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
add new | history | archives

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

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

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

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

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

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.

Go here to edit this header

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”

Templates:

Shortcut:

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


November 2016[edit]

appeasatory[edit]

Noun: something intended to appease. Nothing on the Web for "appeasatories" plural, and I can't find a noun via "an appeasatory" either. Equinox 01:20, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I can find one supporting cite (two more to go) :
1810, Stephen Cullen Carpenter, The Mirror of Taste and Dramatic Censor - Volume 1, page 460:
Every child has heard the ingenious distich, or rather tristich, time out of mind, the nurse's appeasatory for squalling children:
Kiwima (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that is unambiguously a noun. Nothing else on Google Books for "appeasatory for", however... Equinox 09:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
I found one use of the plural on Usenet:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/appeasatories/clothescrimefighters/ThbIoPJ17v8/P1K3EI2aBAAJ
"One of my appeasatories is melatonin, since it helps me to be quiet and calm down and stuff. It's very relaxing." Khemehekis (talk) 18:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Note the group - this is the same author who "created" support for crimefighters as underwear. Nice try, but it doesn't work. Kiwima (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Could you give me some background on this sentence? I just have to hear about it. Khemehekis (talk) 01:13, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

See Talk:crime fighters. Kiwima (talk) 03:45, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, my. Khemehekis (talk) 04:23, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

April 2017[edit]

ungroundable[edit]

"Unable to be grounded (kept in as a punishment)." Only in South Park? Equinox 18:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

How do you ground that which is ungroundable? --WikiTiki89 18:38, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
It could have an electrical sense too. Is that attestable? —CodeCat 18:40, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Most of what I can find, while it may be an independent use, refers to the South Park episode. I found one quote that did not refer to the South Park episode:
  • 2010, Piers Anthony, Jumper Cable, ISBN 1429932686:
    “We're nineteen. Soon we'll be out of the teens.” “And ungroundable,” Eve agreed darkly.
Perhaps a third could be found on Google groups? Kiwima (talk) 20:22, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Nothing on Usenet. Khemehekis (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

June 2017[edit]

defecalgesiophobia [edit]

DTLHS (talk) 02:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Saw this in the notes of a teenager with encopresis today and had a laugh. So... it is probably still used. But I don't know what resources to use to cite this. Wyang (talk) 03:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
Should be cited now. Wyang (talk) 04:13, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 06:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Kiwima: Why did you pass this? The 1936 quote looks like a mention, and the 2004 quote doesn't even use the right spelling. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
There are always differences of opinion about mentions. My understanding is that the use vs. mention rule is to avoid word lists and hypothetical examples of how a word might be used. The 1936 quote looks to me like it is actually talking about the defcalgesiophobia - the "it" in the next sentence clearly refers to the condition, so it looks to me like a real use rather than a hypothetical. Ditto with the 1920 quote. Kiwima (talk) 22:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
IMO 1920 and 1936 are unambiguous mentions. 1936 is just a definition, and 1920 is telling the reader how the word is supposedly used, not actually using the word. I've restored the RFV tag. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Agreed that 1920 and 1936 are both mentions. BigDom 13:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. The 1936 is NOT just a definition. That is just a rhetorical style.
A use on Usenet, albeit a rather humorous one:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/defecalgesiophobia/alt.religion.wicca/dwbyWpijh58/Syi9fhB9Ww0J
"LOL - And Randy's constant parisology and keveling certainly reinforce the fact of his anti-defecalgesiophobia (from a completely linguistic point of view of course) not to mention of course his near constant hamartithia and painful witzelsucht." Khemehekis (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

With that, I am calling this cited Kiwima (talk) 21:35, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

zebibit, yobibit, exbibit[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, all three have Wikipedia articles. w:Zebibit, w:Yobibit, w:Exbibit. bd2412 T 16:13, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I have added two quotes for zebibit and one for yobibit - I saw some others as well, but for some reason when I went back, those books were no longer listed by Google books. Exbibit is much harder to search for because of all the scannos of exhibit. In any case, it is pretty clear that zebibyte, yobibyte and exbibyte are far more common when you are looking at these magnitudes. Kiwima (talk) 23:45, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

zebibit is cited. The other two still need more. Kiwima (talk) 20:33, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

zebibit is RFV-passed. The other two are still waiting for sufficient cites. Kiwima (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Found a cite for "yobibit" on Usenet:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/yobibit/uk.comp.sys.mac/jr9k-Z7HKqI/YMEBUP5QhsMJ
"I'm waiting for yobibit Ethernet meself, then I'm going to start an internet chat business in Norway called Yibit NoBit He Said You Said." Khemehekis (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Ha-ha. Thanks. yobibit is now Cited. Only exbibit remains. Kiwima (talk) 10:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

You're welcome. Glad to get that one down. But it's going to be hard to find good cites for "exbibit" with all those scannos for "exhibit". Khemehekis (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. I managed to find two, but we still need a third. Kiwima (talk) 04:09, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

yobibit is passed. Still need another cite for exbibit Kiwima (talk) 10:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I found a website that refers to an exbibit – will that do? If so, then all the terms have passed. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:34, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Unstriking. A non-durably-archived quotation is obviously not good enough. Moreover, the other two quotations of exbibit are mentions. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:49, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
And unstriking zebibit and yobibit as well—the "Networking Self-Teaching Guide" quotations look like mentions for those too, and as far as I know, uk.comp.sys.mac is part of the non-Usenet portion of Google Groups. It looks to me like we need one more quotation for zebibit, two for yobibit, and three for exbibit. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
In that case exbibit is deleted as I did a search and could not find any other quotations. — SGconlaw (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Two more cites for "yobibit"? Both the 2006 and 2013 cites are uses rather than mentions. Khemehekis (talk) 01:13, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but as far as I can tell the 2006 cite doesn't seem to be durably archived because it isn't Usenet. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
Hmmmmm. Is there an accurate way to tell what's Usenet and what isn't? Khemehekis (talk) 02:01, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I think I read somewhere that these nine hierarchies are Usenet and everything else isn't, but I may be wrong. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:05, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I refer to w:Usenet#Organization. Limiting Usenet to the Big Eight (minus alt.) or the Big Nine is apparently not unprecedented, but at least historically, stuff like uk. and other smaller hierarchies would have looked exactly like the Big Nine to most users.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

July 2017[edit]

onahole [edit]

DTLHS (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I've seen it around, and a Google search will tell you more than you ever wanted to know, but I suspect the trick will be in persistent media. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 23:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

The two "Usenet" citations are from non-durable Google Groups, not from Usenet. The TechCrunch citation, if it is durably archived (not clear), looks like a mention rather than a use. - -sche (discuss) 19:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

It's true that most of what I find is not in durable sources, but I am finding a LOT (even Amazon.com reviews and YouTube videos on how to clean the things). There are a number of onahole mangas out there (even in English), and they are arguably durably archived. I am inclined to call this RFV-passed based on common usage if not three cites I can provide. Kiwima (talk) 23:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

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)

quinquavigintillion[edit]

A mention-only word. — Ungoliant (falai) 14:17, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Shem HaMephorash[edit]

I don't believe this is English. The plural looks wrong. The proper noun definition is plural - should be singular if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

You nominated an entire page for deletion because you think the plural tense is wrong?
why don't you just fix the plural tense? 129.64.174.194 20:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Moved to RFV. DTLHS (talk) 20:23, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Quote from entry that doesn't attest this capitalization or spelling:
  1. 2012, Egil Asprem, Arguing with Angels: Enochian Magic and Modern Occulture, page 33:
    In a rectangular box by the side are mentioned some of the "Shem-hamphorash", or seventy-two secret names of God, which according to Kabbalistic traditions can be extracted from Exodus 14:19–21
    DTLHS (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
If it's attestable, this shouldn't be a plural. It is a singular. The quote above is misusing it, or using it awkwardly. --WikiTiki89 20:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89 Should we keep the two distinct senses? DTLHS (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm not familiar enough with the kabbalistic sense to be able to judge at the moment. I need to look at more examples. --WikiTiki89 17:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Isn't there also a problem with using an English definite article, since the Hebrew phrase already has one? On the other hand, occultists tend to be abysmally ignorant of linguistics, and often think that being able to find a dictionary entry by reverse-transliterating foreign expressions means they've mastered the language in question. I've seen some appallingly ignorant errors in published books, which editors have tried to cite as proof that those forms exist in the other language. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I think this normally is used with the English definite article. --WikiTiki89 17:16, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
I have added three cites to the Proper Name. For the noun, I usually find a different casing (Initial caps only or all lower case). With this casing,I have always found it italicized, which could be taken to mean that it is not English. Kiwima (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

consanguinamory[edit]

Used on a few websites. Nothing on Google Books or the Usenet part of Google Groups. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The entry also needs a tiny bit of cleanup, but I should say that the sites provided are probably good for the entry to be kept. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be anything durably archived there.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
Does archive.org count as durably archived? Here are 5 links from 5 different sources archived on archive.org:
The word also appears in print in at least one book, possibly more:
It's derivative "consanguinamorous" has also appeared on news sites, for example:
-- Loveislove89 (talk) 1:40, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Might as well face it, you're addicted to love! I mean: might as well keep it. But I don't think it's durably archived. Wow, you know things are bad when even stick-up-the-arse Equinox is starting to trust Internet sources. Equinox 04:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
Archive.org is not considered durably archived. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:37, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 08:51, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Unstriking. Is there even one durably archived quotation? Archive.org is not durably archived. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
From [Criteria for inclusion] : Where possible, it is better to cite sources that are likely to remain easily accessible over time, so that someone referring to Wiktionary years from now is likely to be able to find the original source. As Wiktionary is an online dictionary, this naturally favors media such as Usenet groups, which are durably archived by Google. Print media such as books and magazines will also do, particularly if their contents are indexed online. I take this to mean that just because the sources are not permanently archived, they still count if they are the only sources possible. Archive.org is not permanently archived, but it does make it possible to check sources over time, which is the intent of the rule. Kiwima (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
That's not correct. The key word in the passage you've quoted is "easily accessible" (i.e., online in a semi-permanent form, like Google Groups or Project Gutenberg). Being easily accessible is just something desirable, but being durably archived is a requirement, as you can see from the sentence immediately before the passage you quoted. —Granger (talk · contribs) 20:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

evenold [edit]

Of the same age: both noun and verb. (No hits for "evenolds" in G.Books.) Perhaps Middle English but I doubt it's Modern. Equinox 19:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I can find it in some old dictionaries, but no actual usages. Kiwima (talk) 20:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 20:49, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

August 2017[edit]

clomax [edit]

Per Talk:glomax, this may have just been a scanno for climax. (The definition could fit lummox, but I'm sure that's coincidence...) Equinox 18:32, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

I added one quote to the citations page, but so far, that is all that I have found, other than the example sentence in the dialect society... Kiwima (talk) 21:04, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

RFV-failed Sadly, as I am convinced this is a valid dialect word. Kiwima (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

coitable[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)

shot with a shovel[edit]

OK, so it has 3 cites, but I'm tempted to believe they're bogus. --WF back from hols (talk) 23:52, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

They're real, but I've removed the third since it's just a comment on an article. DTLHS (talk) 23:58, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Comment: Should we consider this a participial form of shoot with a shovel and host the entry at that base form? Khemehekis (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Adi-Buddha Avatar [edit]

SoP? Def isn't too clear. Virtually nothing in GBooks. Equinox 12:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Nothing but mentions anywhere on Google. Also, the definition is entirely expressed from a Buddhist POV, and seems to be about a concept rather than any particular expression of it in English. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Denjoe[edit]

"A diminutive name for someone named Denis Joseph." I can only seem to find the scientist Denjoe O'Connor. Equinox 10:18, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

It's much more common than that. (I know two personally, but accept that's not evidence here). The O'Connor one is the most referenced, but I suspect that as Denjoe is a nickname it's not likely to appear on official papers and titles. There's a restaurant with the name, and Facebook has a few also listed. https://themeaningofthename.com/denjo/ also lists another spelling of Denjo with an estimate of 500 people with the name based on percentage of their database. Then we also get Den Joe, which seems to be also common. Can I suggest we get one entry, with the others as alt spellings, and maybe move the "Denis Joseph" part to the etymology. Just to complicate things ever further, Danjoe and Dan Joe also exists. --Dmol (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 10:37, 16 November 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)

Jar'Edo Wens[edit]

All the cites I can find for this are mentions. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 03:29, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Is the 2015 quote durably archived? I can't tell if it was published in the print version of The Washington Post or only online. Also, the PhD thesis quote looks like a mention, and the other 2016 quote seems kind of mention-y too. —Granger (talk · contribs) 11:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

leukapheresises[edit]

Wyang (talk) 11:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

  • I've found one hit on Google books. Do the plurals of easily verified singles still need three hits? SemperBlotto (talk) 11:31, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
    • The regular plural is leukaphereses, which is easily cited. I think three cites should be needed for this irregular plural of leukapheresises, to rule out the possibility of grammatical errors from one or two isolated authors. Wyang (talk) 11:42, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
If we called leukapheresis a Translingual term (aka Scientific or Medical Latin, ISV) we would have three cites of this irregular plural. DCDuring (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

September 2017[edit]

carney[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 0674205111.. 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)

xiao [edit]

Rfv-sense: "signifying a little one, junior, small guy, younger person. Usually is attached to a name" DTLHS (talk) 22:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

I've usually seen it as Xiao. Here are some quotes:
I haven't looked very hard, but I'm certain more citations of the capitalized form exist. It's a little tricky to filter out uses of the surname Xiao. I haven't seen any unambiguous non-italicized uses of the lowercase form. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
None of those could really be called "adjectival" uses either. DTLHS (talk) 01:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
No, I think I would call it a proper noun in English. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
But is it English? In the quotes above, it seems to be part of a discussion of the usage of Chinese . Note, for example 'Xiao, literally "little,"', which seems an awful lot like someone translating a Mandarin term into English. I'm not so sure that misspelling the pinyin by omitting the tone is enough to make it English. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
It's true that the quotes above all explicitly discuss the origin of the word. I'm certain uses exist that do not discuss the origin of the word, and just use it as part of a name without remarking on it, but it's difficult to distinguish those uses from uses of the surname Xiao. (The only way I can think of that I would be able to distinguish those kinds of uses from the surname would be to find a book that introduces a character as, for instance, "Wang Ting", and then has other characters refer to them informally as "Xiao Wang". I haven't been able to find uses like that. Alternatively if someone has a good knowledge of Chinese surnames and given names they might possibly be able to find a use of Xiao X where X is unambiguously a surname and not a given name, but my knowledge of Chinese names is not that good.) But as long as the word is used in running text without italics, I don't think a parenthetical explanation should disqualify the citation (compare the "jib" example at WT:CFI). —Granger (talk · contribs) 14:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

RFV-failed None of the quotes treats the word as English. Kiwima (talk) 22:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

What makes you say that? "the boy, Xiao Liu, and I would play Chinese chess" certainly looks like English to me. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
That is not the sense being questioned. Add it as a proper noun if you want. DTLHS (talk) 01:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
Okay, done. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:23, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

over-under-thru[edit]

A type of obstacle in obstacle-course racing. Equinox 15:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I found one hit in the book Obstacle Race Training by Margaret Schlachter, albeit under the spelling "over-under-throughs": https://books.google.com/books?id=xNDZAwAAQBAJ&pg=PT115&dq=%22over+under+throughs%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwigo9i6uILXAhXIzFQKHYTIAM0Q6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=%22over%20under%20throughs%22&f=false Khemehekis (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

vamplate[edit]

"To adjust a vamplate in a lance." I find no evidence even in a Google Web search for vamplating or vamplated as a verb. If this fails, may need to change the piccy caption ("a vamplated lance") unless we can add that bolded word as an adjective. Equinox 23:19, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Maybe if we try googling the infinitive: "to vamplate"? Khemehekis (talk) 20:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Simolean[edit]

Fictional currency in Sims games (also its alt form Simoleon; hey, can't Maxis spell their own game currency?). These are all the same game franchise, therefore I don't consider it analogous to e.g. zorkmid, which broke out of the Zork universe and can be found in NetHack. I think it needs to pass WT:FICTION or something... Equinox 23:40, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't know enough about the area to judge, but I certainly see it uncapitalized a lot:

  • 2002, Greg Kramer, The Sims Online: Prima's Official Strategy Guide, ISBN 0761540024:
    Advertise all your willingness to pay "top simolean" for used objects.
  • 2003, The Philosophers' Magazine - Issues 21-28, page 8:
    And they also raise questions about what makes something real. For example, the currency of Alphaville, the simolean, is actually exchangeable with the dollar, through the dealing site eBay.
  • 2007, Peter Ludlow & ‎Mark Wallace, The Second Life Herald: The Virtual Tabloid that Witnessed the Dawn of the Metaverse, ISBN 0262122944:
    That's only 0.00149 cents per simolean, or about $15 for a million simoleans. (The simolean has undergone a serious devaluation since Uri's days in Alphaville.)

Seeing as the uncapitalized version is slang for a dollar, what would a version of this outside the Sims universe look like anyway? Kiwima (talk) 03:31, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Does being uncapitalized grant weight to the genericity of a word under WT:FICTION? I know it helps establish that a trademark has become generic, but I don't see anything in WT:FICTION on this. Khemehekis (talk) 01:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!
There's also use of an uncapitalised version that refers to neither the in-game currency nor to a real one.
  • 2011, Mel Wayne, Octilogy: Eight Great Treasures, Balboa Press, pages 60 & 61.
    “Out~friggin~rageous!” Bolthorr shouted. “I demand two moolahs an’ four simoleans fer each o’ them fine gliders! Not a frugle less!”
  • 2011, Mel Wayne, Octilogy: Eight Great Treasures, Balboa Press, page 61.
    He mumbled, “Them tharrr green moolah coins be a hundred points apiece, an’ them tharrr black simolean coins be fifty points. That tharrr be 400 points. Arr, waaay too much.”
But it could just be a play on the slang for dollar. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I think you are finding spelling mistakes for simoleon. Equinox 20:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

October 2017[edit]

tharf[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)

Ku Te Do[edit]

A martial art. Equinox 13:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

One Google Books hit from "Hidy Ochiai's Complete Book of Self-defense" is at https://books.google.com/books?id=-DlaAAAAYAAJ&q=%22ku+te+do%22&dq=%22ku+te+do%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiH0f-SzYLXAhVlsVQKHReAAscQ6AEIMjAC -- although it spells it "Ku-Te-Do". Khemehekis (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

psalteryist[edit]

Form of psalterist, the musician. Equinox 20:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Google Books and Usenet turn up nothing. Khemehekis (talk) 21:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Duckburg[edit]

Fictional city of Donald Duck. I don't see how this can pass WT:FICTION. Note that you might find cites for the other sense, which I'm not challenging here. Please also refer to this important reference [1]. Equinox 23:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

(If the English entry fails it may be pertinent to RFV translations too. —suzukaze (tc) 03:44, 14 October 2017 (UTC))

I'm surprised, but it looks cited to me. Kiwima (talk) 20:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Cites are not independent of reference to the universe; still fails WT:FICTION. Equinox 21:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I would definitely not think so for the 1999, 2005, and 2013 quotes. The 2004 is questionably independent.... Kiwima (talk) 02:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

immediate family [edit]

Rfv-sense: A family unit consisting of all relatives living in a single household.

Previously tagged, not listed here. - Amgine/ t·e 04:28, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

kapok tree [edit]

Rfv-sense: Calotropis procera, a shrub with white and purple flowers, native to Asia and North Africa, but considered invasive in other places

Previously tagged, not listed here. - Amgine/ t·e 04:38, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Apparently, the fiber of Calotropis procera is sometimes called kapok fiber, though it is a substitute often considered inferior to "true" kapok fiber, from Ceiba pentandra. I also found mentions of king's crown kapok as a name used in Australia for the plant.
I have yet to find kapok tree used for Calotropis procera. DCDuring (talk) 03:39, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I found one mention (but it is clearly a mention rather than a use), but mostly I find cites that say Calotropis procera is "similar to" the kapok tree. Kiwima (talk) 01:55, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

foreskin[edit]

"to foreskin" means "to remove a foreskin" and "foreskinned" means "having a foreskin"... This doesn't make sense, so I am asking for verification of the verb, since the adjective is already properly sourced. Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 19:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

It can make sense, e.g. "hatted" = having/wearing a hat. -ed has many meanings. Equinox 20:04, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
"hatted" makes sense, since "to hat" means "to put on a hat", it does not mean "to remove a hat". Robin van der Vliet (talk) (contribs) 20:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
It makes me think of a similar problem with French plumer: I don't know why it means exactly the opposite of what it "should" mean. --Barytonesis (talk) 20:23, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
English bone. —suzukaze (tc) 03:43, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I added two cites for this meaning, and two for another, but can't find a third for either meaning. Kiwima (talk) 01:46, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 06:50, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

denotation[edit]

Rfv-sense:

I find it difficult to distinguish between these two definitions:

1. (logic, linguistics, semiotics) The primary, literal, or explicit meaning of a word, phrase, or symbol; that which a word denotes, as contrasted with its connotation; the aggregate or set of objects of which a word may be predicated.

5. (semiotics) The surface or literal meaning encoded to a signifier, and the definition most likely to appear in a dictionary.

A merger, perhaps? --Hekaheka (talk) 03:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

RFV-resolved - merged the two entries. Kiwima (talk) 19:38, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

You forgot to strike the header. --Hekaheka (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

friendly suit [edit]

"The situation where two subsidiaries of the same parent company accidentally sue each other, not realising that they have the same owner." The Wikipedia article does not mention this sense. Equinox 19:40, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 05:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

endly [edit]

Adjective: "extreme; excessive"; adverb: "extremely, very". Leasnamisms. Equinox 07:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

There's no such thing as a "Leasnamism"...I don't make these words. What is your problem ? Chill out. Leasnam (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
I know exactly what he's talking about. It seems like legitimate Wiktionary jargon. We shouldn't be discouraging linguistic creativity on our discussion pages, just on our mainspace pages. DCDuring (talk) 12:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Well, Thank you, I'm very flattered. Now I have made a name for myself, and have had a jargon term created to honour me--exactly what I've always wanted. Good deal ! I am happy now. And, btw, I hope you two are very happy together too... Leasnam (talk) 14:24, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

RFV-resolved - passed "final, terminal", failed on others. Kiwima (talk) 19:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

fulth[edit]

Leasnamisms? Any evidence that these words have been used? Equinox 07:52, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

fulth is a Scottish word. It's also Scots. It's also in Century. that's where it came from. Leasnam (talk) 18:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
We have Scots available as an L2 header, you know. As you also should know, Scots citations don't count for attestation of English definitions.
Century is not definitive about the legitimacy by our standard of the archaisms that they include. You do include a references header and link to Century in such entries, don't you? DCDuring (talk) 12:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
@DCDuring:, I do now. Back then, no one had a problem with it, so I didn't think to. How much of my current work is of the sort that causes fuss ? Do you really expect me to remember all the pages I have created and go back and check them ? That's crazzzzy, there are hundrrreds if not thoussssands of them Leasnam (talk) 14:23, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
If only there were some way of finding one's contributions during a given time period. DCDuring (talk) 15:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

RFV-resolved Removed one uncited entry (which was not very different from sense 1), kept the two cited entries. Kiwima (talk) 19:11, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

headly[edit]

Leasnamism. 1966 "We were discussing this very headly". This must be a typo for something, I am not yet sure what. It's not anything anybody would say, except some sort of Renaissance cosplayer. Equinox 07:57, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Equinox heatedly ? --2A02:2788:A4:F44:C869:9932:F61B:FE02 16:37, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
But it is something someone did say. You cannot make judgements on what people choose to say and write, whether it makes sense to you or not. Maybe it's just you. Leasnam (talk) 18:30, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
That's not to say that ppl don't make mistakes when they write...they do. But that's what book editors are for. If it passes by them, too late. It's out in the public and citable. Leasnam (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
@ Equinox, do you know where the adverb of this entry originated? Obviously you don't based on your statements above, so let me open a window into my mind at how my mind works (don't worry, it's pretty simple): when searching for attestations of a word, when I see one, I add it. In the past (2013-2014) I had only a mobile phone to work with, so it was very difficult to add citations, but I managed. Incidentally, I also accidentally rolled a lot of things back in error because of the tiny screen, but I digress. In this case I added one for the adjective only to see upon closer inspection that it wasn't an adjective, it was being used adverbially. Realising that adjectives and adverbs slip back and forth, one freely becoming the other and vice versa, I moved it from the adjective section and created an Adverb header. BAM. There you have it. I go on to the next thing that catches my attention. Sorry to keep disappointing you. Leasnam (talk) 18:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
Today, I would just throw the adverbial citation out and not add it, but back then it's what I did. Don't get yourself all in a huff. If you see something I did that isn't right, just fix it. I don't keep a record of your mistakes (and there have been a few--not many but, I'm not one to make a big stink over it. I'm not like that.) Leasnam (talk) 18:45, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
What you do seem to be like is one who makes contributions of what are at best archaisms with complete indifference to their attestability and to the quality of citations when challenged. Were there were not such a large number of such entries, all of your devise, no one would make a fuss. We're not like that. DCDuring (talk) 12:50, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
@DCDuring:, you disappoint me, you haven't done your homework well enough...fact is, I make all kinds of contributions, not just archaic English ones. And those were all in the distant past (2008-2011 range). Why do you keep getting upset when you KNOW you're going to keep finding them ???! I've warned you of this. News Flash: In the near future you're bound to come across something I made years ago that is sloppy. Just fix it. This is making me feel like you have some sort of personal vendetta against me :| . And you gripe and complain about minor things, like the "quality of citations"...sure they should be on point, but damn it's not the end of the world when one is bad. I do more good than bad. At least I don't stir up strife and stress and build camps and fortresses. I'm not like that Leasnam (talk) 14:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
I never said that Leasnamisms are your sole contribution, but they are the most annoyingly memorable. DCDuring (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
While we are on the topic of archaisms and attestations, I would like to say that it pains me so much... you know, the act of having to find an attestation for the word or a version of the word that I have heard in my travels through Scotland and Northern England in the company of a tent preacher just before I went to study navigation in Cardiff... and then you know, there are all those other words from my days as a fish trader in the Northern Sea... damn I have even heard Frisian, Elfdalian and a whole host of "other" Nordic languages. And then comes a considerable stretch of time that I spent navigating ships in the Baltic sea, ships whose crewmen were Lithuanians, Latvians, Russians, Belorussians, Ukrainians, Poles, Czechs and an entire array of other sundry types whose origin I was unable to determine. It just fucking sucks... Mountebank1 (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
@Mountebank1, I understand how you must feel, but those are the rules. The positive side to the equation is that attestations help to ward off unnecessary and fictitious garbage that some may like to put here. At least I feel my contributions are actual words, not made-up ones as some have created (e.g. misbrook) :\ Leasnam (talk) 14:28, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
To all: On a lighter note, I'd like to remind us all that policies have changed since I've been contributing at Wiktionary. For instance, we saw a change (don't recall exactly when...) where if a word was attested once in a well known work, it could be included. Not so today. Who went back and removed all the ones we added prior to that change ? (Not me...you're tripping over them now). When I started here, Wiktionary didn't distinguish between Middle English and Modern English. Middle English was simply regarded as obsolete English. I've been here for a looong time. I've seen ppl come and go. I adjust to the times. Just keep this in mind and be get-along-able (--that's a Leasnamism; it doesn't exist ;) Leasnam (talk) 14:49, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Here's a suggestion: why can't we just assign the task of checking all of Leasnam's suspect words to Leasnam ? That way, I can prove that my work has gotten better, and no one else has to burst a blood vessel at how shoddy it used to be ? I'm serious. If I made the mess, I will clean it up. It'll be good practice for me anyway Leasnam (talk) 14:56, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Great idea. That's what I hoped for. DCDuring (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Re @Mountebank1's frustration: remember we do keep archives of everything (RFV/RFD talk, and the actual deleted pages are accessible to admins) so uncited words don't just disappear entirely. Perhaps some day someone will go through them who has access to deeper sources. Equinox 22:42, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

subtely [edit]

Really? --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

This belongs at RFD. --2A02:2788:A4:F44:941B:CB97:8C8A:64F0 19:02, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Not necessarily. It could be an attestable alternative form.
GBS has enough results, that is for the word itself, though the meaning seems to fit. Comparing the number of results (according to Google which is often incorrect), "subtely" could however be relatively rare, nonstandard or a maybe typo. BTW: Chaucer (Lansdowne MS, edited by Frederick J. Furnivall -- Middle English) has "subtely" too. -84.161.7.50 19:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
A whopping 4,940 Usenet hits. Most appear to be misspellings of "subtly". Khemehekis (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
To clarify: It is my understanding that on Wiktionary, misspellings are to be kept if they are common (and of course, identified as misspellings). So this one shouldn't be deleted. Khemehekis (talk) 04:55, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Is it even a misspelling?
  • 1533, A playne and godly Exposytion or Declaration of the Commune Crede (Which in the Latin tonge is called Symbolum Apostolorum) [...] put forth by [...] Erasmus of Roterdame. At the requeste of [...] Thomas Erle of Wyltshyre [...] (p. "66,5"):
    Nexte cometh Arrius by soo muche the more wretched and madde in opynyon, by howe muche he dothe more subtely and craftily geue unto Christ the body of a man, and taketh from hym the sowle of a man, [...]
Just like nexte, muche, dothe, opynyon etc. subtely doesn't seem to be a misspelling. That is, even if it is a misspelling nowadays(!), it could correctly be "misspelling or obsolete". Additionally it could be and could have been rare.
Is it a misspelling nowadays(!)?
www.dictionary.com/misspelling?term=subtely&s=t for example doesn't have it, which could mean it's rare or considered to be incorrect.
What's "common" mean in Category:English misspellings?
I don't know. But maybe subtely is common enough.
-84.161.20.16 21:04, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Here are enough citations for attestion:
English adverb:

  1. {{lb|en|rare}} {{alternative form of|subtly|lang=en}} [which has further alt forms: subtlely, subtilly]
    • 1533, A playne and godly Exposytion or Declaration of the Commune Crede (Which in the Latin tonge is called Symbolum Apostolorum) And of the .x. Commaundementes of goddes law. Newly made and put forth by the famouse clarke Mayster Erasmus of Roterdame. At the requeste of the moste honorable lorde, Thomas Erle of Wyltshyre : father to the moste gratious and wertuous Quene Anne wyf to our most gracyous soueraygne lorde kynge Henry the .viii.
      Nexte cometh Arrius by soo muche the more wretched and madde in opynyon, by howe muche he dothe more subtely and craftily geue unto Christ the body of a man, and taketh from hym the sowle of a man, [...]
    • 1560, The newe Testament of our Lord Iesus Christ, Geneva (section: "The Actes of the holie Apostles written by Luke the Euangeliste", "chap. vii"):
      19 The same dealt subtely with our kinred, and euil intreated our fathers, & made them to cast out their yong children, that they shulde not remaine aliue.
    • 1793, Pleas of the Crown in Matters Criminal and Civil: Containing a Large Collection of Modern Precedents [...] The Whole collected By the Late Sir John Tremaine [..] Digisted and Revised By the Late Mr. John Rice [..] And Translated into English, by Thomas Vickers [..], Dublin (section: "The King against Nevill. Hilary, the 30th & 31st Charles II. 2. By Libels."):
      [...] was indicted for drivers high treasons, in falsely, maliciously, subtely and traiterously purposing, [...]

Middle English adverb:

  1. {{alternative form of|subtilly|lang=enm}}
    • 14th century, Geoffrey Chaucer, Frederick J. Furnivall (editor), The Lansdowne MS (No. 851) of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, page 530 (section: "The second nun's tale. Lansdowne MS. [The Poem.]"):
      [...] Þis ilke storie subtely to endyte [...]

-84.161.10.235 17:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

This should be undeleted and cited, and marked as either a misspelling or archaic (or both). Khemehekis (talk) 02:27, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

cited as obsolete. Kiwima (talk) 23:23, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

pedosaur [edit]

I am so tempted to delete it, but I guess I'll let you guys take a look first. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:54, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

0 GBS hits; protologism? -84.161.7.50 19:20, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Okay WTF? This should be speedied. —Aryaman (मुझसे बात करो) 21:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Used (on YouTube, not in durably archived media AFAICT) about Barney. DCDuring (talk) 23:09, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
Joke entry - speedied SemperBlotto (talk) 05:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Looks like a joke, but it checks out: 73 Usenet hits (almost all of which seem to refer to Barney). Khemehekis (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Then it could be attestable. Usenet is an accepted source, WT:CFI's part regarding fiction is about terms "originating in fictional universes", and pedosaur did not originate in Barney. -84.161.20.16 20:40, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 02:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

"Purple Pedosaur" might have been its own entry, similar to referring to the Beatles as the long-haired lads from Liverpool, but I think this entry is well-cited enough. Khemehekis (talk) 06:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Jalur Gemilang[edit]

Tagged but not listed. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 13:09, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Cited sense 1. DTLHS (talk) 19:18, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Wallacean[edit]

Newly added sense: "Of or relating to Gregg Wallace (born 1964), British television presenter and ingredients expert." Equinox 14:15, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

  • Can't find any hits for "Wallacean cooking", "Wallacean ingredient", "Wallacean recipe" etc. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:38, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
Found one hit googling for:
"gregg wallace" "wallacean"
Not sure if it's durably archived, though: http://www.research.ed.ac.uk/portal/files/23610836/Confraternity_thN_Lng_folk_2go_EBook.pdf Khemehekis (talk) 21:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

frivorce [edit]

DTLHS (talk) 05:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Nothing on Usenet. The noun now has three citations, though. Still need three for the verb. Khemehekis (talk) 06:08, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
Those citations don't span a whole year, and the second one is clearly a mention IMO so at least one more is needed for the noun too. BigDom 08:21, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
From CFI: On the other hand, a sentence like “They raised the jib (a small sail forward of the mainsail) in order to get the most out of the light wind,” appearing in an account of a sailboat race, would be fine. It happens to contain a definition, but the word is also used for its meaning. The second sentence clearly uses it for its meaning, despite defining it. You're right that the citations span less than a year, though, I missed that. Khemehekis (talk) 23:13, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

RFV-failed. Looks like a hotword that did not last. Kiwima (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

shunnably[edit]

Nothing even in a Google Web search. Equinox 22:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

dick tog[edit]

Not sure what sense of "tog" it would be, if it's real. DTLHS (talk) 05:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

From what I can see, it's "togs", which in this part of the world means swimwear. And from the sources I see, it only applies to swimwear. I have therefore updated the plural entry (and cited it), but I am leaving the singular entry to go through the usual RFV process in case someone can find support for it. However, if someone wanted to speedy-delete the singular, I would not object. Kiwima (talk) 10:37, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

One hit for the singular on Usenet. It borders on mention rather than use, though:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/%22dick$20tog%22/alt.gossip.celebrities/DAs0tGpkfSY/mh6IxzMxOpYJ
"'Dick togs?' I've heard of tick (hound) dogs, but never a dick tog!" Khemehekis (talk) 01:06, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
That's clearly a hypothetical use for the purpose of a pun, I would call it a mention. The actual uses in that thread are in the plural. Kiwima (talk) 05:12, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
The only use of the singular outside social media that I could find was here, but it is from an unpublished conference paper. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

November 2017[edit]

connectifex[edit]

Looks like a coinage of the entry creator, no attestation on google books. --Barytonesis (talk) 16:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Nothing on Google Scholar or Usenet either. Kiwima (talk) 19:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

forpamper[edit]

Is mentioned (not used) in Thomas Laurence Kington-Oliphant's The New English (1886) and nowhere else...? Equinox 20:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I found two cites, but one looks to be Middle English (It's included in an examination, and I can't see enough to tell, but I suspect it's from Chaucer's "Etas Prima" Kiwima (talk) 03:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the passage is from The Chronicles of England, France and Spain, by Jean Froissart (c. 1337 – c. 1405), ie, Middle English. DCDuring (talk) 12:57, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

abstract interface[edit]

OOP term. Defined as "an interface that has a one-to-many relation". My understanding is that all interfaces are inherently abstract because you cannot have any code (concrete methods, properties or whatever) in an interface - at least in any language I have met. Entry creator, Sae (who has a fairly bad track record here, IMO), is known to be a Java user. In Java, "every interface is implicitly abstract. This modifier is obsolete and should not be used in new programs" (JLS section 9). Equinox 02:01, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

This belongs in RFD, not RFV. It is easy enough to cite, as a common co-location, but it is totally SOP. Kiwima (talk) 03:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
I disagree because "an interface that has a one-to-many relation" isn't anything like what abstract interface should mean (though I can see that my comments above were not quite relevant to that). Equinox 04:08, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

eve[edit]

"To come before something, usually used for holidays, such as Christmas Eve." So presumably one would say "24 December eves Christmas", or "my birthday eves hers". Never heard of it. Anyone? Equinox 03:26, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

I did a Usenet search for "eved", and another one for "eving". I found no uses of this verb thusly, but apparently an eved is a kind of indentured servant in ancient Israel. This word is used in English without quotes or italicization, so it's a candidate for a Wiktionary entry. Khemehekis (talk) 01:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
The Hebrew original of that word is עֶבֶד if anyone wants to start the entry. As for the original question, I've certainly never heard eve used as a verb. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 08:15, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I am inclined to say that eved is NOT and English word. I can find it unitalicized in very few texts, and in those texts there are other Hebrew words that are also not italicized. On the other hand, the meaning of eved does not have a good English equivalent, as it is a very specific thing: an unpaid servant who is considered part of the household. Kiwima (talk) 06:20, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Asian eyes[edit]

Given as a synonym of epicanthic folds. There may be some relation to the eyes of Asians, but epicanthic folds are not actually eyes, and I wonder if this entry was created in confusion merely because "Asian eyes" on Wikipedia happens to redirect to that article. Equinox 05:02, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

to the face[edit]

"All to oneself". to the face at OneLook Dictionary Search. DCDuring (talk) 12:40, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

We don't have the (dated, obsolete, archaic?) sense "in front of; in behind; hence, in the presence of". DCDuring (talk) 12:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

-aaS[edit]

Is it used this way? --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

It seems so: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:10, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Alright, I admit that it looks to be legit. But is it really a suffix? --Robbie SWE (talk) 20:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
No. Prepositional phrase that happens to be abbreviated, like "...OTW" for "of the week". Equinox 17:58, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
If you look at the derived terms, it looks like a suffix. Kiwima (talk) 20:19, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I disagree. Equinox 16:28, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Then what do we want from RFV on this? It is clearly used, as attested by DaaS, PaaS, and SaaS. I'm not sure what this RFV is looking for. Kiwima (talk) 04:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

litty[edit]

Cites anyone? --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Not for the supplied meaning, but it is clearly used in other contexts. I have added the missing senses, and changed the RFV to RFV-sense. Kiwima (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

A Usenet search for "litty" and "party" brought up this hit, although I'm not sure what meaning "litty" is being used in here:
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!search/litty$20party/open-cas/p-gQd47D95c/2LDpzZny5n0J
"On 9.21, FSD, we will hold a litty party, the guests invited will talk about Free Software and the audiences can get to know stuff about Free Software and ask questions." Khemehekis (talk) 03:30, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
Typo/thinko for "little party" seems likely. Equinox 17:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

xennametre[edit]

Nothing for "xennameter" either. DTLHS (talk) 06:03, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

xennagram[edit]

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

grateful[edit]

Rfv-sense: Recognizing the importance of a source of pleasure.

Previously tagged, not listed here. - Amgine/ t·e 18:40, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

blustering [edit]

Rfv-sense: Adjective: Pompous or arrogant in one's speech or bearing.

Previously tagged, not listed here. - Amgine/ t·e 18:43, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Some of the cites for sense 1 could fit this sense instead, or as well. Possibly merge. Equinox 19:26, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 03:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 04:24, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

at ease [edit]

Rfv-sense: (military, marching) Allowed to refrain from being in rigid formation.

Previously tagged, not listed here. - Amgine/ t·e 18:45, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 03:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

mannish[edit]

Rfv-sense: (obsolete, of a woman) Fond of men.

Previously tagged, not listed here. - Amgine/ t·e 18:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

aline [edit]

Adverb: "in line". Has one citation, from the non-durable "Huffington Post" site. Equinox 20:49, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 10:22, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 10:43, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Rhodie bar[edit]

Ungoliant (falai) 11:15, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

  • I'd say move to RFD as SOP. Even gay bar was only kept because of COALMINE. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:12, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I have added one cite, but can't find a third. I have also added it to RFD. If it fails that, we can just delete this entry. Kiwima (talk) 02:53, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

reg[edit]

Rfv-sense: "king". Added by an anon. Leasnam (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Looked odd to me too. Is it an abbreviation for regis/regent, like "ER" for "Elizabeth Regina"? Equinox 15:12, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

molybdosis[edit]

Rfv-sense: lead poisoning. DTLHS (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Came from Chambers 1908, which did discuss molybdenum as an element. Equinox 23:43, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Apparently molybdenum was once confused with galena, although it seems to have been known as a distinct element from the 18th century. DTLHS (talk) 23:50, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
Found an attestation, if Google Books is to be trusted [8]. Globins (talk) 01:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
That's a mention, not a use. I can find plenty of mentions. Just no usages. Kiwima (talk) 05:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

ahegao[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 05:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Added one citation from Usenet. There's also a second hit, one which may or may not be Usenet, and only appears to be used as someone's surname. Khemehekis (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

wheelbench[edit]

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)

spamdalism[edit]

Equinox 16:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Floribama[edit]

What about Calivada, Alabessee and let's not forget Vermachusetts? (N.B. I'm being extremely ironic here, unless Floribama is indeed a real term — which I doubt — please delete this abomination) --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

No, it's real (see this, this and this, to start with). I don't think "border area" is quite right, since that makes it seem smaller than it is. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Five quotations added. I suspect the reason this term exists, unlike Alabessee and Vermachusetts, is that the Florida panhandle is notably culturally distinct from southern Florida—a lot of people see it as belonging more with Alabama than with, say, Miami. I think the word Pennsatucky also exists, even though the states don't even border, but it's hard finding quotes because of interference from the Orange is the New Black character. —Granger (talk · contribs) 19:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm at a loss for words! I just have a hard time understanding why such a word exists – I trust you guys and of course the quotes. It's still ridiculous though IMO. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the definition needs work. It's the part of Florida that is culturally more like Alabama than like south and central Florida – it's even in the same time zone as Alabama, not the rest of Florida. Having grown up in Texas I can certainly understand: the area around El Paso is culturally (and also time-zonally!) more like New Mexico than it is like the rest of Texas. However, I don't remember there being a special name for that area besides simply "El Paso". —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
@Robbie SWE What Angr said about cultural affinity, also applies to dialect. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Clearly, this is cited. I made a stab at improving the definition. Kiwima (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

There's even a show on MTV the "Floribama Shore" about life in PBC108.75.79.57 03:13, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Reichism[edit]

See WT:Tea room/2017/November#Reichism. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 20:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

@Kiwima, all of your cites were for a different sense, so this is still entirely uncited. You need to be more careful. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:59, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
This seems vaguely related to the listed sense.
  • 1992, Frank Füredi, Mythical past, elusive future: History and society in an anxious age, page 144.
    Murray's solution was to devise a different word when the German variety was under discussion: "If it were not such a horrible hybrid Reichism would do, as it would finally link the worst 'spirit of Empire' with the worst transgressor."
So probably something like "German imperialism or expansionism" would do, but it still lacks one cite. And one hit can be found that refers to Robert Reich. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:48, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Possibly. That quote is only a mention, however. Kiwima (talk) 03:02, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

benews[edit]

No GBooks, GGroups hits for "benews me" (as given in the usage example). Mostly scannos for "be news (to someone)". Equinox 13:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I found and added two citations. Also added another (archaic) sense. Kiwima (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

lettish horn[edit]

A musical instrument. Caught my attention because I wondered if it should be big-L Lettish; but in fact the term is very hard to find outside of Wikipedia's much-copied article. Equinox 18:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

At least two of those three citations are mentions. —Granger (talk · contribs) 21:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
They are quoting Wikipedia! Equinox 22:01, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
It looks like it at first glance, but if you look more closely, you will see that they are not. The list of synonyms differ in both spelling and content. The rest of the sentence is slightly different, too. Kiwima (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2017 (UTC)
Maybe one book was quoting the other? Khemehekis (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
They may have simply quoted different versions of the Wikipedia article. [9] [10] The difference in spelling is down to one character, perhaps one that wasn't supported by one writer's operating system because the WP article contained this spelling since the word was added in 2007, and otherwise the nearly identical order of the list would indicate some kind literary dependence. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
Even if they are -- we don't use Wikipedia because it is not durably archived. If durably archived, a text should count, even if they took their material originally from Wikipedia. However, I can see where that would only count as one "author" rather than two. Kiwima (talk) 19:47, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Also, Kiwima, it would be helpful if you could provide links to the sources of quotes if they're accessible online—that makes it much easier for other editors to verify them. —Granger (talk · contribs) 22:05, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

aquavit: sense "East European precursor of vodka"[edit]

Rfv-sense: "A Polish, Ukrainian, or Russian drink that is a precursor or variant of vodka. Also called okovita". I don't deny the existence of that particular beverage ("okowita" in Polish, "оковита" in Ukrainian), but I don't think it's ever called "aquavit" in English . --Hekaheka (talk) 21:11, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

It's in widespread use: [11] [12] Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
The term "aquavit" is in widespread use, but as far as I can see, your links use the word in the undisputed sense "Scandinavian liquor that is about 40% alcohol by volume". --Hekaheka (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
My bad, that's indeed a very rare sense. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

forever alone[edit]

A bunch of cites that don't pass WT:ATTEST in the entry. From our usual rules-disregarding incel-obsessed editor, it seems. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:47, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

I suspect this editor is PaM. Anyway they keep adding bloggy Web cites despite being told. Equinox 22:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Their IP information is consistent, but not conclusive. The behavioral evidence is pretty strong, though, and I did find out that they've been using three accounts on one of their IPs, so I blocked all three for abusing multiple accounts. I'm sure they'll be back with new IPs and new accounts, though. Chuck Entz (talk) 04:27, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Use as a noun can be cited, though "an incel" may not be a good definition. [13] [14] [15] Also as an alt text here. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
BTW, Talk:Forever Alone was deleted (but that's something different, a specific Internet meme character). Equinox 20:41, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

LOL[edit]

"Lots of love". Some discussion at Talk:LOL. Equinox 00:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Right Man[edit]

Has one citation. Needs two more for this capitalized sense. SemperBlotto (talk) 11:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

There are two citations in this excerpt; from Colin Wilson & Andrew M. Lobaczewski. This term is derived from the Science Fiction novel "The Violent Man" by A. E. van Vogt. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._E._van_Vogt#/Post-war_life_and_work. It also has various derivative web pages related to this term. https://www.google.com/search?ei=XNgJWsWyOsf8mQHA24WoBg&q=Colin+Wilson+%2B+right+man. I'd be happy to add another citation if this entry still qualifies. Btakita (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

cited. Most of the cites out there are by Colin Wilson, or Colin Wilson with a co-author. I did manage to find some other authors, however. While searching, I also found more authors that use the same sense, but without the capitalization. Kiwima (talk) 04:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Re: "Most of the cites out there are by Colin Wilson", that makes sense since this is a term invented by Colin Wilson. The reason why I think it's credible is that academics & practictioners in Psychology are compelled to publish this terminology. Btakita (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to be a pedant (I can't help myself), but it was invented by A.E. Van Voigt. It was merely pushed heavily by Colin Wilson. Kiwima (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

yoink[edit]

"(sarcastic, facetious) To act or do something specific; It is used emphatically." Equinox 12:35, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

What is that definition supposed to mean? I added three cites that might support it, but I am not sure, but they don't seem to support the other meanings.... Kiwima (talk) 04:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, perhaps this was an attempt at the interjection sense under etymology 1, mistakenly listed as a verb.... Kiwima (talk) 08:56, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Bobert[edit]

No evidence that this name exists outside of wikipedia:The Amazing World of Gumball universe; in particular, wikipedia:Bobert redirects to a character with this name. 2600:387:A:19:0:0:0:84 22:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

cited. Kiwima (talk) 07:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

white wedding[edit]

Rfv-sense of "wedding with virgin bride" and "wedding with ceremony in church", tagged but not listed

I think both senses are now cited, but maybe it is a good idea to merge these two senses as they are quite intertwined. I have also expanded the 3rd sense a little. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

  • I've combined all three senses into one, leaving all the citations in place. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

referendum[edit]

Rfv-sense: "(diplomacy) A note from a diplomat to their government requesting instructions " -- Other dictionaries do not seem to recognize this sense, and I was unable to find a quote that would support it. We have the term "ad referendum", in which the referendum might be understood as some sort of authorization. --Hekaheka (talk) 14:16, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

unhusked[edit]

unhusked = with husk on? —This unsigned comment was added by Carl Francis (talkcontribs) at 15:05, 14 November 2017.

cited Kiwima (talk) 21:20, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I think "having the husk on" is the only cited meaning. The three cites for sense 1 all seem to mean "having the husk on", not "without a husk". The 1923 quote certainly does; it's contrasting polished rice (where the husk has been removed) with unhusked rice (where the husk has not been removed). The 1976 and 2006 quotes are less clear, but I suspect both of them are using sense 2 as well. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:54, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I thought that one was questionable. The other two, however, are talking about varieties that can be planted, some of which have husks and some of which do not. Kiwima (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
I have further cited the "without a husk" definition with some quotes that are clearer. Kiwima (talk) 22:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

intoxicatedlike[edit]

Unhyphenated form. Please check for scannos by viewing the printed page of any possible results found. Equinox 20:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

It is indeed quite rare, and most are, as you suspect scannos of "intoxicated-like", but there are three cites. It is cited Kiwima (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

overposter[edit]

Someone who posts too much on the Internet. I've found and added one hyphenated "over-poster" from a book. Not seeing much else. Equinox 19:45, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

There are lots of examples on the newsgroups. I have added some quotes. This is cited Kiwima (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

eyepoint[edit]

I think the newly added sense is just the same as the first one, isn't it? An "own viewpoint" in VR systems. Equinox 21:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Not at all, in this added sense it is the vehicle rather than merely the perspective. Meaning it includes the objective circumstance... And here is the reference you requested: http://dictionary.sensagent.com/ownship/en-en/

Awesome work on transflection!

aporophobia[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 02:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The second sense is cited. Kiwima (talk) 03:57, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Seems like it was coined by "Cortina, 1997" (maybe Cortina, Adela: Ciudadanos del mundo : hacia una teoría de la ciudadanía (1997)). DTLHS (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

aneolithic[edit]

Aeneolithic, Eneolithic and lower-case forms exist (and even aëneolithic, apparently, at one time), but this looks incorrect, not to mention having a dubious etymology. The only entry for this word in onelook.com is this one. — Paul G (talk) 07:10, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

cited. Aneolithic is more common, but there are plenty of papers out there that use the lower case. Kiwima (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

science oven[edit]

cited. I can't find any evidence that dates to the 70's and 80's when this was supposedly current slang (and certainly I don't recall it ever being called that), but there are plenty of quotes out there that use the term since the movie came out (especially in Lifehacker), and which are not explicitly referring to the film. Kiwima (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

  • Wait, electromagnets are capable of scientific reasoning? And here I thought humans were the only sapient beings on Earth. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2017 (UTC)