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
add new English request | add new non-English request | history | archives

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

{{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.

Scope of this request page:

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



See also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oldest tagged RFVs


August 2016[edit]


Equinox 16:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Only 2 attesting quotations; 1 in news and 1 in books, 0 in groups. Damn, just need one more but it's not there. Anybody find anything else? Philmonte101 (talk) 22:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

October 2016[edit]


Noun: Rfv-sense of "luck". --Jerome Potts (talk) 07:00, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Verb: Rfv-sense: "To discharge a long, thin stream of liquid, (including saliva) through the teeth or from under the tongue, sometimes by pressing the tongue against the salivary glands."

  • The man said he “gleeked” on the woman, but did not intentionally spit on her.

Not in Century 1911. OED? UD? DCDuring TALK 12:39, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

All I could find was [this], and I am not even sure it is acceptable as durably archived. Kiwima (talk) 18:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
At least it suggests that the definition is not a hoax. DCDuring TALK 20:47, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia-logo-v2.svg Spitting#Gleeking on Wikipedia.Wikipedia and this 2004 blog post. DCDuring TALK 20:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

November 2016[edit]


Noun sense:

  1. (informal) A yes; an affirmative answer.

All citations given are mentions, not uses. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 08:56, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

AFAIC, if it can be pluralised by adding the morpheme -s, it's a noun. Interjections can't be. Compare "notwithstandings". But I know many others disagree and I remember another such case being deleted — but can't recall what the word was. Equinox 19:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
What about the fact that you can say: "there are 5 thes in that sentence"? You can pluralize mentions, but I don't think we want them as separate entries/senses. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 02:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah that's why others disagree. Yups and nopes feel more keep-worthy to me, for some reason, probably because they represent an act, like a nod or a growl. ("He gave me a firm nope.") Not sure if this argument is sound, since perhaps you could compare that to "she wrote an italic the". Equinox 14:27, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Some comparable entries: nopes, notwithstandings, hallelujahs (and spelling variants), ahoys. Equinox 19:04, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
...And the redoubtable "etaoin shrdlus". Equinox 10:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Can anyone find the RFD discussion(s) we had about one or more of these noun-sections-based-on-the-pluralizability-of-a-word-meaning-"an instance of word"? - -sche (discuss) 08:56, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "(intransitive) To come and go in and out of consciousness." I have no particular reason to doubt this, but it would be nice to verify. After all, a sentence like "After the accident, he passed in the back of the ambulance" just sounds odd.

I have no idea what to search for to check this... This, that and the other (talk) 11:01, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I wonder whether someone mistook frequentative use of the present participle of pass for this definition. DCDuring TALK 14:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
BTW: What's with the label "heading" that occurs a few times in pass#Verb definitions? DCDuring TALK 14:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The entry pipe is entirely built of these weird "heading" labels! Equinox 18:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
This diff by User:ReidAA in December 2014 is one that introduced "heading" as second argument of {{lb}}. There seem to be some 60 entries with this. I wonder whether something in {{lb}} has changed. DCDuring TALK 18:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
No, I think it's just intended to mark a definition as a heading of several subdefinitions. DTLHS (talk) 19:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I've never liked it. It doesn't belong in {{lb}}, IMO. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Kiwima Really? Two of those cites are clearly for pass out, not "pass". And the first use of "pass" in the Buddhist one is def 2.1 ("To change from one state to another"). I'm prepared to believe you about the second use, because I can't work out what "passing out of the mere consciousness of the infinity of space" means, but that still leaves two required citations. This, that and the other (talk) 11:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
I believe that is what the creator of the definition intended, and if you accept this definition, then pass out is just a special case of this meaning. I added a couple more quotes. It is clearly a change in state or status, which is why I moved the definition to under that heading. I am comfortable with considering it a case of 2.1, although the example for that definition made me think that that sense was including a connotation of progression, which this does not have. Kiwima (talk) 19:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
Certainly the first cite - "mental states, into and out of which we are perpetually passing" - is a clear case of 2.1; and "special consciousnesses have passed over into the one ... background-consciousness" does not suggest moving into and out of consciousness to me - instead it seems to be talking about different levels of consciousness (awareness). So I would still want to see this definition removed in favour of 2.1 and pass out. This, that and the other (talk) 02:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


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)

January 2017[edit]


To snatch at with the teeth. Google Books appears to have only scannos for gnash and grasp. Equinox 06:00, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Search on "gnasp" and "Palsgrave". It's an old dialectal slang word. Apparently it also means "vex" Leasnam (talk) 06:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
Also, an earlier form is spelt gnaspe Leasnam (talk) 06:25, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I knew the word before, so I'm surprised to find that it's so rare. I'm just not sure where I would have read it... Reminds me of immeasurate, which wasn't in any online dictionaries until I added it to Wiktionary, though I was positive it existed and had used it before. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 06:13, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

February 2017[edit]


Any takers? Needs formatting and putting in some categories if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

It's not Old English; nor Middle English Leasnam (talk) 20:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
It's a dialect word, and an alternative form of clomax. Leasnam (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I've created clomax and labelled glomax as an alt form. I found only one cite for clomax, and it isn't all that great. None for glomax, although there are many for the trademark name GloMax. The fate of these two are now in the hands of due process. Leasnam (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm wondering if that "clomax" cite is a misprint for "climax". SemperBlotto (talk) 10:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Possibly. It was an obvious misprint in several others I found, but this one kinda sorta made some sense (?)... Leasnam (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
@SemperBlotto, yeah I think you're right. I've removed the cite. The word is now citeless Leasnam (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)


Really? Protologism? SemperBlotto (talk) 14:01, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

I added some citations in English and Spanish. DaddyCell (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Of the four citations currently in the English section of the citations page, two (Irving and Rivera) do not seem to be durably archived and one (Suárez) seems to be in Spanish. I'm not sure whether Suárez and Crespo are durably archived. So I don't think we have enough quotations to keep any of the senses yet. —Granger (talk · contribs) 09:55, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
We need three citations that support unambiguously each definition (possibly rewritten) that we keep. DCDuring (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

March 2017[edit]

same old same-old[edit]

Really? with only one hyphen? I actually found two quotations that do this, but I have to think it is simply a copyediting error. Kiwima (talk) 01:50, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

  • Delete as a rare misspelling. — SMUconlaw (talk) 12:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • It could be read as ADJ(same) ADJ(old) Noun(same-old), which seems SoP to me. DCDuring TALK 14:53, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
    I also reminds me of the w:Firesign Theater:
    "Where am I?" "You can't get there from here." "But I'm looking for the same old place." "Oh, you must mean the old Same place.
    Their radio scripts had lots of word play that might make for amusing citations. DCDuring TALK 15:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete. Just because one or two people once made an illogical hyphenation of something doesn't mean that we are obliged to list it. Mihia (talk) 02:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC) I have struck my comment because, looking more closely, I now don't think that the hyphenation is illogical. Mihia (talk) 18:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
Let me remind people that this is RFV and voting here is rare. We come to RFV to search for evidence in the form of attesting quotations meeting WT:ATTEST. --Dan Polansky (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

banana principle[edit]

I see a few "banana principles" on BGC, but none of them are the one in the def (I don't know whether any are citeable). —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:31, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Kiwima has added some cites. For the first sense, the 1995 cite is good, but the 2000 cite is using the term green banana principle, the 2015 cite is for the hyphenated term, and the 2016 cite is mention-y. The second sense has two good cites, but still needs one more. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 22:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


"Deceitful software pretending to be anti-spyware, but in fact being malicious software itself." Note this is entered as a noun. Equinox 20:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Most of what I find refers to this type of software as "rogue software" or "rogue anti-spyware" or "rogue spyware". Kiwima (talk) 21:44, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
I had a quick look and turned up:
* chance that at least half of you reading this will be attacked by a rogue this year.
* But, whenever you buy computer antivirus in USA, be careful while downloading it as there are several rogues or fake programs out there.
* It merely scanned and detected the infections (several rogues etc.), what I ...
* ... run against a rogue pack that I have which installs several rogues at ...
seems okay. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2017 (UTC)
That is, okay as a noun. The def seems to be over-specified, in that I am not sure it absolutely has to be pretending to be anti-spyware. Also, we need an adjective def for this. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 14:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


Attested in English with the dotless i, or even with dotted i? Should perhaps be coverted to a Turkish(?) entry. - -sche (discuss) 04:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

With the dotted i, I can find two citations:
  • 2007, Ghillie Basan, Middle Eastern Kitchen, ISBN 0781811902, page 136:
    Walnuts are used in a variety of syrupy desserts and pastries, such as kalburabasti, a Turkish dish of walnut spongecake soaked in syrup, and the much- loved baklava.
  • 2014, Banu Atabay, Mutevazi Lezzetler English, page 575:
(the second has a recipe for how to make it). Kiwima (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


Even if attested, this is surely not an "alternative spelling" of kalburabastı! - -sche (discuss) 04:55, 18 March 2017 (UTC)


After checking Google Books and Groups and Issuu, I can only find one work which uses this word, which I've added to the entry. It seems like a candidate for Appendix:English dictionary-only terms. - -sche (discuss) 21:33, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

I have found and added one more quotation, leaving only one more to go. Kiwima (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


The only citations I see are some editions of Chaucer (Middle English? or are there modernized printings that use this spelling?), and Mirror for Magistrates, which does appear to be modern English, at least: A Glossary of Tudor and Stuart Words mentions its use of this word and says it was "probably an intended improvement of ME wlatsom, in an imitation of Chaucer". - -sche (discuss) 00:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


Seems to be Middle English only. - -sche (discuss) 00:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


Which senses are citeable as post-1500 modern English? Note to closer: the entry should be transferred to Middle English regardless of the outcome of this RFV. The question is what, if anything, should be in an English L2. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 02:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I added some that are translations from Middle English (Chaucer) into Modern English, which keep benim Leasnam (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Is it necessary to have 3 senses with overlapping meanings ? Can we not simply lump them all together (with their citations) under one sense meaning "to take away (from); deprive; rob" ? Leasnam (talk) 22:56, 30 March 2017 (UTC)


[Relocated from RFD.] This seems to just be an analogic usage and not a real word. —JohnC5 01:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

How do you feel about Citizen Kane and John Travolta? Siuenti (talk) 12:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Send to RFV; see what comes up. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 14:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
"All words in all languages". What's to verify? "Citizen Cane" and "John Travolta" are not words. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:01, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
But, of course, the definition is wrong. It is a proper noun identifying a single person. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:04, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
The entry isn't one big typo. It's clearly claiming that you can be "an Eminem", like an Einstein or a Sherlock Holmes. Equinox 19:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Does anyone have any citations to prove that it is further lexicalized beyond the analogic usage? —JohnC5 21:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Now PapiDimmi has now added Eminems. I'd like to see a fair bit more proof, or I say both of these entries should be deleted. —JohnC5 01:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Plural use on Forbes, the Evening Standard, MTV, the Worcester Telegram and Billboard seems all analogical to me as well. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:55, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

red piller[edit]

(manosphere) One who believes that society is gynocentric.

Nothing really clear in Books or Groups. Given that the red pill metaphor can be applied to any belief claimed to represent a reality suppressed by society, I'm not sure this should be so specifically defined, if it exists. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:29, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

@Chuck Entz: Sadly, it's real. This user is adding all the terms associated with that subculture, who are a very scummy set that luckily almost never take to the media that would qualify under CFI. I don't really want to look any harder at this stuff, but it's probably worth your time to check their other creations and bring them here. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah. I can cite fuckstrated and fuckstration, though neither gets more than a page of hits; perhaps they should be labelled rare and neologisms. Wikisaurus:incel needs to be moved to a better title if kept (when there are only a few entries, we tend to just like synonyms in the mainspace entries, don't we?). For one thing, I think we tend to prefer more common phrases as titles to rare words, even when the phrases are soppy (they are not mainspace entries, after all), cf. Wikisaurus:sports shoe, Wikisaurus:sports fan. For another, I think "incel" is used mainly by people with the POV that Meta alludes to. "Blue-baller" is probably citeable although the definition will need tweaking, pun possibly intended. "Thirsties" and "AWALT" should probably be RFVed. - -sche (discuss) 17:13, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Cf. Talk:red pill. In books, I find "piller" mainly as a typo or scanno of "pillar", with "red piller" hence a red pillar; I don't find a Matrixy sense. (Checking "piller of" vs "pillar of" in an effort to only find that typo, I see it's about 1/600th as common as "pillar".) I see only two uses of "red piller" on Usenet, one of which seems to be a (greengrocer's pluralization of) a general sense, "Red piller's of course, those who don't. Most of us are caught somewhere in between full commitment toward 'reality', [and...]", and one that I can't make heads of tails of: "What I don't understand is the reference to Queen Elizabeth. Is it a veiled reference to red piller male boxes?" - -sche (discuss) 16:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
Definitely legit; see etymology at red pill (and I've more often seen these people self-described as redpills); the opposite (someone whose eyes have not been opened to THE TERRIBLENESS OF WOMEN!!!) is a blue pill, and I think there are also purple and black pills, but am not certain what those are. Needs to be marked as Internet slang at least. Cloudcuckoolander was good at citing this kind of stuff (from the obscurer durable sources like "Issuu" magazines). Equinox 19:40, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
BTW, one of User:Pass a Method's obsessions (other than Islam and US identity) was "incel", and I wonder whether he's back yet again. Equinox 19:42, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
I've slapped a couple of quotes from online media on it, but:
  1. I haven't verified that these have all appeared in print;
  2. the upper-case spelling "Red Piller" is more common in those quotes, which may be a reference to the subreddit instead.
Feel free to ping me if other quotes are needed. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

philtrum moustache[edit]

(rare) non-philtrum moustache

Wikipedia lists this as a synonym for this type of facial hair, but it's suspiciously lacking elsewhere. The phrase "a p~ m~" gets only four Google hits; there's nothing in Books. Equinox 02:09, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Even if we can find enough citations, I would oppose this as SOP. Kiwima (talk) 02:58, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Surely all moustaches are philtrum moustaches, so it isn't a 'type of'. — Saltmarsh. 05:27, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Not quite all. Maybe 99%, judging from an image search Siuenti (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
Does everyone agree that the philtrum is the bit in the middle? Siuenti (talk) 23:19, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I have a little philtrum. Wherein my spilltrum flows. When I am feeling illtrum. And runny at the nose. (Willard Espy, I believe) Kiwima (talk) 00:03, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
Eew? - Amgine/ t·e 21:03, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
This is a philtrum mustache.
A philtrum mustache is not any mustache that happens to cover the philtrum; it's a moustache only over the philtrum or only slightly wider than the philtrum, also known as a toothbrush mustache, a Hitler mustache, a Charlie Chaplin mustache, or an Oliver Hardy mustache. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 21:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I can find sources that mention this as an alternate name for such a moustache, but none that actually use it. Can anyone else find a use? Kiwima (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


Ety #2: resembling a flounder (fish). Equinox 22:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

The cite Kiwima just added is already in the entry, under the other (floundering, struggling) sense, so need to establish which sense it really means. Equinox 23:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

April 2017[edit]

fœcundity (fecundity), fœtus & foetus (fetus)[edit]

RFV for the "hypercorrect".
"hypercorrect" (cp. hypercorrect, Appendix:Glossary#H) seems to be wrong, because it's most likely not like some English-speaking people hypercorrectly and thus incorrectly changed e to œ or oe, but that œ or oe already appeared in Medieval or New Latin which lead to non-hypercorrect English spellings with œ or oe. While the spelling in Latin could sometimes be hypercorrect, it could also sometimes be simply erroneous, or sometimes simply be a medieval spelling.

  • {{R:L&S|fētus (foet-), ūs|fetus2}} has "fētus (foet-)" implying that foetus was or maybe is considered to be a rarer alternative classical Latin spelling.
  • {{R:du Cange|foecunditas}} has "fœcunditas" which could be Medieval Latin, and in New Latin texts one can find "foecunditas".

Maybe the etymology should be extended or corrected like English fœcundity from Medieval/New(?) Latin fœcunditas/foecunditas, from Latin fecunditas, but that's not a matter of RFV but should rather be a matter of RFC or RFE. - 22:35, 1 April 2017 (UTC)


Unclear if any sense is citeable per WT:ATTEST. At least one usable citation comes up on Google Books, but in lower case. I see some results in Google Groups, but they support neither of the given senses, instead referring to Donald Trump. I did not check Issuu. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

From commentary I see, using the term to refer to Donald Trump would suport either of the given senses. Kiwima (talk) 00:15, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
What I mean is that it is referring to him as a proper noun, not as "a Twitler". —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 08:05, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

RFV-failed. Converted to a proper name. Kiwima (talk) 21:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)


I find only mentions in CFI-compliant sources. Equinox 23:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)


"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)


The second (undefined) meaning - Is this clearly distinct from the first? If so, can we find more quotes that make the distinction clear? Kiwima (talk) 22:30, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Blotto has now defined it as "that can be pleasured", but I don't think that's likely to be right. (Sounds a bit risqué for the 1723 citation!) See also the curious Ben Jonson use of this word at Talk:pleasurable. What are we missing? Equinox 18:21, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
What do you find curious about these citations that they don't fit with the first sense? DTLHS (talk) 04:01, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
People aren't described as pleasurable in modern English. Even foods aren't. Only, I think, experiences and feelings. Equinox 11:07, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
I beg to differ. I have added a quote about pleasurable food to the first entry. Kiwima (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


Does it fulfil our criteria for inclusion? I'm not all that convinced. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2017 (UTC)


beachside, the adjective only. attributive ? Leasnam (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

found only one hit for "very beachside" btw Leasnam (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I have added that one hit, plus two other quotes that look like adjectival use to me ("If you'd rather be beachside..." and "the priciest are beachside). Kiwima (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
Same applies to many other entries, e.g. beachfront, woodland, country. Do other dictionaries treat these as adjectives? Equinox 18:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
dictionary.com has country, woodland, beachfront and beachside as adjectives (examples there: "a winding country road", "country manners"; "a woodland nymph"; "beachfront property"; "a beachside hotel"). - 01:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
"If you'd rather be beachside..." --this almost feels like an adverb to me. Is it ? Leasnam (talk) 17:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
It's normally attributive use of the noun rather than an adjective, so I suggest scrapping the adjective entry. DonnanZ (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
At best I've added a rare label to it Leasnam (talk) 21:06, 13 April 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense ばかFumikotalk 03:40, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


Nothing in Google Books, Groups or Scholar, but some usage in non-durably-archived sources, so I didn't speedy it. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


As above, but a Latin term and something software-related make it harder to search. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:34, 17 April 2017 (UTC)


Entered as a surname, but I think it may be only a stage name, see Vicious. DonnanZ (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


Tons of citations for hot gun as a tool, and even a couple of Google books hits for the fictional character Hotgun, but not much else for the senses provided by the anon. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:57, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I have put what I could find on the citations page. Without a space, there are at least two types of tool, one of which gets plenty of citations and the other of which fails with only one. There also seems to be some type of weapon, contrasted with a "cold gun". But nothing to support the supplied definitions. Kiwima (talk) 21:49, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
It might be a synonym for hot glue gun (isn't our definition amazing?); but perhaps only with a space. Equinox 23:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)


I don't dispute that this term exists in English as a specialised borrowing from Arabic, but I do dispute that our current definition, tied to philosophy and supported by a single mention in the entry, is actually accurate. I am hoping that someone can figure out what the cites really support and fix the definition accordingly. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 01:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense (US, derogatory) A young undocumented immigrant. I know this will be hard as hell to search for, but it just seems suspect. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 04:50, 19 April 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "(mathematics, physics) A variable kept constant during an experiment, calculation or similar.". If I wanted to test the effect of temperature on conductivity, I would change the temperature between miniexperiments to receive more useful data. I added a definition below that I feel better encapsulates my understanding of the word, but I'm not confident.__Gamren (talk) 10:32, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this definition works in math. For example, the parameters in a parametric equation of line (e.g. , where are parameters) are kept constant if you are solving for a particular point on the line. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 16:49, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
While that's true, it hardly seems the defining aspect of the parameters. It is closer to definition given for computer programmes - perhaps a better definiton would be a variable in an equation which defines a family of equations that, when assigned, results in a particular member or subset of that family. Kiwima (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2017 (UTC)


Entry looks very promotional. I don't think this is a normal English word, maybe just a brand name, and perhaps not even attestable as that! Equinox 02:55, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

From what I can find, it is primarily a brand name, and usually appears capitalized. I did find and add two genericized uses, but we still need a third. I also added another, more easily attested meaning. Kiwima (talk) 07:01, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

lank sleeve[edit]

Weird: I dunno if this is sum of parts, or what, but it's one of those oddities from Francis Grose's 1700s Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue. Equinox 02:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I found it in lots of old dictionaries, but I found only one actual use, plus two mentions by the same person (Simon Dickie) - I added an "obsolete" to the entry, because from what I can tell, it went out of use in the 1800s. Kiwima (talk) 07:13, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
The 2000 and 2011 cites are actually referring to a one-armed person, rather than to their empty sleeve. Equinox 22:46, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


Alt of Muhammad. I find scannos. Equinox 05:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

About half of the Google Books hits are scannos, but I've placed some that use e at Citations:Muhemmad. - -sche (discuss) 03:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 15:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Is this related to the etymology of Xmas? DTLHS (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
No. That's a Greek letter, this is a Roman numeral. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Most of the cites I can find are quoting from from The Parish Register of Christ Church, Middlesex County, Va., from 1653 to 1812, and date to the 1600s. I did find one independent source (a letter from Southampton House in 1662). Do we count entries from different years in the same Parish register as independent? I am inclined to believe they are not, which means we still need one more citation. Kiwima (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Also spelled out unabbreviated as Xember. See here and here. Also this book has the quote: ANNE WILLIAMS 10 Dec. 1747 (?) JOHN & "SUSANNA ... 1683 Buried 23 Xemb. 1633. WilliamKF (talk) 17:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
Should Xember be added to be RFVed?
BTW: In German Xber (with X for Decem = 10) is attestable, and in English xber is attestable and Xber could be too. There could also be names like VIIber (September), VIIIber (October) and IXber (November), but with small numbers it would look even more ugly than xber, and I haven't searched for it and don't know if they exist. - 18:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)


As a form of "indeffed". Marked (perhaps wrongly) as eye dialect. Equinox 16:44, 26 April 2017 (UTC)


Male name. Equinox 19:17, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

go from strength to strength[edit]

I was just wondering whether the article should be on "from strength to strength" without the "go". If I am right about that then it would not be a verb. John Cross (talk) 07:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

  • I think it should be left alone, it makes more sense as it is now. DonnanZ (talk) 09:09, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
This isn't really an RfV question, rather a Tea Room item.
From strength to strength is occasionally used with other verbs, such as grow, continue, went on, as well as in titles without any verb. I would try to reword the definition to suit the prepositional phrase, move the entry to [[from strength to strength]], and make [[go from strength to strength]] a redirect as it is by far the most common use in running text. DCDuring (talk) 09:52, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Move this to the Tea Room then. DonnanZ (talk) 10:39, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Please see: Wiktionary:Tea_room/2017/April#go_from_strength_to_strength

John Cross (talk) 15:17, 29 April 2017 (UTC)


Usual Scots forms are becum, becumin, with the past tense being becam; I can't find becamt anywhere Leasnam (talk) 02:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)


English language entry. (French is fine) SemperBlotto (talk) 09:31, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

I moved the main entry to Catherinette, because it is easy to attest with the upper case. For the original lower-case version, I could only find two quotes, one in scare quotes and the other italicized. In all of these cases, the word is used not entirely generically for an unmarried woman over 25, but for such a woman who participates in the festival of St. Catherine. Kiwima (talk) 20:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Barclays Bank[edit]

Rfv-sense: A bank in the United Kingdom. Needs cites meeting either WT:COMPANY or WT:BRAND criteria. Otherwise this should be deleted, as per the similar case American Airlines. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 11:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

  • I have banked at Barclays for many years, so I can confirm its existence. DonnanZ (talk) 12:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

May 2017[edit]


And Ycd. These would be the expected abbreviations for yottacandela — were it to be attested. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:40, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. Has three citations, but their capitalization is all over the place and the first one seems more like a mention than a use. - -sche (discuss) 17:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Gomorrah Principle[edit]

Just used in the one book? SemperBlotto (talk) 19:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the entry is promotional and created by the book's author. It initially said more about the book than about the phrase! Equinox 22:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

depend 2[edit]

Having just cited one archaic sense (see #depend), I'm RFVing another: "To serve; to attend; to act as a dependent or retainer." I searched for phrases like "depend[ing|ed] the king" and didn't find anything, and phrases like "depending on the king" seem to find only the usual senses of "depend", not this sense. - -sche (discuss) 02:19, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

trip tic[edit]

Tagged but not listed. We've had this entry since 2006, with the only update being the RFV! It's possibly attested in this spelling, though apparently more commonly hyphenated. There's a wrinkle, however: it may be a product supplied by just one organization, the AAA, and many/most uses refer to that one product (and many also simultaneously explain what it is), which raises the question of whether or not BRAND applies. - -sche (discuss) 03:23, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

ironic nihilism[edit]

Any takers? First link given doesn't seem to use the term. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:09, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

I had four references then a user came and deleted half of them Kashifv (talk) 05:32, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Easy enough to cite (I have done so) - however, I think the term is SOP, and that this should be moved to RFD. Kiwima (talk) 20:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
You've found citations of the word "ironic" followed by the word "nihilism", but it seems to me you've cited a sum-of-parts rather than the gibberishy challenged sense. This is important, because if you just take the entry with the definition it currently has to RFD, the current definition is not as transparent (or as attested) as the phrase you found citations of. - -sche (discuss) 22:21, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
IE you want me to find better references of the current definition rather than changing the definition itself. If the definition was changed it would be SOP RFD. right now it's just RFD due to SOP citations 14:52, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
My argument is that the phrase seems to only ever be SOP in actual use, and the challenged definition is not attested, unless it is regarded as a very slanted/POV effort (based on the edit history, it seems to belong to far-right jargon) to describe the SOP term. - -sche (discuss) 17:54, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
So..delete? I was coming from an alternative right perspective but the only resource I have is Urban Dictionary. 00:00, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


RFV of the sense relating to Chinese Mainlanders. 蝗蟲 is used, but is English "locust" actually used identically? —suzukaze (tc) 05:42, 7 May 2017 (UTC)


Open to blame; culpable. Equinox 22:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)


"(British slang) pleasantly small: Do you like my new mobile? / Yes, isn't it knobby?" The only British slang in this area that I'm aware of is knob for penis. Equinox 23:16, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

    • This might be regional. It is certainly used in my neck of the woods (Brisol) but I can't find a usage on Google. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:46, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
  • The English Dialect Dictionary has a definition of "knobby" as "rounded, blunt; short and plump, dumpy, stumpy" with a citation of the spelling "nubbie" from Clydesdale ("a wee nubbie, launchin wean") and a citation of the spelling "nubby" from Nottingham ("his finger-end's cut off; so now it's a nubby un"). The second example looks more like nubby, from nub, though. - -sche (discuss) 18:52, 13 May 2017 (UTC)


"(slang) Female sex appeal or promiscuity." - quoting the 2003 Kelis song called Milkshake, which says: "my milkshake brings all the boys to the yard". Is this used by anyone else at all? Is it citable? The fact that the song has this title suggests that it isn't an everyday use of a word but something new or quirky. Equinox 05:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I thought the song was referencing female breasts (um, "milk-shakes")... ? Leasnam (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

hot plate[edit]

Rfv-sense for "hot plate" meaning a "hot meal". The sense is nominated for deletion, but the thrust of the argument seems to revolve around the question of whether it exists at all. bd2412 T 15:48, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:34, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

İstiklâl Marşı[edit]

English? Equinox 18:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Almost no English-language sources would ever use so many non-English characters. (It's quite annoying, but whatever, most people aren't linguists.) Perhaps it should be changed to Turkish. — Eru·tuon 19:07, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
It does seem citeable (see https://www.google.ca/search?q=National+anthem+of+Turkey&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=9b8YWbKgC5SyjQPS_62gCg#tbm=bks&q=%C4%B0stikl%C3%A2l+Mar%C5%9F%C4%B1+Turkey), but a lot of people seem to omit the circumflex and the dot above the I. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:39, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I dunno, most of those are probably mentions rather than uses. Several that I looked at were italicized. — Eru·tuon 21:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

for goodness' sake[edit]

"Used to express surprise or amazement. For goodness' sake, I spelled that word correctly. I never knew I could do that." Equinox 19:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I found this very hard to cite, because most of what I found uses for goodness' sakes instead. I propose that we simply redefine this as an alternate form of that. Kiwima (talk) 21:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I switched to looking a news rather than books, and found more cites. This is now cited. Kiwima (talk) 23:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Sorry but can't agree. I've moved two of your cites to the primary (frustration) sense. Something like "how could you not find her? she's got blue hair for goodness' sake!" isn't showing surprise (the speaker knows the person has blue hair; it isn't news to them); it is showing frustration at the incompetence of the person who failed to find such an obvious target. Equinox 20:02, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
The 2016 one about the birthday cards is more ambiguous perhaps, so I have not moved it; but from reading the article, again, I think the person is expressing bemused irritation at such a silly coincidence, and not actual surprise. Equinox 20:04, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Frankly, even some of the "used for emphasis" citations could be the "exasperation" sense, but I guess the "wedlock" and "young women" ones are emphasis. - -sche (discuss) 19:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)


The WP article does not exist. A Books search for Pipola + Lahti turns up nothing. A search for Pipola + Finland turns up only one English hit and a handful of Swedish and Finnish hits. If attested in Swedish or Finnish, the entry could be converted to those languages, if the definition is right. - -sche (discuss) 23:50, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I found two citations for the Pipola in Finland, but three for another Pipola in India. Kiwima (talk) 03:20, 15 May 2017 (UTC)


A historical helmet. Equinox 19:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

arch rogue[edit]

From 1811 Vulgar Tongue. --Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talk) 17:52, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

It is certainly used for this meaning in the novels of Shana Galen, but other uses I find are less specific, and seem more generic, referring only to a particularly egregious miscreant. I found a few quotes that might support the definition, but I suspect not. Anyway, I stuck a bunch of quotes on the citations page. Kiwima (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

cuff Jonas[edit]

From 1811 Vulgar Tongue —This unsigned comment was added by Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talkcontribs) at 21:55, 16 May 2017.


Basically bad technical documentation. I've done some cleanup to this old (2006) but rather silly-sounding entry. Existing cites were non-durable blogs. Equinox 22:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

All I could find were two cites (on citations page) with a different meaning (the making of a mockumentary). Kiwima (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


Is this really used in the meaning of idiomic two cents? --Octahedron80 (talk) 06:22, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Octahedron80: I've definitely seen it on forums. —Justin (koavf)TCM 06:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
I have used it myself. --Catsidhe (verba, facta) 06:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

knock Anthony[edit]

LMFAO and it was directly copied from the 1811. This isn't a good entry either; it just gives a weird definition about what the verb refers to and doesn't say its definition. A better definition might be "to knock one's knees together". PseudoSkull (talk) 20:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)


It's either a neologism or maybe even a protologism. Google gave me this and I found only three citations on Google books, of which two are "we could call it Nostradaming". Are these mentions sufficient for inclusion? --Robbie SWE (talk) 08:53, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Actually, there are only two distinct citations, as the two "we could call it Nostradaming" are copies of each other: they do, however, have a genuine use later in the piece. More to the point, entry has no definition, and the two distinct quotes use the term with different meanings. Kiwima (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 00:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


"(slang) A person who constantly uses technology, e.g. cell phone or tablet." Equinox 23:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

West Carolina[edit]

East Carolina[edit]

East Dakota[edit]

West Dakota[edit]

East Virginia[edit]

per Talk:icupsuzukaze (tc) 03:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

These are in clear actual usage. Just try searching each up on Groups. PseudoSkull (talk) 03:53, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Sigh. Okay fine, I'll cite them....... So that people won't doubt me. PseudoSkull (talk) 03:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Then add relevant citations, because searching "West Carolina" gets me a lot of "NFC West / Carolina", a good amount of " [] West. Carolina [] ", and a handful of usages that seriously, legitimately refer to West Carolina as an actual part of Carolina as a whole (western North Carolina (or > is that northern West Carolina, East Carolina is closer to me that "West" Carolina, Perhaps the territory between the Altamaha river and West Carolina in the north and east, difference between East and West "Carolina" BBQ sauce). —suzukaze (tc) 04:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
East Virginia completely cited by the way. Now to move on. I'm putting a check by each one I do. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Is "East Virginia" never used to mean Virginia proper, i.e. the part of pre-Civil War Virginia that isn't West Virginia? Analogous would be the way Southern Ireland is sometimes used to mean the Republic of Ireland, i.e. the part of the island that isn't Northern Ireland. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:14, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure if the cites you added really attest it though. None of them simply use the term "East Virginia", they're all along the lines of "why isn't there an East Virginia if there's a West Virginia?" and seem kind of mention-y. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 07:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Those aren't mentions, though. They're used in sentences without quotations. I don't care what they're saying or asking. East Virginia is a proper noun, so how much less "mention-y" could you get anyway? PseudoSkull (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Plus, on the second book mention, if it feels a little better to you, two characters seem to have been having a small banter about whether or not an East Virginia existed, so the word "East Virginia" was actually said several times in the book. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:04, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Sigh. You want more, I'll give more. PseudoSkull (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

chamber of commerce [edit]

Rfv-sense: (slang; of weather) Designating of perfect weather conditions. ---> Tooironic (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2017 (UTC) RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: prostitute. From 1811 Vulgar Tongue —This unsigned comment was added by Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talkcontribs) at 18:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC).


Rfv-sense: Trick consisting of pushing someone into a tub of water. It looks like a pretty trick, and searching for it is... pretty tricky. —This unsigned comment was added by Celui qui crée ébauches de football anglais (talkcontribs) at 18:26, 20 May 2017 (UTC).

Mentioned in Grose's Classical Dictionary of the Vulgar Tongue, and many other books. They are mentions, though. I'm not sure how it would be used in a sentence. Equinox 22:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:37, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


Bad def but I'm not sure it even meets CFI (at least with this spelling). Equinox 22:49, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

red stock[edit]

Can't find anything on this, even on the Web. Equinox 23:59, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Ditto here, everything I find is about livestock that is reddish in color. Kiwima (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "Synonym of laugh". SpinningSpark 18:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)


Really? SemperBlotto (talk) 14:03, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I note the user copied the ety from aibohphobia. Equinox 16:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
All I can find is [this]. Kiwima (talk) 18:28, 22 May 2017 (UTC)


Tablet computer with detachable keyboard. Equinox 14:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "(slang, transitive) to sexually penetrate an eye-socket, more generally, to copulate using an orifice in the skull (archaic)" Now that the initial shock has settled – I didn't even know that we needed a word to describe this – I'm starting to doubt this sense. After a quick search, I only found mentions on Urban dictionary, but not much more than that and the quotation is more an example and not a real quote. --Robbie SWE (talk) 16:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the eye-socket, but there is definitely a sexual meaning. I have cited it. Kiwima (talk) 20:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 06:46, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

  • @Kiwima: The first three cites are for a noun, though, and not one of them is unambiguously about eye-socket sex. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

azidoazide azide[edit]

Apparently considered by some a prank word. Can we find 3 cites for each (serious and prank) definition? DCDuring (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The material seems real. The chemist working with it is one Thomas M. Klapötke. But I can't find anything but online blogs, some clearly respectable, that mention the term in question. DCDuring (talk) 19:12, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

There was an RFD, made in error, and I have transferred the text from it below. There was no basis for deletion at RFD, but the term does not seem to be citeable. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 17:55, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

The term "azidoazide azide" is not a real chemical name. The blogger Derek Lowe made up this term (here) entirely as a joke when referring to the chemical with the real chemical name "1-diazidocarbamoyl-5-azidotetrazole". The joke name "azidoazide azide" has been used elsewhere since then, sometimes using it jokingly in imitation of Lowe, and sometimes apparently without realization that "azidoazide azide" was a joke. In no way is "azidoazide azide" a meaningful chemical name for 1-diazidocarbamoyl-5-azidotetrazole. For additional context, please see the deletion discussion for a redirect with the same title at w:en:Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_14#Azidoazide_azide which resulted in deletion of w:en:Azidoazide azide. ChemNerd (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Move to RFV. (P.S. I'm reminded of dihydrogen monoxide and bananadine.) Equinox 16:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Prank or not, if there are three cites meeting WT:ATTEST supporting a particular definition, we should have an entry. Let's see what definition(s) fit the valid citations. DCDuring (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. — Ungoliant (falai) 19:33, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It certainly appears in a lot of word lists, but finding actual usages ...- the best I could find was:
  • 2013, Captain Alexander Smith ( ‎Arthur L. Hayward ), Key Writings on Subcultures 1535-1727: A Complete History of the Lives and Robberies of the Most Notorious Highwayment, Footpads, Shoplifts, & Cheats of Both Sexes, ISBN 1136484167:
    Wherefore he was obliged to follow ill courses still, in becoming a very dextrous pickpocket; and in order to be a gainer by this employment, he daily haunted churches, fairs and markets, and all public meetings and great assemblies; till being (Anabaptist like) often dipped in a horse-pond, he left off picking pockets and got into a gang of satyrs, who are men living wild in the fields, that keep their holds and dwelling in the country and forsaken places, stealing horses, kine, sheep, and all other sort of cattle that come in their way.
Kiwima (talk) 20:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
The complication here, including with that quote, is that they might be calling the dunking/dowsing in water "Anabaptist like" comparing to a baptism. This book also references the name, but without any sources. - [The]DaveRoss 20:15, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


Sense 3: "Neither visible nor measurable." Equinox 23:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


12-year-old contribution of Hazel Barnes's translation of Sartre's definitions. Are these "definitions" used anywhere besides in Sartre's works and commentaries thereon? DCDuring (talk) 12:48, 24 May 2017 (UTC)


Obs form of cursor; however, the only sense that could have existed back when the English spelled like this (i.e. way before computers!) is the dial on a scientific instrument, and I can't find that. It might be an old spelling of courser (horse) but that's not what the entry says. Equinox 00:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "Of the highest order or importance." Seems dubious. ---> Tooironic (talk) 07:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


Doesn't exist on Wikipedia, which makes this extremely suspicious. Nothing on books at first glance either. -- Pedrianaplant (talk) 10:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is that suspicious? The military endlessly make up acronyms, most of which are nowhere near notable enough to get on Wikipedia.
SpinningSpark 18:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "Other genera formerly classified in the family Pomatomidae." This is way too vague to get its own definition, surely. ---> Tooironic (talk) 05:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

According to w:bluefish, the fish that are no longer included in the genus are now the Scombropidae (w:gnomefish) of which there is only one genus, Scombrops, and only three species.
  • This book says that S. boops is called "Japanese bluefish"
  • This book lists S. gilberti as "Japanese bluefish" in the index (not a usage, but presumably there is one somewhere in the book)
  • I'm not turning up anything for S. oculatus. SpinningSpark 17:28, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

crime fighters[edit]

Any takers? It is very difficult to search for this specific meaning. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:03, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, very difficult to search for. I did find and add one. Kiwima (talk) 19:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

@User:SemperBlotto @User:Kiwima I just CREATED a citation a few minutes ago and put it there. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:12, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Surely that doesn't count, being of the nature of a mention rather than a real use. Kiwima (talk) 20:18, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Hey, even usage examples in dictionaries count here, so these must too. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
https://xkcd.com/978/suzukaze (tc) 20:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
That's Google Groups, not Usenet. Just having a period in it doesn't make it Usenet. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Re "even usage examples in dictionaries count here": you are mistaken; CFI expressly disallows such things in WT:CFI#Conveying_meaning, as "made-up examples of how a word might be used". There are exceptions to this for some languages, but not English. - -sche (discuss) 18:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


"A hybrid of an investment and a sponsorship where the sponsor gets a financial return on their sponsorship as if it were an investment." Equinox 18:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

  • I think it is a commercial company / website. Probably best to delete it. SemperBlotto (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Three cites have been added but we need to confirm that they have this meaning, and are not e.g. rare errors for "investment". Equinox 18:31, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I think all three cites more plausibly support the definition "investment" than the definition in the entry. —Granger (talk · contribs) 18:49, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree that the definitions don't unambiguously support the proffered definition and that "investment" would be a better definition, though I'm not sure that the citations unambiguously support that definition either.
This terms seems to be the victim of serial nonce coinage, especially on business websites, usually present as a "blend" of investment and any of a few terms ending in -ship (eg, entrepreneurship, intrapreneurship, partnership, scholarship). The meaning seems to depend on which of the words is in the "blend". The pattern seems to be to avoid the use of the bare word investment, which seems to be a pejorative in the contexts I've looked at. The idea seems to be to get the investor to not be looking for a mere financial return (which may not be forthcoming any time soon, if ever).
I didn't find any dictionary that had the term. DCDuring (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


"analytical anatomy by the Braille method". This seems to be a joke, i.e. touching/caressing women as a subject of study. It is listed in at least one dictionary of abbreviations, with no further comment. Equinox 15:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

at work[edit]

Sense: "During customary work time. Don't call me at work." Isn't this really sense 1, "at one's workplace", to all intents and purposes? (I can see a distinction if I work at home, and you may call me at my house at other times without it being "at work", but that doesn't seem particularly lexical. I'd also expect "while I'm working" in that case instead.) Equinox 15:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

If I were to ask someone not to call me at work and they called during lunch or after hours before I went home, I would consider that calling me at work. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)


Someone who helps a dog give birth. Equinox 20:25, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

If retained, it should probably have a "humorous" tag. Mihia (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

death by spellcheck[edit]

Equinox 21:28, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Nothing in Google Books or Google Groups. There are a few hits on the general web that use the phrase as a sort of interjection that's not part of any sentence- a roundabout way of saying "spellcheck is killing me". Chuck Entz (talk) 23:47, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
death by... is a fairly common construction either with something annoying (as in this case, or "...powerpoint", etc.) or pleasurable (e.g. "...chocolate"). - [The]DaveRoss 12:04, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

higher education[edit]

Rfv-sense: "Continued education after the point at which attendance of an educational institution is no longer compulsory." --This definition would seem to include secondary education e.g. high schools and vocational schools. Is that right? Other dictionaries seem to have a different point of view, e.g. American Heritage: "Education beyond the secondary level, especially education at the college or university level."--Hekaheka (talk) 02:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The definition seems very wrong on its face. In the US and many other countries school attendance is compulsory for person of certain ages, eg, 6-16 years of age. Obviously there is an association between mandatory attendance and level of schooling, but there is also an association between student height and level of schooling. I find it hard to imagine that there is unambiguous support for such a definition in contrast to citations supporting the association. DCDuring (talk) 03:49, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
This definition makes sense to me here in the UK. It is what "higher education" means here, AFAIAA. It should be "attendance at ..." not "attendance of ..." though. Mihia (talk) 21:03, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
From my own UK experience (the rules have changed since the 1990s): you could leave school at 16, or continue until 18 either in sixth form (typically at the same school) or at college; after that you might choose to continue further at university. I would not count sixth form or sixth-form-equivalent college as "higher education", though I might possibly be wrong. Equinox 21:06, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I agree in the case of the sixth form. I forgot about that. Mihia (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
So, the very definition of higher education is that it is not compulsory? To me it would just seem to be a non-defining predicate. Of course, many of our "definitions" have this characteristic.
How do we use the RfV process to show that a particular predicate is a definition? It is not by simply establishing the asserted truth of the predicate in citations. DCDuring (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


Sense “without a condom". I imagine this is short for bareback, but can't find anything related. – Jberkel (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Hm, what you cited are phrasal constructions like "to go (in) bare", "to have bare". Not sure if bare on its own would be understood in that specific sense. – Jberkel (talk) 07:28, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)


All I can find are a handful of copies of the same few books mentioning the term, and no uses. Remember to fix the link in son-in-law if this is deleted. - -sche (discuss) 17:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


The only use I find is in the Exmoor Scolding, in a dialogue between Thomasin (T) and Wilmot (W) which has been reprinted in a number of places including The Gentleman's Magazine and Dialect, Proverbs and Word-Lore. - -sche (discuss) 17:11, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

It appears in a lot of word lists, and I have added the citation that they all refer to, but that is only one. Kiwima (talk) 22:08, 4 June 2017 (UTC)





Are these attested? Compare the others above (zinnila, zewnteen). - -sche (discuss) 18:32, 3 June 2017 (UTC)


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)


State of being astringing. Equinox 14:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


Equinox 17:07, 7 June 2017 (UTC)


Typo? Dialect where the /t/ is dropped (in which case it would happen in the lemma as well)? --WikiTiki89 22:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

cited I'm surprised. I would have expected this to be a typo where I found it, but it was very easy to find citations, and they use this spelling consistently, so it is not a typo. Go figure. Kiwima (talk) 23:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Is there a backformation "to tex"? DTLHS (talk) 01:37, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Not as far as I can tell. Even the sources that consistently write "texing" say "to text". Kiwima (talk) 04:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Wow nice. Does it need a context label? --WikiTiki89 15:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
@Kiwima: Actually, now that I've gone through the citations, only in one of them was it certainly intentional. In two others, it was almost certainly a typo, and in the one it was not certain but could have easily been a typo. I've organized them at Citations:texed. Also may I ask that if you get quotes from Google Books, to always add the url or pageurl parameter to make it easier to access the source? --WikiTiki89 16:05, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
@Wikitiki89: I note that you have the 2007 Jenny Garza quote listed as very likely a typo, even though she uses "Texed" again later in the same piece. I don't understand your logic. Kiwima (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
@Kiwima: Two out of two is not much of a sample size. What I do notice is that on that same page, she haphazardly switches tenses (between would-habitual and simple past), uses send as a past tense, puts an extra space into smile d, and uses the phrase "in specifically". --WikiTiki89 19:04, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
On the other hand, I'm convinced now that this does exist, and am hoping that we can find at least three indisputable uses. --WikiTiki89 19:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
To that end, [this] thread seems apropos. Kiwima (talk) 01:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I've added two more citations from the 19th century. I also found that some editions of Shakespeare's Edward III use texed / texèd instead of texted as well (see this and this footnote). There's also this, which has some weird English(?), so I didn't include it in the citations. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 03:28, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure about the older uses, but the modern ones are surely just a misunderstanding or mishearing, possibly based on an inability to pronounce "texted". I question whether "nonstandard" really is strong enough to convey that this is a pretty blatant or glaring error. We need to consider users of the dictionary who may not even understand that "nonstandard" is a euphemism for "incorrect". Mihia (talk) 20:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I think it may be an AAVE pronunciation; see w:African American Vernacular English § Phonology, specifically the part about final consonant clusters, where it says final /st/ is reduced, by dropping of the /t/. Whether it's "incorrect" depends on which dialect or register you happen to be speaking when you use the term. Using tex in General American would certainly be incorrect. — Eru·tuon 20:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I hear this from British English speakers all the time (overheard on the train and stuff – "text" used uninflected in the past as though it's already a past tense, or "he said he was gonna tex me" and similar). Ƿidsiþ 12:41, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Hearing it doesn't provide evidence for the spelling, though. The head of my old school sixth form always said "sikth form"! Equinox 13:33, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Maycomb [edit]

Moved from RFD

Per WT:FICTION. Incidentally, I need the pronunciation for a presentation tomorrow, so if someone would?__Gamren (talk) 13:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Pronunciation added. It rhymes with take 'em. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Keep. Mentioned in several unrelated works. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
It needs to satisfy WT:FICTION, though. — SMUconlaw (talk) 09:16, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Sounds like this might be more suitable for RFV rather than RFD. — SMUconlaw (talk) 06:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Since it's a question of whether satisfying cites can be found, I suppose you're right. And thank you, Angr.__Gamren (talk) 08:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what we are looking for here, given that the definition refers to the fictional universe of Harper Lee. I have added two quotes to the citations page that talk about Maycomb as an exemplar of other southern towns. If that is not what we are looking for, can someone tell me what a satisfying cite would look like? Kiwima (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

According to WT:FICTION, we would need to find "three citations which are independent of reference to [the fictional] universe". Where persons or places from fictional universes are concerned, we need quotes showing "they are used out of context in an attributive sense". For instance, a quotation like "To Kill a Mockingbird is set in the fictional town of Maycomb" would be insufficient, but "The Maycomb spirit pervades many small towns in the USA today" would be fine. Further examples are given at "Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion/Fictional universes". — SMUconlaw (talk) 20:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Given that, would the citations I posted count? if so, I assume we are cited now. Kiwima (talk) 01:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think so. Both of those are from works directly about Harper Lee and To Kill a Mockingbird. The ideal citation would be one that mentions Maycomb but without mentioning Lee or the novel (or film) at all. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 05:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Given that the definition mentions Harper Lee and To Kill a Mockingbird, that's a pretty big ask, because if the work that uses Maycomb doesn't mention them, there is no way to tell that it's the same Maycomb. Kiwima (talk) 21:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
What we're looking for is instances where someone uses the term "Maycomb" to refer to some sort of prototypical small Southern town; where the author assumes that the reader is so familiar with TKaM that he doesn't need to mention TKaM explicitly. If authors don't feel they can mention Maycomb unless they're already talking about TKaM or unless they explicitly say it's the location of TKaM, then the word hasn't really entered the English language as a concept independent of its fictional source yet. WT:Criteria for inclusion/Fictional universes says, "With respect to names of persons or places from fictional universes, they shall not be included unless they are used out of context in an attributive sense" (emphasis added). —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 06:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, I think I have cited this. Kiwima (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)


It has two verb senses:

  1. To place under a copyright.
  2. To obtain or secure a copyright for some literary or other artistic work.

I don't think the distinction between them is very clear. Maybe a few citations would help. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

No, it is not clear. I have added some cites that I think get at what this distinction is aiming for, but I could be wrong. Kiwima (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

To me, the first definition appears to be the definition of a transitive verb, and the second definition appears to be the definition of an intransitive verb. Mihia (talk) 22:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
That makes sense. Ok, it is now cited Kiwima (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that's what the distinction is (if the distinction was meant to be transitivity, then we should merge the senses and label it as "transitive or intransitive"). Maybe it's actually who is doing the action. It seems that with the first definition, the subject would be the government, while with the second one the subject would be the author or owner of the work. But I'm not sure that's a necessary distinction to make, so perhaps even in that case they should be merged. --WikiTiki89 16:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I think merging them is a good idea. --Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:06, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


"(Australian slang) A high-security prison, or supermax, where inmates are at risk of Muslim radicalization." This is mentioned in a handful of news articles (but capitalised Supermosque, hence proper noun?) as a nickname for one specific prison (Goulburn) in Australia. Equinox 12:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


Noun: "The title for someone who is an academic." Does this mean we can say e.g. "Academic Jones will attend the conference"? I've never seen it. And the adjective gives no context/explanation for the capital A, yet I'm sure e.g. "your Academic performance is poor" is not acceptable capitalisation. Equinox 13:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Is this a Russian thing? I seem to remember seeing this, but I can't find any examples. SpinningSpark 14:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest removal of the whole entry. DonnanZ (talk) 08:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Christian Era[edit]

Rfv-sense: "counting from the date of Christ's circumcision (as calculated by Dionysius Exiguus) onwards". Really? --Robbie SWE (talk) 07:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Reverted. The year of Jesus' birth is also the year of his circumcision, and the edit comment about January 1 being the beginning of the year because it was the date of Jesus' circumcision overlooks the fact that it was set in 45 BCE by command of Julius Caesar. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


"(of a person) Too confident." Equinox 19:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)


Nothing on BGC. @bd2412Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:11, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

  • No recollection, as this was eleven years ago, except that I had created around then Appendix:Religions, and was just filling in the blanks. bd2412 T 19:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)


Nothing on BGC. @BD2412Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

  • No recollection as this was eleven years ago, except that I had created around then Appendix:Religions, and was just filling in the blanks. bd2412 T 19:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

share of serp[edit]

Any takers? (even of "share of SERP") (plural is wrong if OK) SemperBlotto (talk) 04:36, 14 June 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)

Brunei Darussalam[edit]

This is a Malay name, and Wikipedia doesn't make any mention that this is any kind of official name. Instead it says the official name is Nation of Brunei, the Abode of Peace. So is this actually attested, and indeed attested as the official name of Brunei? —CodeCat 19:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I have seen this name in English-language maps as a long-form name. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:46, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
It's easy to find sources for this, e.g. https://www.lonelyplanet.com/brunei-darussalamJustin (koavf)TCM 19:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
It's easily attestable, but not necessarily as its official name. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 14:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
The UN seems to use it as its official name and its short name (but then it also uses the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia as Macedonia's official and short names). — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 14:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

great clock[edit]

"Any clock with a diameter of 100 feet." Oddly specific: I'm having trouble finding any source for this. Equinox 19:13, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

There are many clocks around the world called "great clocks". Most of them are clearly have a diameter much smaller than 100 feet. They seem to be "great" with respect to other clocks in the vicinity/country/etc. That is, the term seems like great + clock.
I wonder whether Great Clock ("Big Ben") might be attestable. DCDuring (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)



  • Uninjured or otherwise normal.

This looks suspiciously like it's solely based on a misinterpretation of the Doctor Who quote added at the same time as the sense. —This unsigned comment was added by Chuck Entz (talkcontribs) at 10:09, 20 June 2017‎ (UTC).

Yes, "Fine. Marvelous. Refulgent!" is evidently supposed to be a list of synonyms, so this is the brightness=goodness metaphor as in brilliant, splendid. Equinox 14:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

paramania, paramaniac[edit]

There is some use referring to a mania for parachuting. DTLHS (talk) 22:58, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I can't find sufficient quotes for the mania for parachuting. I have added three fro paramania, but one of them is very mention-y. Paramaniac was easier, although I don't think it should be divided into two senses. Taken altogether, I am pretty convinced that these are legit. Kiwima (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

show one's butt[edit]

To misbehave. Equinox 12:15, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I've heard of show one's ass, meaning to be contemptible. Is this maybe the G-Rated version of it ? Leasnam (talk) 16:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
cited (and yes, this is the G-Rated version of show one's ass). Kiwima (talk) 22:59, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


Related pneumapath was deleted already. Most of what I found was an alternative form (or typo) of pneumotherapy. Perhaps promotional. - [The]DaveRoss 14:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I found and added two citations (on the citations page). If a third is found, we should probably collapse the three definitions into a single definition. Kiwima (talk) 23:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


"To corrupt an organization; disorganize." Equinox 13:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 23:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


Monkfish. No relevant GBooks hits for "monkings", and nothing immediately apparent for "monking"+"fish". Equinox 15:18, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


Banishment. "Joe received Coventry from his colleagues after telling the sexist joke." Of course there's "send to Coventry", but this? I search for "received Coventry" in GBooks and found nothing of relevance... the dangers of made-up usexes... Equinox 16:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


Euphemistic form. This seems like the wrong vowel to blank out! Usenet has a few rare hits for "nigg@r" and "nigg-r" [2] but nothing with the asterisk, unless there is a problem with that character in searches. Equinox 16:12, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I see results on Google Books for eye dialect nigg'r, but nothing for nigg*r. —Granger (talk · contribs) 17:20, 21 June 2017 (UTC)


"(Internet slang) text suitable for automatic translation using Babelfish or a similar service." Equinox 18:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Marcus Bains line[edit]

One result in books. DTLHS (talk) 04:10, 22 June 2017 (UTC)