another look but couldn't find anything more than the one you have. BigDom 08:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
I wonder whether there is some Latin, Spanish, or French from which this is derived in a Hobson-Jobson way. DCDuring (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
There's also one appearance in this strange, self-published book that probably doesn't qualify. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if this is an alternate form of Carney syndrome? From what I am reading, it can occur in horses as well as humans, and one dictionary describing the horse disease says it is due to a type of tumor. Kiwima (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

J. Aidan Carney would have to be a time traveler. He was born in 1934, whereas the horse definition is quoted from 1678. Khemehekis (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

October 2017[edit]


I did some digging and found that the form tharf had fallen out of use sometime in the late Middle English period. Only the form thair - which I personally heard used in speech and used in speech myself - still survives. Me thinks that it should be consigned to the Middle English section of the Wiktionary. Mountebank1 (talk) 22:10, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

@Mountebank1 I find no RFV tag in the entry. Which sense(s) were challenged? Kiwima (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
@Kiwima Etymology one contains a Middle English form of the verb thair. The form tharf did not make it into Modern English, only the form thair still survives in the Northern dialects. Mountebank1 (talk) 01:08, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I found a couple of uses in a Modern Translation of the Mystery Plays Leasnam (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

November 2017[edit]


Two cites, needs a third. DTLHS (talk) 06:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)


Is this a word that is actually used? Google books has results, but they don't seem to refer to the device mentioned here. A google search shows the word being used little outside of Wikipedia with the intended meaning. I also don't think the devices are in current production and something only a countable number of people use. The Wikipedia article on them is misleading. RightGot (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 22:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Is "Disabled World" durably archived? It looks like a website to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:02, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
That depends on whether you count pamphlets as durably archived. Kiwima (talk) 04:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
I have to imagine they normally wouldn't be. Are copies of this pamphlet held at a significant number of libraries, or is there any other reason to believe it will still be findable decades from now? —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)


I am not certain that this is an adjective, I suspect it is a noun modifier, unlike the prefix audio- which is quite legitimate. DonnanZ (talk) 21:37, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

  • It functions as a noun adjunct (therefore still classified as an adjective in cases such as "audio recording"). See here. Ozelot911 (talk) 21:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but you could rephrase that as a "recording of audio". DonnanZ (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Right. We don't include ===Adjective=== headers for nouns used attributively. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 21:51, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

I have added a number of cites that look adjectival in their use. I am calling this cited Kiwima (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

You can try your hardest with the quotes, but it still doesn't make it an adjective. I think you misread some of them. DonnanZ (talk) 09:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I do not agree with classifying the attributive use of nouns (adjunct nouns) as nouns-proper; I do find that they should be classified as adjectives due to their usage/sense as such. The actual sense in which a word is used alters its word-class entirely, in this case Noun → Adjective. However, the Wiktionary appendix entry on Attributive Nouns in English (see my above comment), defines that 1.) most nouns can, in fact, take an attributive position. This would mean that if we include an Adjective section for this word we would need to include such an Adjective sense on a vast number of Noun entries, which I would argue against due to the subjective nature of the matter. And 2.) that, bureaucratically speaking, such Nouns being used attributively are still classified as Nouns (at least as a matter of proxy-policy on-Wiki), therefore as mentioned prior, the most suitable option would be to systematically incorporate the Adjective definitions into the Noun sense definitions in some way. I don't agree that they remain nouns when used attributively, but quasi-policy states otherwise, so unless that is altered to reflect that opinion, the policial definition that they are still classified as noun must be adhered to. Ozelot911 (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the quotes do not all support their senses. "I'm very audio, so I hear words." is clearly not supporting the sense given — it is for a different adjectival sense, something like "preferring or thinking in terms of sound". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
On the general point raised by Ozelot911, I am very strongly opposed to creating separate adjective definitions for all of the vast numbers of nouns that can be used attributively. Mihia (talk) 01:21, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Have you looked at the quotes? The question here is not about attributive use of the noun, but whether there is a true adjectival use here. Nobody here is suggesting we keep attributive uses of nouns. "I'm very audio" is NOT an attributive use of a noun. Kiwima (talk) 03:09, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Have you even read what I wrote? Mihia (talk) 04:12, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes. You said you are strongly opposed to creating separate adjective definitions for attributive nouns. So am I. I am trying to determine if there is something more than that going on in this case, so your saying that here seems like a non sequitor at best. Kiwima (talk) 20:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
I believe I was clear in saying that I was responding to Ozelot911's general point, i.e. "I do not agree with classifying the attributive use of nouns (adjunct nouns) as nouns-proper; I do find that they should be classified as adjectives due to their usage/sense as such.", etc. I understood this as suggesting that because, for example, the word "school" can be used attributively in a phrase like "school uniform" or whatever, we should have a separate adjectival entry for "school" reading something like "of or pertaining to a school", and similarly for thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of other nouns. This is what I disagree with. Mihia (talk) 18:25, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

December 2017[edit]


DTLHS (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

So far, all I can find are uses in non-durably archived sources. Kiwima (talk) 06:41, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
A Google Groups search just finds two posts that don't appear to be Usenet, given by their group names, and are both by the same poster anyway. Khemehekis (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
*sigh*, yes, this is one of those frustrating words. I can find a LOT on non-durably archived sources. Enough that I am convinced it's a legitimate word. But I can't manage to cite it by our rules. Kiwima (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

January 2018[edit]


It shows on Google Books, but it seems they are just Poul Anderson's writing copied over again by Allen Sture and something called Snippet View. It does look like there is one from 2015 in Delphi Complete Works of Lucretius (Illustrated). Looking at the copied Poul Anderson articles, there would also be all the other -stuffs and coined terms in those ones too. How are we going to go about these? Anglish4699 (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

sourstuff just squeaked by with sufficient cites by other authors. I assume similar criteria get applied here: Have other SF authors adopted the term? Kiwima (talk) 19:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Don't know... Google Books Page 2 and so on doesn't show much else. Anglish4699 (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
waterstuff belongs to the same set. Equinox 03:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I added cites to this one. I would appreciate it if a second editor looked over them and made a judgement about whether they represent English. Kiwima (talk) 21:23, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 06:44, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

@Kiwima: Not cited. Again, please be more careful. The two Usenet cites were just people quoting Poul Anderson, so not independent. The Lucretius translation was obviously supporting a different (nonce?) sense, and wasn't even strictly speaking the same spelling. That leaves two cites. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:26, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
When I added the cites, as you can see if you look above, I ASKED that a second editor look them over, because I was dubious. No action occurs until after waiting a week and a half, I decide to pass the word because no one else seems to care enough to respond. Now you tell me to "be more careful" It feels rather like a slap. I put a lot of work into checking the words that get challenged here, putting aside any preconceived notions I may have in order to see what use, if any, is out there. Yes, I make mistakes, as do we all. But when I get dissed for it, it makes me just want to quit. Perhaps I should take a break from Wiktionary. Kiwima (talk) 02:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


I can see it being used for several things, but not for Utah. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

That's not the only entry in need of verification – several of the entries added by Special:Contributions/ are a bit dubious, IMO. How should we treat these abbreviations? I mean, there must me hundreds of local and national teams who use abbreviations on their scoreboards, but that doesn't mean that we have to include them here. --Robbie SWE (talk) 10:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
This one is certainly worth the RfV and perhaps some others.
For some others we could decide, whether by precedent, vote, or consensus, that some classes of abbreviations are OK and focus on making them conform to some standard. For example, 3-letter codes for airports could be deemed OK and presented only as Translingual (See YUL, JFK and their histories.). This contributor is not even consistent for such entries and probably for other types.
We could also apply a short block to the IP to get its attention. If that doesn't work, longer blocks might be required. DCDuring (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
This is the height of arrogance. None of you have ever left a message on my talk page, so how the hell am I supposed to know you have issues? Have you ever thought of ever interacting with anyone outside of blocks? MediaWiki has user talk pages for a reason, and messages posted there are actually delivered to the user in question. This Wiktionary BLOCK = HELLO THERE standardized behaviour is very disappointing. -- 07:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
You don't have a talk page. There is a talk page for your IP address, but that's sort of a hack, to get around the fact that there's no way to communicate with an anonymous individual. If you create a user account, then you will have a user talk page. You could also have a watchlist and look to see if people are having issues.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I can find lots of evidence for "University of Texas at Arlington" and "Utah Transport Authority", and some for a few other acronyms such as "Union de Transports Aeriens", "United Typothetae of America", etc, but none for Utah. Kiwima (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Judging by the geolocation and by the mediocrity of the edits, this is quite possibly Fête, who has never been known for taking a hint- whether administered with compassion and tact or with a 16-lb sledgehammer. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Oh well. You would know best. DCDuring (talk) 03:11, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a sports ticker and score card abbreviation for teams represented by the geographic name "Utah" when playing other teams. In North America, sports pages, sports feeds, and sports tickers frequently use three-letter abbreviations to represent teams. Teams are frequently referred to by their geographic name instead of team name. (ie. the w:Utah Jazz is frequently abbreviated via UTAH instead of JAZZ.) When multiple teams have the same geographic name in the same sport in the same league, then they don't just go by the geographic name, but instead either use the team name or a combination of team name and geographic name. University teams typically are abbreviated with the university name instead of the team name as well. If you watch sports television, the sports tickers will use these three letter abbreviations all the time. The particular team meant depends on the particular sport and league the ticker is currently displaying, as most locations have multiple teams in multiple sports that can be referred to by any particular 3-letter geographic abbreviation, so depends on context. This is a sports abbreviation though, so the context is sports. -- 07:09, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

11/13/17 Utah UTA 98 - MIN 109
GT: TOR @ UTA (Today) 9PM on TSN

-- 07:30, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

None of which matters much to RfV. See WT:ATTEST; URLs like forums..../boards/viewtopic.php (the second link) are clear warning signs that they aren't permanently archived.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:47, 1 February 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "Abbreviation of Kitchener. "

Tagged but not listed. Kiwima (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

This is a sports ticker and score card abbreviation for teams represented by the geographic name "Kitchener" when playing other teams. In North America, sports pages, sports feeds, and sports tickers frequently use three-letter abbreviations to represent teams. Teams are frequently referred to by their geographic name instead of team name. If you watch sports television, the sports tickers will use these three letter abbreviations all the time. The particular team meant depends on the particular sport and league the ticker is currently displaying, as most locations have multiple teams in multiple sports that can be referred to by any particular 3-letter geographic abbreviation, so depends on context. This is a sports abbreviation though, so the context is sports. -- 07:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

8. Riley Damiani (KIT), Ryan Merkley (GUE), Noel Serron (OSH), Curtis Douglas (BAR) – TI Score: 16
Dec. 29/17 – ER (3) – KIT (4)
OHL - KIT (2015) RD: 3 (#44)

-- 07:21, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

February 2018[edit]


A married person. DTLHS (talk) 21:26, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I added one cite, and there was already one there, so we only need one more. Kiwima (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

far [edit]

Discussion moved from WT:RFDE.

Request deletion of the entries for noun far and fars. The word does not exist in any dictionary. If this noun can be found anywhere then ignore this request. I have done diligent research. —This comment was unsigned.

This should be taken to WT:RFV. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 09:15, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Actually, it DOES appear in A Dictionary of the English Language by Samual Johnson, but that does not help RFV. Kiwima (talk) 05:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I have added one cite. Kiwima (talk) 05:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

This originated as an RFD of two noun senses, "spelt wheat" and "young pig", but I was just barley able to cite "spelt wheat", so at this point it's just an RFV of "young pig". - -sche (discuss) 22:42, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed I have left the single cite on the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 19:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

iudas [edit]

Archaic spelling of judas. DTLHS (talk) 01:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

It's much easier to find it with a capital "i". With the lower case, most of what I find is either Latin or Middle English. I added two cites, but we still need a third. Kiwima (talk) 23:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
As I think about it, I am dubious about the cites I added. While they used a lower case i, they were both using iudas as a proper name, not a noun.... Kiwima (talk) 11:46, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 20:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

shindesi kensa [edit]

The presumably correct shindeshi kensa doesn't turn much up either. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

chocolate bar [edit]

Rfv-sense "(Canada) Any candy bar, whether it contains chocolate or not." Prior discussion at Wiktionary:Tea_room/2017/July#chocolate_bar_vs._bar_of_chocolate. AFAICT this is only distinct from sense 1 if it can be applied to bars that contain no chocolate, which I doubt. - -sche (discuss) 18:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

deblouse [edit]

Doesn't it mean to remove one's blouse? SemperBlotto (talk) 08:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Most of the citations I find are, indeed, about removing a blouse. I DID find a military sense, but it was the opposite of blouse (to tuck ones trousers into ones boots) - that is, to untuck one's trousers from one's boots. In fact, if you look at the history of the entry, you will see that the original editor started with the definition I found, but changed it when all his/her cites used the form unblouse. This definition is probably based on deblouser, which is a shirt stay. However, I find no evidence for this definition, and think it is simply wrong. Kiwima (talk) 09:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 20:48, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Atlantic stone [edit]

Apparently this word was only used in this sense by Milton. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

It seems so. When you rule out Milton, most of what I find is the Atlantic stone crab....but nothing that looks like it means ivory. Kiwima (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:37, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Reddit [edit]

Moved from RfD. Must meet WT:BRAND. bd2412 T 18:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)




RFV-sense of the variant of ad- used before certain consonants. I suspect that this only existed in Latin, and not English, where examples of al- etc in this sense are just borrowings of Latin words, as is the case with e.g. allocate. The one example of ag- which claims to have been formed in English (aggenital) is suspect, because aggenitalis (and aggenitus?) seem to exist. Compare Talk:sug-. - -sche (discuss) 20:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Tagged but not listed: Both noun and verb for analog of tweet on Mastadon.

I have cited both, but only as a hotword. Mastadon is too new for anything else. Kiwima (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:24, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

  • @Kiwima, opendemocracy.net and southerfriedscience.com do not seem to be durably archived. Both senses are now lacking one cite. And if you do find more acceptable cites and pass this as a hot word, you have to add the {{hot word}} template to the entry so that we can keep track of it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
How do I add the {{hot word}} template to a single definition rather than to an entire entry? Kiwima (talk) 22:02, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
With {{hot sense}}. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: To trick, scam, or swindle.

Tagged but not listed. Kiwima (talk) 05:00, 15 February 2018 (UTC)


Apparently introduced in a paper in 2014, doesn't seem to have caught on. DTLHS (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

I see several citations, all by the same author (P. N. Suravajhala). The omics world loves these sorts of protologisms, but this is admittedly especially silly. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 00:02, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
I just want to note that the last name of the coauthor is Bizzaro, [almost] like the Superman villain, which is another silliness (presumably not one the fellow can help, though). - -sche (discuss) 20:08, 16 February 2018 (UTC)


"(British) Used as a mild intensifier: very (almost exclusively used by the upper classes). Up and over to victory! Tally ho!" First of all the example doesn't make sense (it means "very ho"?); secondly I've never come across this in any other phrase. Could it be a mix-up with bally? Equinox 20:22, 18 February 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: an ejaculation

Tagged but not listed. Kiwima (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Sanskript [edit]

Sanscript [edit]

Proof these aren't typos? This book uses it once, but it also uses "Sanskrit" seven times. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 19:49, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I've heard it in speech, so there are likely non-typo examples out there. I'll look later if nobody beats me to it. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
it must be one of those new crypto-currencies... </jocular> - Amgine/ t·e 00:35, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
@Amgine: You must be thinking of the plain-text version, SansCrypt. (slinks away before audience reacts...) ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 01:43, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Heh… A related typo/scanno I did find on GB is Sanskirt. Which I am resisting punning about. - Amgine/ t·e 05:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
The language of feminist sans-culottes, presumably. (There, I did it for you.) Equinox 21:15, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I have cited both of these. I ruled out any text that used the correct Sanskrit as well. That ruled out most of the texts that included Sanskript, and the ones that remain all had only one instance of the word, lending some weight to the idea that Sanskript is a simple error (although I wouldn't call it a typo, because the p is not next to either the i or the t.) Sanscript was a little tricker, as it often appears as a deliberate pun or as the name of a product that is making a deliberate pun. It is much rarer to find the correct Sanskrit in the same text as Sanscript; authors who wrote Sanscript were more consistent, using it multiple times throughout the document. Kiwima (talk) 00:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

RFV-resolved: I consider Sanscript as passed but have deleted Sanskript as an error. Kiwima (talk) 20:08, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


Also freet. Rfv-sense: (transitive, obsolete or poetic) To consume, to devour, to eat. One quotation is provided that uses the form "freet" in a translation. DTLHS (talk) 03:40, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I've added a few more. I used the glosses in each cite to confirm the meaning "devour" Leasnam (talk) 13:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
The 1594 quotation seems to be an example of sense 3, while the 1609 and 1727–1728 quotations could be examples of sense 5. Should senses 1 and 5 be combined? There is a slight difference of meaning ("eat" v. "eat away"), but they are overlapping. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:03, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd be in favour of combining. I don't think by the Modern English period this word seriously meant "to eat = consume food" anymore Leasnam (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)



  1. (security, software) Initialism of Special Separation of Duty.

I think there are issues:

  1. Shouldn't it be "Duties" as in Separation of duties (SoD)?
  2. What is "special" separation of duty/duties in the first place?
  3. If the concept exists, shouldn't it be defined rather than just written out word-by-word?
  4. Should there be an entry for separation of duties?

--Hekaheka (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I think it is actually static separation of duty, which I have added to the entry. I can find no evidence for "special"" separation of duty. Kiwima (talk) 22:00, 21 February 2018 (UTC)


Tagged RFC, but has the more basic problem of seeming unattested: only seven raw Google hits for this spelling, and only seventy for "Nienzit", none of which look CFI-compliant. - -sche (discuss) 18:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

They're not much discussed, and that spelling looks extraordinarily rare. I think Nerzit and Netzit will be the only attestable spellings in English. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 19:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)


An alternative spelling of llama, but seemingly a dictionary-only word; obsolete if real. @Cnilep is the creator. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 07:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I have just added two quotes from books published in the nineteenth century. I suspect the word is obsolete, though. Cnilep (talk) 08:09, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Also a twentieth century usage, from 1918. Cnilep (talk) 08:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
1918 is just a loose translation of Buffon, so not independent. Wood is also clearly reliant on Buffon, but I suppose his is a genuine adaptation (still plagiarism by modern academic standards!). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:23, 23 February 2018 (UTC)


GBooks has scannos "I was a fool for clinging to him" etc. Equinox 20:17, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I found one for "for-clong" the past tense, which is a modern translation of a Middle English work. This may be better moved to Middle English Leasnam (talk) 22:16, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

cocal [edit]

Covered in coconuts. DTLHS (talk) 04:13, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

cited, although it is possible that it is just an attributive use of the noun sense. It's kind of hard to tell, because of all the false positives with the proper noun. Kiwima (talk) 05:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree that it just looks like an attributive use of the noun sense- the cites don't really support "covered in coconuts" either. DTLHS (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Unless you take that to mean "covered in coconut trees.", but even so, that looks like an attributive use of the noun sense Kiwima (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I poked around and couldn't find any usage of this that didn't seem more like a noun than an adjective; I couldn't find anything being called "more cocal" or "less cocal" or "as cocal as", or being said to "grow cocal" or "become cocal". The citations in the entry, and others I can find, all just seem like uses of the noun. Good work citing that, though. :) - -sche (discuss) 02:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed (in favor of the noun sense) Kiwima (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


Nonce word. DTLHS (talk) 05:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps, but I DID find another citation besides those araphorostic shoes. We still need a third. Kiwima (talk) 05:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Another word to consider at the same time is araphostic: also with two cites. Kiwima (talk) 05:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
One dictionary that came ip when I GB'd "araphostic" said that the preferred spelling was arrhaphostic. Googling that, I found this cite here. Khemehekis (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh dear! Not yet ANOTHER spelling. Between the three spellings, we have enough to convince me that it is (was?) a real word, but not enough to meet RFV criteria. Kiwima (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Has Wiktionary specifically settled on a policy for when two homophonous spellings/capitalizations have the requisite three durably archived cites between them, but neither spelling alone meets COI? If we add the two araphostics and the one arrhaphostic together, we have just enough for the pronunciation without the -or- in the middle. Khemehekis (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
If no one spelling is attested, sadly they should be {{no entry}}ed, but (like Talk:gaplapper) one spelling will usually become citable as more books are digitized, etc. (With capitalization, things are more flexible.) - -sche (discuss) 22:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

March 2018[edit]

American quotation[edit]

The entry is, as pointed out on RFC, encyclopedically long, spillover from Wikipedia's Quotation Wars. It also isn't obviously attested as an idiomatic string (as opposed to "'four score and seven years ago' is an American quotation" or "American quotation marks"). Most of the coordinate terms have the same issues, although "logical quotation" is somewhat easier to find citations of. Citations would probably help us decide if there really need to be three (so long) definitions. I tried searching for phrases like "(in|use|using|employ|employing) American quotation". - -sche (discuss) 02:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

British quotation[edit]

As with American quotation (above). - -sche (discuss) 02:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Oxford quotation[edit]

As with American quotation (above). - -sche (discuss) 02:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

typesetters' quotation[edit]

Compare American quotation (above). I spot only a few uses of this string in Google Books and every one is of the longer phrase "typesetters' quotation marks", which might or might not be idiomatic. I spotted nothing on Scholar and didn't check Issuu or other databases. - -sche (discuss) 02:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

maxim worker[edit]

I put this on a list of words on my user page, but I don't remember where I found it and now can find no evidence that it exists at all. DTLHS (talk) 19:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the term is properly maxima worker or simply maxima and refers to a member of the largest caste of worker ants. In very few places the term occurs as ‘maxim’ instead, but the occurrences are few enough that I suspect they’re mistakes. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 08:29, 5 March 2018 (UTC)


Adjective and Noun Leasnam (talk) 04:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

All I find on Usenet is two Spanish posts. Khemehekis (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
I paged through the Google Books and Scholar hits, which were all irrelevant. The only Usenet hits are irrelevant (a different word in a different language), as Khemehekis says. And there's nothing on Issuu. In fact, when I search for this term + "gender", I see fewer than a hundred raw Google web hits when I page through to the end. This looks like a candidate for WT:LOP. Someone should add the Spanish word, though. - -sche (discuss) 04:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
It seems too commonly used to be a protologism. The word is like sonimod above: lots of hits on the Internet, but apparently none in durably archived sources. Khemehekis (talk) 01:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

psychograph [edit]

"Recorded moments of sensuous touch by genius loci [spirit of the space]." See link at entry. Equinox 10:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

The definition is a plagiarism of the linked entry, so I removed it. I have added another definition instead, which I think covers that case, as well as a few others, and which is cited. I also added a number of other missing definitions and cited them. Kiwima (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

RFV-resolved Kiwima (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


The prejudice senses. Per Talk:sexualism, these are in no way the main/common definition of the word, if they exist at all. I just added sense 1, which is far more common. Note that Thesaurus:sexualism is problematic for the same reason. Equinox 10:52, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I combined those two senses into one, as many quotes I found did not clearly fall under one or the other. Although most of what I found in support of this was either a mention, or on a non-durably archived source, the combined entry is now cited. (I also added yet another definition that I found while looking). Kiwima (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Impressive work finding and figuring out the Valette sense. The 1870 citation of the discrimination sense is weird (it seems like a somewhat different sense?), but the other three citations attest the sense in any case. - -sche (discuss) 00:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the 1870 quote is problematic. It is not about the sexual act so much as about behaviors that transgress other sexual taboos, which makes it slightly different, but still in line with the same general thrust. Frankly, I am not sure what else to do with it. Kiwima (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
*shrug* It could always be moved to the citations page, since the sense has enough other quotations without it. - -sche (discuss) 00:58, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

RFV-resolved Kiwima (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "phonetic script". —suzukaze (tc) 00:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Although it wouldn't surprise me if it existed as a generalization of the usual sense, I can't find any evidence that it does. I searched for phrases like "Russian pinyin", "Cyrillic pinyin", "Japanese pinyin", "a pinyin", "pinyin for". - -sche (discuss) 00:56, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
The only non-Chinese language I've seen it applied to is Tibetan, but perhaps we'd be better off with an entry for Tibetan Pinyin. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
If there are no other languages that use pinyins (besides Chinese and Tibetan), I would just broaden the definition of Pinyin from "for Standard Mandarin" to "for Standard Mandarin, and sometimes Tibetan". But @Wyang are the transliterations of any of the minority languages spoken in China ever called "pinyin(s)"? - -sche (discuss) 22:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
@-sche Pinyin is just a Chinese word for "romanisation system". You can also speak of Yi pinyin, Nuosu pinyin, etc. Wyang (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Why, so you can! Thanks for the tip about those collocations. I've found some citations and put them at Citations:Pinyin and Citations:pinyin. I'll edit the definition to indicate that this is used with regard to China-based languages. - -sche (discuss) 02:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

CR [edit]

Rfv-sense: continuing resolution

Tagged but not listed. and now cited Kiwima (talk) 02:05, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 10:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

three togethers [edit]

Tagged but not listed. And now cited Kiwima (talk) 02:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 10:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

introvert [edit]

Rfv-sense: an anterior portion of some worms capable of retraction

Tagged but not listed. And now cited Kiwima (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I've fixed up the definition a bit. @Robbie SWE, in the future, when you put an RFV tag on a word or sense, you have to create the corresponding section here (although you could've verified this one just by googling it). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:17, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry about that! I completely forgot about it, but I promise to be more careful from now on. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:47, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Considering the sheer number of bad edits that Robbie spots, I'm glad they're just getting tagged. Posting here would be good, but we don't want to discourage him from the great work he does do. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 10:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

catch a cold [edit]

Rfv-sense: To encounter difficulties

Tagged but not listed. And now cited Kiwima (talk) 04:24, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 10:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: A purported dating rule or set of minimum qualities that increase a man's desirability

Tagged but not listed. I did a search of the seduction community newsgroups and while I could find the number 666 used in a lot of posts, I found no support for this meaning. Kiwima (talk) 22:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Pass a Method again. Someone needs to check Special:Contributions/ to see if anything else needs cleanup. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: A purported dating rule or set of minimum qualities that increase a man's desirability

Tagged but not listed. Kiwima (talk) 22:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

It's "the six sixes" (a six-pack, 600 horsepower car, etc.): see [2]. Equinox 23:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, but is it attestable? Kiwima (talk) 00:08, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

heterological [edit]

Rfv-sense: not true of itself

Tagged but not listed. Now cited Kiwima (talk) 00:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 20:49, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

television show [edit]

Rfv-sense: he taping of a television broadcast

Tagged but not listed. And now cited Kiwima (talk) 01:46, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: English pale ale

Tagged but not listed. And now cited Kiwima (talk) 06:34, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

carrot bag [edit]

"A conical bag which can be filled with henna and the tip snipped off to make an applicator."

Does this differ from a bag originally used for carrots used for another purpose? What is the usage context? Do we need 2x4 (a piece of lumber used to get someone's attention)? DCDuring (talk) 16:47, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes it does: "carrot" refers to the shape of the bag, not its use for carrots. However, this sense is not limited to the use as an applicator for henna, for example, see this. Kiwima (talk) 22:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh yes, and I have cited this meaning. Kiwima (talk) 22:52, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
I live and I learn. DCDuring (talk) 03:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Good work! RFV-passed. - -sche (discuss) 21:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: The position along the w-axis in 4-dimensional space

Tagged but not listed. I think the author of this definition may have been confused by some of the works following from the work of Henry More, who used the word for "spiritual thickness" which he called the "fourth dimension" of an object. However, More was not referring to 4-dimensional space or a w-axis. Kiwima (talk) 22:39, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: capacity

Tagged but not listed. It does seem to be used as an abbreviation for capacity (see this, this, and this), but in those cases it is followed by a full stop. Kiwima (talk) 23:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC)


Don't think it meets CFI. Equinox 17:02, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I found 4 possible citations:
All Usenet; nothing at all on Books. Just press CTRL+F to find their uses on the page. Do you think this can suffice? Otherwise, I can't find anything else, except a few French ones that use the same word. If a total three of these can't pass as an attesting citation, nothing will AFAICT. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
If they are durably archived, it should suffice. Kiwima (talk) 20:15, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
They're all Usenet, and we can separate at least 3 of them apart a year, so I'm gonna go ahead and say cited. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, they seem to all be from different authors and to span from 1994 to 2010, and they are apparently all from Usenet groups, so they are sufficient. - -sche (discuss) 22:21, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
FWIW there are at least three independent citations of Atari-esque with a hyphen, going back to 2011, in magazines and newspapers that can be searched on Issuu. I didn't spot any of the unhyphenated form on Issuu. - -sche (discuss) 22:19, 11 March 2018 (UTC)


Please provide citations showing this spelling is normalized English, or change the spelling.

It certainly appears often enough in English texts and articles. However, everything I have found puts it in italics (or hides it behind a paywall). Kiwima (talk) 20:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


Tagged (for RFD) but not listed. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:12, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

On the citations page, you can see the cite of a poem by Robert Henryson (1568). That's right on the border between middle English and modern English. Would we consider this middle English? Kiwima (talk) 21:01, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
WT:AENM defines Middle English as ending in 1500, which would make 1568 Early Modern English. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 21:40, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, and while some editors have pushed for a different cutoff, it's generally been an earlier one (1476). 1568 is definitely Early Modern English. I don't see anything in the Middle English Dictionary like this spelling, either, as far as attesting it as a Middle English term. It might, however, be attestable as Scots if we can't find two more English citations. - -sche (discuss) 21:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
I have searched in vain for any other citations than the one I have given. (Two dictionaries that I have no access to and that can possibly—though very unlikely—record the two or more required examples of real usage are The Third Edition of the OED and The Merriam-Webster's Unabridged.) As there is obviously no sense relation to either skuggery or scuggery (unlike what the entry suggests), the entry can be deleted. (For Scots, the same criteria, i.e. at least three quotations, apply as for English, in other words, it should be deleted anyway.) (Sorry for not having put the entry into the “Requests for deletion” list at first.) Jiří Bezděka (talk) 21:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

poly theistic[edit]

Alt form of polytheistic. Not sure how a space belongs after what is definitely a prefix. I am not sure about the hyphenated poly-theistic either. Equinox 01:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

It is possible that a construction like this could occur. I've seen things like this happen before in English. It's definitely nonstandard and annoying, though. If anything, the label should be "rare, nonstandard". PseudoSkull (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

The hyphenated form is easily cited. Most of the hits in Google books that are not hyphenated turn out to be scannos, but I have found and added four cites for that form as well (although the Al-fikr quote is possibly just an extreme case of bad kerning). Kiwima (talk) 22:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

That is good detective work but it makes me feel that we need more of a sharp line between rare errors and normal usage. Equinox 02:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree. I am not sure how we would codify it into a set of criteria, but some errors are common enough to meet our attestation criteria but so rare that they would not be included as a "misspelling of". Kiwima (talk) 20:56, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


Almost everything I can find is a scanno for Aubrey (as a first or last name) or less often Asbrey (as a last name). I did put one citation on the citations page, but it's hard to know what the string means in it without tracking down the book it's mentioning(!) that it appears it. - -sche (discuss) 05:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I found another reference to the same book, again with Aabrey, plus a few other cites, which I also added to the citations page. It looks pretty clear that all the cites refer to a surname, however, and not a female given name, as the definition suggests. Kiwima (talk) 22:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


Sigh. Ƿidsiþ 10:04, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

In Google groups, I found two uses, one for each definition, but only one was on a durably archived newsgroup. I put it on the Citations page. Kiwima (talk) 22:59, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


…oh, also this. Ƿidsiþ 10:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

This one is much easier to cite, but for a slightly different definition. It refers to the woman, not her anatomy. Kiwima (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

broken arrow[edit]

Was deleted by anon, claiming hoax; should go through RFV instead. "(US, military) a code phrase that a ground unit is facing imminent destruction from enemy attack and all available air forces within range are to provide air support immediately." Equinox 15:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Easily cited. It looks like its use was specific to the Viet Nam war, however. Kiwima (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
From the citations (and coordinate terms), it looks like both military senses should be moved to be capitalized like all the coordinate terms seem to already be. - -sche (discuss) 01:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Right you are! I have moved it. Kiwima (talk) 10:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


"Chakavian dialect element, feature or word". Nothing in GBooks; I would expect a capital C too. Equinox 15:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Three occurrences: one for Cakavianism, one for Čakavianism, one for čakavianism (but between quote marks, so it's not terrible). [7] --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 15:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
One hit] on Google scholar with this casing and spelling. Kiwima (talk) 23:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

sea lawyer[edit]

The shark (fish) sense is mentioned in e.g. Calwell 1986 Sea Lawyer: A Practical Guide for Yachtsmen ("The cunning of the shark has earned it the nickname of 'sea lawyer'"), Garner 2011 Garner's Dictionary of Legal Usage ("Originally, in the early 19th century, sea lawyer was a name given to the tiger shark"), Smeal 1850 The British Friend ("the dolphins, in their turn, are pursued by the great shark, called, from its known discernment and cunning, the "sea lawyer.""). I can find no actual usage. Equinox 15:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I can. It is cited Kiwima (talk) 23:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Unless there are more citations of the spaced form, it seems like this sense should be moved to sea-lawyer (and the two entries should link to each other). - -sche (discuss) 00:50, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
I agree. Kiwima (talk) 00:54, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
OK, I have added sufficient cites without a hyphen to this entry, and created sea-lawyer as an alternative form, moving the hyphenated cites there. Kiwima (talk) 01:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Good job, Kiwima! ::High-fives:: Khemehekis (talk) 03:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC) 03:14, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes, good work! :) Sorry if my comment sounded like criticism. - -sche (discuss) 03:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Don't worry, it didn't. It was a valid suggestion. I am sorry about my fit of pique the other day. You don't need to walk on eggshells around me. Kiwima (talk) 05:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


Really? SemperBlotto (talk) 15:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any hits on Issuu or Usenet or Google Books (although Transage seems to be the name of a certain alloy and/or company manufacturing said alloy). - -sche (discuss) 16:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


As above. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any hits on Issuu or Usenet, and on Google Books I see only one mention-y one from 2016 ("he considers himself a “transager” and lives as a six-year-old") in the in-my-experience typical usage context of 'right-wing parlance trying to discredit/mock transgenderness', and one jocular(?) one from 2017 "'You could've just told him.' 'How? What, I like dressing up as my gran? I'm a transager?' 'You're being ridiculous. Take this seriously.'" - -sche (discuss) 16:36, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
Just delete PaM entries on sight; he is banned for a reason and should not have the right to clutter RFV with his inventions. Equinox 16:39, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I've deleted both. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 16:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


Non-standard "it isn't/hasn't". Rather hard to search for. I didn't have much luck. Equinox 19:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

All the results seem to be either scanos or typos. --WikiTiki89 19:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
I have cited the "it isn't" meaning, still haven't found anything for "it hasn't". Kiwima (talk) 00:22, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


Just appears in obsolete dictionaries (which, one day, WT will be, BTW) --Otra cuenta105 (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)


TBNL (tagged but not listed). Actually, tagged for RFD, by Wonderfool, but not listed (TFRFDBWFBNL?). Anyway, almost all the Usenet hits are chaff so it's not clear that it's attested. - -sche (discuss) 00:15, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

From Google Books, this appears to be a hashtag. Khemehekis (talk) 19:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Bibhorr formula[edit]

Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 06:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

The first three books at Google Books look promising. Khemehekis (talk) 19:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


Entered to mean A bird, the great bustard, from Webster 1913. Wonderfool requests verification in RFD. google books:"gustard", google groups:"gustard", gustard at OneLook Dictionary Search. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Most of what I find refers to a 1526 quote by Hector Boece, so I have left only one cite that refers to this quote, choosing the best reproduction of it I could find (quoted in 1881 by Henry Eeles Dresser). I did manage to find two other independent quotes, although the 1952 quote is a bit mention-y. Kiwima (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


The validity of the quotes needs to be checked. DonnanZ (talk) 13:24, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand what the deal is. The new quotations (1916, 1972, 1994) were entered by Lingo Bingo Dingo. What is the problem? --Dan Polansky (talk) 13:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
This, I'd wager. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 13:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Maybe Donnanz interpreted my vote there as a tit-for-tat? If so, it wasn't, I was simply working my way up after commenting at "low-priced". See here for Dykema and Gibson. I've removed Vance, as it turned out that the Medieval Review is online only. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:20, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
The three Usenet quotes all look good, as do the 1916 and 1945 quotes. I couldn't find the 1972, but that still leaves enough to meet our criteria. Kiwima (talk) 22:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: An illustrative discussion of a topic.

Tagged but not listed. And now cited Kiwima (talk) 23:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: a stilt. A quotation from Halliwell was requested, but I can't see anything. Ƿidsiþ 08:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)