Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English

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

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

Cleanup requests, questions and discussions.

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

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

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requests for deletion and undeletion of foreign entries.

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

Requests for verification of foreign entries.

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

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

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

Scope of this request page:

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



See also:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request 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 2017[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)

December 2017[edit]


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

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

January 2018[edit]


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

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

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

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

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

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

I have cited and removed the RFV tags from VGK, CBJ, NYI, NYR, and NJD, all of which are abbreviations of NHL teams. EhSayer (talk) 22:46, 2 June 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "Abbreviation of Kitchener. "

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

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

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

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

February 2018[edit]




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

I've made (the RFVed sense of) al- Latin-only. I see there are four words which claim to have been formed with ac-. - -sche (discuss) 04:41, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
I've switched ag- into a Latin entry, too, as all the ostensible examples of it have Latin etyma of which they seem like borrowings. Ac- is trickier: many of the words other dictionaries cite as derivations are obvious wholesale borrowings from other languages (accede, acquire), but accompass does not seem to have a Latin etymon *accompassus (two New Latin works use adcompassus)...but it's also not clear that it uses an ad- derived prefix and not the intensifier a- with the c doubled to ensure correct pronunciation, and/or under the influence of Latin-derived acc- words, and/or because spelling was variable when the word was coined. - -sche (discuss) 05:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


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

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


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

Perhaps, but I DID find another citation besides those araphorostic shoes. We still need a third. Kiwima (talk) 05:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Another word to consider at the same time is araphostic: also with two cites. Kiwima (talk) 05:48, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
One dictionary that came up when I GB'd "araphostic" said that the preferred spelling was arrhaphostic. Googling that, I found this cite here. Khemehekis (talk) 03:33, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
Oh dear! Not yet ANOTHER spelling. Between the three spellings, we have enough to convince me that it is (was?) a real word, but not enough to meet RFV criteria. Kiwima (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Has Wiktionary specifically settled on a policy for when two homophonous spellings/capitalizations have the requisite three durably archived cites between them, but neither spelling alone meets COI? If we add the two araphostics and the one arrhaphostic together, we have just enough for the pronunciation without the -or- in the middle. Khemehekis (talk) 06:15, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
If no one spelling is attested, sadly they should be {{no entry}}ed, but (like Talk:gaplapper) one spelling will usually become citable as more books are digitized, etc. (With capitalization, things are more flexible.) - -sche (discuss) 22:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
araphorostic and araphostic have two citations each, and arrhaphostic and arhaphostic have one citation each. I didn't find any citations of ar(r)haphorostic. - -sche (discuss) 06:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)


arrhaphostic, arhaphostic[edit]

I'm adding araphostic to the RFV (or it could be moved to the bottom of the page as a new RFV) as it has only two citations. See araphorostic. Eventually one of these spellings will become citable, but eventually may be a while. (Also adding the -rh- spellings so they'll all be linked to this discussion when it's archived.) - -sche (discuss) 06:01, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, Century gives the pronunciation of the -phostic form as \ar-a̤-fos'tik\, which is in IPA /æɹ.əˈfɑs.tɪk/; Funk & Wagnalls Standard Dictionary confirms this and adds more detail on the stress, arʺa-phosʹtic \arʹɑ-fꝋs'tic\, in IPA /ˌæɹ.əˈfɑs.tɪk/; both label it rare (Century also calls it "badly formed"). A modern version/reprint of Chambers's Twentieth Century Dictionary gives the hyphenation and stress of the -phorostic form as ar-af-or-os'tik; Funk & Wagnalls gives it as arʺa-pho-rosʹtic and marks it as obsolete; neither gives the quality of the vowels AFAICS. - -sche (discuss) 07:08, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

March 2018[edit]


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

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

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:34, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Unclosed: The 1952 quotation '... where it was called the "gustard" ...' is not just a bit mentiony; it is a mention. And the 1881 quotation is also a mention, "called a Gustard". It has been my position that phrasing of the form "called X" are mentions, not uses. Such phrasing may help reassure us of the meaning, but does not help meet WT:ATTEST. --Dan Polansky (talk) 06:15, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

While I agree that the 1952 cite is mentiony, the 1881 quote is a use. It talks about the bird, then names it, the gustarf, before even mentioning any other names. Khemehekis (talk) 09:34, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

April 2018[edit]


This was in the requests list; if I removed it, whoever added it might get upset. So I've created it and brought it here. The Unicode spec calls it "uncertainty sign" or "query" and says nothing further. Equinox 19:33, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Looks like it might be used in – what do you call them – flow diagrams? — SGconlaw (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2018 (UTC)


Google searches don't seem to support a CFI-compliant adjective, let alone a noun. Equinox 10:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

  • I've added one citation from PLOS ONE (can't find any others). It could well be an adjective though. SemperBlotto (talk) 10:09, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 18:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

OTOH dasyphyllus is a fairly common specific epithet. DCDuring (talk) 17:14, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
MW actually has two meanings: "having leaves thick or thickly set" and "having woolly leaves". DCDuring (talk) 17:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC)


Seeking non-italicised uses in running English, to make it clear that it is not merely the transcription of the Japanese word but actually being used in English. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 18:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
All the texts currently used for citations clearly gloss the term (in one case, incorrectly), demonstrating the non-English-ness of the usage. It may appear in English text, but the manner in which the term is employed is decidedly non English.
I am not sure that glossing the term is an indication that it is not English, simply that it is rare. There are plenty of similarly glossed words that are clearly English. Kiwima (talk) 04:43, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Authors adding a gloss is a clear indication that the reading audience is not expected to know the term. While not an indicator of foreign-ness in and of itself, it is a piece of supporting evidence. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
In an earlier discussion in the Tea Room, Donnanz stated that "there is no other suitable word in English to describe something that seems to be uniquely Japanese" in trying to build a case for including this term under an ==English== heading, even despite agreeing that "It's pretty obvious that it's not an English word".
As I mentioned at the Tea Room, I'm quite happy for us to have an entry at [[ashiyu]]: I just don't think that any such entry should (currently) include any ==English== heading. This term is not lexically English, and English speakers and readers are not expected to know what this is. This term is not part of the currency of the English language. We don't say ashiyu, we say heated footbath or heated wading pool. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 23:32, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
I think it is fair to describe a shop-bought ashiyu as a heated footbath, but not the communal ones, where the terms wading pool and paddling pool would appear to be inaccurate, not what they are intended for. In some cases geothermal water is used, which is of course naturally heated (memories of Hot Water Beach in NZ). DonnanZ (talk) 13:06, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps then pool is not the correct term. However, the expressions heated footbath or heated communal footbath certainly convey what this is more clearly than ashiyu, for an English-reading audience. The lack of a single-word term for this in English does not necessitate that we treat the Japanese term as "English" -- until and unless it actually catches on among English speakers / writers and gains currency, much like English sayonara, skosh, honcho, or even desu.
I don't think "geothermal" is germane here. It's interesting, but that detail seems more encyclopedic than lexicographic. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 19:26, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018[edit]


Just some short-term meme? SemperBlotto (talk) 06:23, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I can find quotes spanning from at least as early as 2016 to as recent as three hours ago -- but not on durably archived sources. We have no good durably archived sources for this type of internet slang. Kiwima (talk) 12:30, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Usenet produces nothing. Khemehekis (talk) 02:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
This is one of those terms that is often used is some online communities, but hasn't had mainstream use yet. Google finds 129 thousand results, but they are mostly from internet forums and nothing from reliable sources. Amin (talk) 17:42, 30 May 2018 (UTC)


Added one citation. DTLHS (talk) 01:14, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I did some research and discovered that cataglottism was the proper form of the word. It's a nonexistent entry, which had only two citations on its citation page, but I found and added a third citation. Perhaps the entry can be created now. Khemehekis (talk) 02:28, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

June 2018[edit]


Searches for "stevvons", "stevvoning", "stevvoned", "stevvon'd" turn up just enough hits that one (consolidated?) verb definition-line is probably citable, although several of the places the word occurs are dialect dictionaries, whose usexes (if not direct quotations of real people or works) don't count. - -sche (discuss) 06:30, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

It's really a slightly more modern dialectal (spelling) variant of steven. It's listed as an Alternative form there Leasnam (talk) 12:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
I didn't (and don't) want to RFV steven until I can make an effort to cite its various senses and find out which I can and can't find citations for, but ultimately it too needs to be checked. - -sche (discuss) 20:51, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
In any case consider glossing as obsolete unless we have good evidence that modern northerners have a clue what this means. Equinox 20:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)



Batavocentrism, batavocentrism[edit]

I did a very cursory look and couldn't find three durable citations, but they may be out there. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be attestable in Dutch either. – Julia • formerly Gormflaith • 15:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Nor French or Portuguese, as far as I can find, which the creator put in as translations. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
No word anything like it (apart from Batavia and Batavian) in the OED. Sounds reasonable, but looks like a protologism to me. SemperBlotto (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
Nothing on Usenet. Khemehekis (talk) 23:54, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
I could only find one cite (for Batvocentric). Kiwima (talk) 03:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

do someone a frighten[edit]

Also the definition doesn't match the example sentence (the dog is doing the frightening, not being frightened) SemperBlotto (talk) 14:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

It's an idiomatic use of frighten. And that's what makes it funny and apparently meme-worthy. -- Beland (talk) 04:44, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 23:50, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Kiwima. I have reworded the definition to reflect that they're not frightening the dog, the dog is doing the frightening. Khemehekis (talk) 18:46, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Only one of those is in print. At the very least we need some way of noting entries that only meet attestation with relaxation of the "durably archived" condition. See WT:BP. DCDuring (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
We now have two that are in print. Kiwima (talk) 19:34, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


Any takers? I can only see "definitions" not usages. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:33, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The definition "beta male" sounds like PUA/incel jargon/propaganda. We would do better to make this a synonym of New Man, I suspect. Equinox 19:24, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and done it. The creator has a gender agenda; see e.g. history at hybristophile. Equinox 19:25, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

I have found plenty of uses, but sadly, not on durably archived sources. Kiwima (talk) 22:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

NB: recent edit to make it specifically ethnic white. - Amgine/ t·e 19:53, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

July 2018[edit]


Rfv-sense "(Israel) A shot of hard liquor." On the talk page a user opines that this is incorrect. Googling suggests it may indeed refer to a unit of hard liquor, but possibly a different unit than a shot. - -sche (discuss) 01:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Definitely not just Israel either. DTLHS (talk) 01:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
It is a relatively mild drink (e.g. beer) that is taken after a harder one (e.g. whiskey). SemperBlotto (talk) 04:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Yes, that's the sense right before this one (in the entry). But this sense is claiming (and I can find a handful of websites about Israel which suggest this is plausible) that in Israeli English, a unit of hard liquor can be called a "chaser". (But it may be a different unit, i.e. a different amount of hard liquor, than a shot.) - -sche (discuss) 04:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)


Two web sources and one news source that doesn't use this spelling. DTLHS (talk) 19:56, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have added one cite from Google books, but that is the only one I found. Kiwima (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 20:03, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

We have three cites, two on clearly durably archived sources, but I have my doubts about the third. Kiwima (talk) 00:12, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 03:24, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

misdemeanourous [edit]

Nonstandard spelling with no cites. DTLHS (talk) 20:21, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

  • added 2 but they're probably just grounds to consider it a recurring typo, should this be redirected to misdemeanorous ? ScratchMarshall (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
I added a book cite. I have my doubts that the other two are durably archived. Kiwima (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 03:27, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


Dictionary word. DTLHS (talk) 05:30, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

  • So I suppose we would include it if we were a dictionary! SemperBlotto (talk) 05:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Perhaps DTLHS meant a dictionary-only word? Khemehekis (talk) 14:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)


Requesting citations independent of Nicholas Rescher or people quoting Nicholas Rescher. DTLHS (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2018 (UTC)


Is this actually an adjective or just an alternative form? DTLHS (talk) 05:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Actually it might be a noun, alternative of dacoit. Examples follow Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:28, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
“Karachi: Hostage recovered in CPLC raid, violence claims 2 lives”, in (Please provide the title of the work)[2], 5 March 2015: “Two dacoid were killed by police near Gunna Mandi, Sohrab Goth area.”
Hari Shanker Sharma (1980) Ravine erosion in India, Concept Pub. Co.: “Out of the total ravines lands in Rajasthan nearly 4.02 lac hectares has been estimated under dacoid infested ravine land.”


Spelled without a space. DTLHS (talk) 02:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

I have added some examples from websites. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:29, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
"websites" -- is it durably archived (WT:CFI: "in permanently recorded media")? - 17:11, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
OK I have given up trying to find durably archived versions, only one good newsgroup, and about 0 books and 0 newspapers, so I have renamed this to eighth final. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Parker square[edit]

A specific "almost magic square" that doesn't quite work. Equinox 19:29, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 23:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
The issue is that the word is from 2016, which is when the Numberphile video that led to the coining of the term was published, so any cites earlier than that simply cannot refer to this meaning. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 21:13, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Just to add: I do think this term is real, but it probably cannot be cited under Wiktionary rules. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 21:15, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018[edit]


Any takers? SemperBlotto (talk) 04:31, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Apparently John Broderick was a well-publicized NY City police detective known for giving beatings to perps. This work on slang has some citations, but some look like mentions. I can't find use in books of fiction, where I would expect it. DCDuring (talk) 05:35, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
See w:Johnny Broderick, which mentions broderick as a verb. DCDuring (talk) 05:49, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
The form “brodericked” gets a few use hits.  --Lambiam 17:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Neither verb nor noun appears in DARE. DCDuring (talk) 18:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)


Animal lick sound. Maybe an interjection but I doubt this verb has caught on CFI-attestably. Equinox 13:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I added one cite, but most of what I find is on twitter, which, as far as I know, is not CFI-compliant. There are a number of borderline uses for mlem as a noun on google news. Kiwima (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Able to resile or be resilient. DTLHS (talk) 04:08, 8 August 2018 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 03:48, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

QQ brings up enough French usages, probably in this sense, but no English usages. Anyone want to convert this to/add this in French?--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:23, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
What is QQ? I have added a French entry, the meaning is the same. Also I found one English use from a newspaper. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:04, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
The French quotes are mentions, not uses. Please delete if nothing else is forthcoming. Per utramque cavernam 13:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
vespivorous ought to exist as well, but is very rare. It is in Gilbert White#s The Natural History and Antiquities of Selborne however. (and I don't know what QQ is) SemperBlotto (talk) 05:31, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Quiet Quentin – see the "Gadgets" tab under "Preferences". — SGconlaw (talk) 09:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: A rough cloak or ragged garment. Quotations from 1386. DTLHS (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

OED says now only Brit. dialect. Has modern cites 1885, 1959, 1962.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 06:21, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
@Sonofcawdrey:, Rather than just mentioning that the OED has modern cites, and you please add them to the page or the citations page, so that others of us can decide whether we consider them valid? Thanks. Kiwima (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Point taken.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:12, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 20:10, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Obsolete spelling of begin. DTLHS (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2018 (UTC)


RFV of the "fear"/"awe" related senses (etymology 2), which are marked as "obsolete, regional, rare" and have only a Middle English citation and a reference to the Middle English Dictionary. They're not in Century, or the English Dialect Dictionary AFAICT. - -sche (discuss) 18:00, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

September 2018[edit]

Christiandom [edit]

Not just a typo of Christendom? SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 21:31, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Not a "common" misspelling. DCDuring (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
It looks attestable from GBooks, but the definition provided seems tendentious and wrong. It seems more supportable as a synonym of def 1 of Christendom. DCDuring (talk) 21:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

RFV-resolved Converted to an alt form of Christendom. Kiwima (talk) 21:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

lig- [edit]

"Binding"; the only instance of its use we have is ligase. Really an English prefix? Equinox 15:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

"ligase" probably comes through German, and "carboligase" seems to have been in use for several decades before "ligase" appears on its own, FWIW. At any rate I've removed the prefix etymology. DTLHS (talk) 21:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)


Ety 2: "To create a rule, regulation, or law only to then violate it." Seems to have been suggested as a possible word but never caught on; see etymology in entry. Equinox 00:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

ebohphobe [edit]

Three Google results, one possible Google Books result. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 16:58, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 22:09, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

felefold [edit]

Verification as English rather than Middle English. The quote in the entry is from the early 1400s, which is before our 1500 cutoff, and it's listed in the Middle English Dictionary entry for the word.

This seems to be based on a Century Dictionary entry, and Century Dictionary includes Middle English terms along with (modern) English. If this fails, it should be converted to a Middle English entry. Chuck Entz (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed, converted to Middle English. Kiwima (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

beat someone's pot[edit]

"(slang, idiomatic, of men) to womanize"; "calque of Thai ตีหม้อ (“to womanize”)". —Suzukaze-c 08:58, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Added by the Thai IP, so probably rubbish. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 10:09, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
I just searched Usenet for "beat|beats|beating|beaten my|your|her pot", and found no relevant hits. Khemehekis (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
Well, there's this, but it's probably just because the pun is impossible to translate. Kiwima (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 22:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Sulu [edit]

These people are the Tausugs. Carl Francis (talk) 23:40, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

From Webster 1913. Could it just be out of date (in which case mark as obsolete, but keep)? Equinox 00:05, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Sources where the term refers to an ethnic group of people: [3]; [4]; [5]. Hard to judge whether these uses are supposed to mean, specifically, members of “the most prominent of the Moro tribes”, or, generically, any indigenous people from the Sulu Archipelago.  --Lambiam 12:53, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

RFV-resolved Definition tweaked slightly. Kiwima (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "A society's rules on what topics are suitable for disclosure." I'm actually having a hard time understanding what this sense added by an anon is trying to convey. --Robbie SWE (talk) 17:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

I assume he's referring to the idea of professional/legal/Internet privacy (i.e. personal information should not be disclosed or made public, except in certain circumstances). For instance, laws protecting the laws of minors who are victims of crimes to prevent their names from being reported in the media. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:10, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Your explanation makes perfect sense to me, but the current sense needs a lot of work including sources and citations. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Rules is not a hypernym of any plausible sense of privacy. Privacy is something protected by rules. Rules define limits on privacy. Maybe that questioned "definition" would work in sociological discourse where metonomy and synecdoche run rampant. DCDuring (talk) 19:32, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
Wiktionary now has two senses for the word. Century had 6; RHU has 6; MW 1913 had 5; MWOnine has 5; WNW has 3; Collins has 2-3; Oxford, AHD, Cambridge have 2 each.
If we intend to cover the historical uses we probably need at least 5 definitions, none of which should be the challenged one. DCDuring (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
  • I have added several definitions, four obsolete (archaic?), two current. I think the two current ones are distinct and can be cited. The obsolete ones are from our usual out-of-copyright sources. Please take a look and take whatever action you deem appropriate. The current ones in particular would benefit from improved wording. DCDuring (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2018 (UTC)


Nothing on Books or Groups Chuck Entz (talk) 03:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Nothing on Google scholar either. Kiwima (talk) 04:27, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
The word is used in two Wikipedia articles, si5s and ASLwrite, in both cases added on May 11, 2017, by the same editor.  --Lambiam 09:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
The usual prefix for words formed from Ancient Greek σῶμα (sôma) is somato-, and that for χείρ (kheír) is chiro-. Chirographic is an existing word. No hits for any of somatochirographic, somatocheirographic and somachirographic.  --Lambiam 09:21, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
I am that author; it is a protologism being passed around in Deaf circles as a better way to describe writing systems for sign and tactile languages. You can take it down, there is no written sources on it yet (and I do not want to comb through videos trying to find a recorded source in ASL, sorry)! There is terminology changing and being added rapidly trying to better describe highly neglected groupings of languages. I was going through Indigenous language and sign language entries that day and updated what I remembered, going to go back and add citations, but there is only starting to have more writings on ASL and other tactile or sign languages. --Danachos (talk) 03:44, 10 October 2018 (UTC)


Supposed English surname of Malay origin. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 12:09, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "Georgian"; of "Georgian" specifically, not of the historical Georgian kingdom of Iberia. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 17:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense of Gothic language revival. Judging from Google Books, this word means something, but it does not mean this, at least from what I can tell. Added by a dude who had a penchant for adding unattested Gothic words. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 20:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

(Side issue: the unchallenged sense (= neogothic) is a proper noun whose alternative form is an adjective entry.) Equinox 19:15, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


Three senses: "all people don't think alike"; "all praises due to Allah"; "all patriots don't trust America". Can any of these be attested? Equinox 19:14, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I checked Usenet, and the only sense attested is American Pet Dog Trainers' Association. Khemehekis (talk) 21:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
I have added two cites to "all praises due to Allah". I found more, but not on durably archived sources. As far as I can tell, the other two are fairly common "alternative" interpretations. Kiwima (talk) 22:37, 26 September 2018 (UTC)


Become pale; shine. No ~ing or ~ed in Google Books except scannos for forms of liken. Must be obsolete at the very least. Equinox 20:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

pinging creator @LeasnamMnemosientje (t · c) 20:50, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
From here [[6]]. Suggest a move to Middle English if no EME can be found Leasnam (talk) 04:08, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Devil's Triangle[edit]

Rfv-sense: a sexual threesome. This word and boof have been in the news lately in the US (if you don't know why, count yourself lucky). Yesterday I added several new senses to boof, but I couldn't find any durably archived citations for this sense of Devil's Triangle.

If we do find citations, we should try to figure out whether the term just means a threesome or specifically a threesome with two men and one woman. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:29, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Your boy Equinox created devil's threesome a while ago. Please check your capitalisation. Equinox 02:31, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, it's good that we have that entry, and a quick search finds some citations for it. But I can't find citations for any capitalization of Devil's Triangle/Devil's triangle/devil's triangle with this meaning. —Granger (talk · contribs) 02:45, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, most of what I find is mention's doubting the "Drinking game" story, but I did find one news article that actually used the term. Kiwima (talk) 04:44, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
This New York Times fact checking page states that classmates of the Judge said the phrase was regularly used to describe sex between two men and a woman.  --Lambiam 09:58, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
Here is a quotation, albeit without capitalization:
1915, Wilbur F. Craft, “Dancing in High Schools”, Journal of Education volume 82, no. 19 (November 25, 1915), p. 510:
High school dances are just now especially untimely, for there is a sex madness on the nation, as shown from the increased “suggestiveness” of dance and drama and song and dress and magazines,—the latter now so reeking with stories strung on the devil’s triangle, “the husband, the wife and the lover,“ that Pittsburgh has felt constrained to appoint a censor for the magazines.
 --Lambiam 04:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
There are also a few (very few) cites out there for "map of Tasmania"/"vulva" with inconsistent capitalisation,[7] [8] if anyone cares to pursue it. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 06:55, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

devil's triangle[edit]

An entry for the lowercase form has been created, so I'm adding it to the RFV. It currently has three citations, including the one that Lambiam gave above, but the 1915 quotation looks like it's for a different sense (it sounds to me like it's talking about a love triangle, not a threesome), and the 2018 quotation is a non-durably-archived mention. The 2007 quotation looks good, assuming that it's durably archived. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

  • BTW, what about the drinking game sense? Seems like that's a hot sense at the moment. Purplebackpack89 00:31, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    • All 3 are durably archived mentions. -- Cirt (talk) 00:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I've seen mentions, but no uses. —Granger (talk · contribs) 01:24, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Added citations from 2007 and 2013. -- Cirt (talk) 19:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
The 2013 citation is for the capitalization "Devil's Triangle" (above), and I'm not sure it's durably archived. The 2007 citation looks good, so we need two more. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
2013 citation is durably archived. -- Cirt (talk) 00:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Could you please explain how you know that? —Granger (talk · contribs) 03:53, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Cosmopolitan‎ is a magazine. It is durably archived via microfiche in libraries around the world in multiple locations. -- Cirt (talk) 12:01, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Most publications with web sites have online content that never makes it into their print editions. Chuck Entz (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
It's also been online since 2013, and has likely been cached elsewhere. -- Cirt (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
Online caches aren't considered durably archived, as they can disappear pretty easily. Unless we can find evidence that the article in question was published in the print edition of the magazine, we can't consider it durably archived. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018[edit]

Darwiish State[edit]

I don't see any usage of this collocation. DTLHS (talk) 16:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: One who makes or is concerned with money. DTLHS (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2018 (UTC)


All senses of etymology 1. DTLHS (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, but perhaps in future wait till after the entry appears on WOTD? :-) — SGconlaw (talk) 18:17, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
If it can't be verified it shouldn't be featured. DTLHS (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, but it's asking a lot to expect me to verify all nominations before listing them. Sometimes it's not obvious that they are unverifiable or have other problems (for example, less-than-stellar). — SGconlaw (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
Could you delay it for a month? DTLHS (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
I could relist it in February 2019 or beyond ... Scratch that – silly me, I could just swap two WOTDs in October and November, couldn't I? — SGconlaw (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
OK, sowl is now listed for WOTD on 2 December 2018. — SGconlaw (talk) 02:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

This is a tough one! Every time I think I found something, it turns out to be "fowl". I did find one clear quote, which I added to definition 1. Two more ambiguous quotes I added to the citations page. There's also a quote from Piers Plowman, but I didn't bother with that because its Middle English. Kiwima (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

You might have to try looking for the alternative forms. (Actually, I already included the Piers Plowman quote yesterday ...) — SGconlaw (talk) 01:40, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm, the 2011 quotation is merely a paraphrase of the 1857 one. — SGconlaw (talk) 02:54, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
As for alternate forms, the song "soul cake" is related to etymology 1. e.g.:
  • 1992, Joanna Bogle, A Book of Feasts and Seasons, →ISBN, page 174:
    You tell them to say "A soul cake, a soul cake, I pray thee, good mistress, a soul cake", which is the old North Country refrain.
which also yields:
  • 2018, Sharon Ely Pearson, Faithful Celebrations: Making Time for God in Autumn, →ISBN, page 133:
    Begging at the door for candy grew from an ancient English custom of knocking at doors to beg for a “soul cake” in return for which the beggars promised to pray for the dead of the household.
  • 1981, Geoffrey Scard, Squire and tenant: life in rural Cheshire, 1760-1900, page 93:
    All Souls' Day was celebrated by souling, a custom going back to pre-Reformation days: soul cakers and mummers toured the village begging for a soul cake — a plain, round, flat cake seasoned with spices.
Kiwima (talk) 03:18, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Which sense of sowl would this be, though? Isn't it just soul, because the cake is given in return for the recipient praying for the soul of someone deceased? — SGconlaw (talk) 03:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
It is the same cultural practice of "sowling" or "souling". I suspect that the "praying for the soul" is a later addition once the original sense of the word was lost. Kiwima (talk) 04:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Ah, I see. — SGconlaw (talk) 05:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


Hypothetical planet. Was added at phattie; I moved to capped form. Equinox 14:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I can find LOTS of mentions, but no actual usages. It's apparently a verbal nickname that is not used in print. Kiwima (talk) 20:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


"Misspelling of definition." SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 21:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like it would be a common way to misspell "definition". It's not like definately which is a really common way to misspell definitely. 23:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "a type of food". Based solely on the lyrics of a single song I've never heard of and is likely tosh. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 21:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

My guess is that the song refers to this, which is simply pan without the reduplication. Kiwima (talk) 22:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

shelve [edit]

Rfv-sense of "(slang) To take (drugs) by anal insertion." The mentions I found stated it refers to vaginal insertion instead, of methamphetamine in particular, and cites don't seem too easy to come by. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 07:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

I can find plenty of mentions, but uses are harder to come by. I added three quotes, but one of them (2013) is clearly a mention. Kiwima (talk) 22:35, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Ah, found another use. This is now cited Kiwima (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 19:35, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


Another one of these. DTLHS (talk) 01:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

HYPS [edit]

DTLHS (talk) 01:13, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 02:36, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 09:12, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

squaffle [edit]

DTLHS (talk) 01:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

cited (There are more, but I chose three that spanned more than a year to show this is not a hotword) Kiwima (talk) 02:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 09:13, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

sweet summer child[edit]

Any takers (outside of Game of Thrones universe)? Needs converting to noun if OK. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:46, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 04:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 04:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

houseslave [edit]

Fake and stupid.2600:1000:B12A:CD6B:31F2:90C1:3230:14D9 12:26, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what that means in this context, and doubt you really understand what RFV is for, but I've cited it (and, yes, I checked against the scans; Google read house-slave as houseslave repeatedly, but all the cites I used are indeed "houseslave".)--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)


"(Internet slang) The sound a dog makes." Also, please improve the definition: dogs make lots of sounds, such as barking, growling, yipping, panting, sighing, and skittering their little feet on the kitchen linoleum. Equinox 20:43, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Internet users hear blep sounds from all kinds of sources, a metal detector, a phone line, pvp matches. And here is another Internet definition: “Blep is an adorable phenomenon that involves the protrusion of a cat‘s tongue while its mouth stays closed, often due to forgetfulness or while asleep.” No dog sounds were spotted in this cursory investigation. As to how an audible blep sounds, a conjectural rendering is /bɫp̚/.  --Lambiam 14:58, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I also thought the word referred to any animal, but often a pet, sticking its tongue out. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:56, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


Only to be found in GBooks in the single citation given, which isn't exactly clear to understand. Equinox 22:01, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

This might need to be moved to Scots (alt bightsom). Leasnam (talk) 14:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


Fear of clouds- a good number of mentions in phobia lists, one mention-y Usenet use. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:07, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Personally I suffer from phobocatalogophobia – a phobia of phobia lists, in particular such as have been formed by the accretion of “the sort of thing idle pseudo-intellectuals invent on the internet and which every smarty-pants takes up thereafter”. We should only include -ophobias if they are attested by clear uses.  --Lambiam 05:21, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
This isn't that sort of thing; it's mentioned in non-Internet sources back to at least 1981. In fact, I suspect most of the phobia lists are derived from pre-Internet words.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't clear: I meant phobia lists in books, not the internet ones (I never bother to look at those). That said, the same things can be said about most of the ones in books: some reference makes up a word, and all the other references copy it. The rest of the hits are for a certain type of self-help book that talks about fears as something to be overcome, and includes a list of "official" names of fears as a sort of filler. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

I could only find one quote that looks like a use. In addition, there is [this article], but the text is unavailable. Kiwima (talk) 04:44, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

It is not an article but one poem in a series of four: “Cymophobia: Fear of Waves”, “Aulophobia: Fear of Flutes”, “Erythrophobia: Fear of Blushing”, and “Nephophobia: Fear of Clouds”, published together in the Summer 1988 issue of The Paris Review. They are behind a paywall, but I’ll be vaguely surprised if any of these terms appear anywhere else in the poems other than their titles.  --Lambiam 14:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Added two more cites.-Sonofcawdrey (talk)

I once had an idea to combat this continual fight against arrant "phobia-adders", namely, add them all! Yes, add _all_ the stupid phobias from those phobia lists, and then the rest of the editors interested in adding real words could concentrate on more important things and the "phobia-adders" would recede away and stop bothering us. My idea was that we could add them as entries, and for the un-attested ones, simply have a permanent notice saying: This entry is not properly attested, it only appears in phobia-lists; please add CFI-worthy citations (or something to that effect). Once they got properly cited (if ever), the notice could be taken down. I suppose the problem with this solution is that it might be the thin edge of the wedge. I mean, if we do it for phobia-words, why not other types of words? There are lots of lists of -mancy-words, and -philia-words, etc. But, might not this idea be worth thinking about? - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

We already do this in some places, e.g. Pokémon. I don't really approve. Having an entry saying "this is not an entry" is foolish. Equinox 10:57, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


"An explosion that results in a fireball" -- distinct from sense 1, the ball of flame itself. Equinox 18:11, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

It gets hard to tell. I put a bunch of cites on the citations page, and would appreciate it if someone else took a look at them. Kiwima (talk) 05:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
In the first two citations, the fireball is a meteor, and the explosion is caused by the fireball, not the other way around. In the other citations involving an explosion, the referent is definitely the fireball resulting from an explosion, not the explosion preceding the fireball.  --Lambiam 08:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Even the 2014? It talks about the fireball causing a surge of energy. Kiwima (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn’t put much weight on that source; it is fiction written by someone with a limited understanding of scientific facts. The hero, Bolan, sees gasoline running, spreading, pooling, and getting ignited. The text then has, “Bolan knew how fast ignited gasoline could gather momentum.” Next thing, the fire “blows” and flames burst (presumably as a ball of fire), whereupon we have the surge of energy created by this fireball throwing our hero aside. Not very clear, but at best a case of confusion, not a different sense of the term “fireball”.  --Lambiam 21:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Merge these definitions. Ƿidsiþ 13:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "A molecule looking like sugar, but made of anticarbon, antihydrogen and antioxygen". Can find only one reference online. SURJECTION ·talk·contr·log· 12:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

If we include antisugar, I insist we also include antiapple and antimacassar oil.  --Lambiam 22:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
LOL. It would be a lot easier to cite (I have added three cites for "antiapple" to its citations page!). Kiwima (talk) 02:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


Sense 1 (not challenged): "A Catholic or Latinophone of the East." Sense 2 (subject of this RFV): "Citizen of the East, culturally relevant to the (or a) catholic and latinophone civilization." What is this trying to say exactly? (P.S. Might need an adjective section too.) Equinox 18:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The terms Levantine and Franco-Levantine, when applied to people, are practically synonymous. Used as English nouns, these words are almost always used in their plural forms. Like the term Jew, it is difficult to delineate the meaning in a crisp and unambiguous way; whether someone is considered to belong to the group of Levantines is a muddled mix of descent, religion, first language (mother tongue), and other cultural aspects such as customs (dress, manners) and eating habits; additionally, all this is much fuzzier now than in the heyday of the Ottoman Empire. I think the first sense focuses on religion and first language, whereas the second sense is trying to say you can still culturally belong to the Levantine community, even if you are not a believer yourself and your mother tongue is actually Turkish or Syriac. A criticism of these definitions is the use of the vague term “East”; Akie Abe is a Catholic of the (Far) East, but she is certainly not Franco-Levantine.  --Lambiam 20:11, 8 October 2018 (UTC)



  1. (derogatory, euphemistic) bitch (pejorative term for a despicable or disagreeable, aggressive woman.)
  2. (derogatory) boring, narrow-minded or slow person.
  3. (formal) An interjection of contempt.
  4. (slang) 4/5 truth, mutable concoction of facts employed for an ulterior purpose.

I deleted senses 3 and 4, but readded them just so we can go through the process of verifying them. I also want to verify senses 1 and 2 because they were added by an anon and I can't seem to find sources supporting them. --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

According to The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia, the word in sense 3 is inherited from Middle English, which borrowed it from Old French, so it has a different etymology than senses 1 and 2. I think it may be dated. Sense 4 is a stupid joke and should be deleted.  --Lambiam 20:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I could not find the word in several Middle English dictionaries; The Century Dictionary and Cyclopedia gives Promptorium parvulorum as the authority.  --Lambiam 21:17, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
The MED has it as an alternative form of 7 different terms[9]. DCDuring (talk) 22:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
Not all 7 seem to actually have trut as an actual alternative form. DCDuring (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
The relevant one for the exclamation is prūt. The variety of forms makes me think this is imitative, like tut tut/tsk tsk.  --Lambiam 01:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Senses 1 and 2 do not belong in English and should be deleted. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).
+1 for the previous comment - Nobody is using senses 1 and 2, that's ridiculous. Sense 4 is a joke, should be removed too. Regarding sense 3, I can't tell if that's correct. For some reason TRUT gives me the sense of "bold and fast change, bold appearance or disappearance", but that's just my gut feeling. —This unsigned comment was added by (talk).
The fact that you have never encountered the term in senses 1 or 2 does not suffice to establish that nobody uses these senses. There is nothing ridiculous per se in the idea of people using this, any more than their using boor or bumpkin.  --Lambiam 11:36, 12 October 2018 (UTC)



  1. (Canada, North Western Ontario, slang, derogatory) An aboriginal person perceived as having gangster ties.

Being Canadian, this is unlikely to be etymologically related to the Oz/NZ term. But before moving it to its own etymology section, I thought it best to see if it is citable. It does not occur in the second ed. of Dictionary of Canadianisms on Historical Principles (Fee and Dollinger 2017).-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 05:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I found two cites, and a few mentions. Some speculation that it is a corruption of pokologan, or related to the word for a creek or riverbed. I also found this, but I;m not sure that it's durably archived. Kiwima (talk) 09:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
I have had a look for a third cite, but have come up empty-handed so far.-Sonofcawdrey (talk) 06:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


Sense 2: speaking in a whisper about someone. Equinox 18:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


Newly added: hip-hop slang for an attention-seeker. Equinox 10:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I can't imagine a "clout chaser" being someone who chases attention-seekers; so those all look like sense 1 ("influence or effectiveness"), except possibly the "fucking clout bitch" which isn't clear to me (reads like an adjective). Equinox 14:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
I think "clout" refers to fame and celebrity, and a "clout chaser" is someone who only cares about being associated with the above. I wouldn't read too much into the syntactic details here- this is supposed to fit the music/rhythm rather than make sense word-for-word. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:51, 14 October 2018 (UTC)


A fictional place in one TV series. Needs to pass WT:FICTION, just as e.g. a planet from Star Trek would. Equinox 15:25, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep. THE singular main fictional place in the notable TV series. -- Cirt (talk) 15:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion and citation pages for further research in the future. -- Cirt (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

We still have a month for someone to find citations that pass WT:FICTION. I have been unable to find any, but someone else might. Kiwima (talk) 04:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The Land of Gorch[edit]

Fiction. Equinox 15:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

  • Keep, as modeled after existing page, Star Trek. -- Cirt (talk) 15:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Does it satisfy WT:FICTION, though? — SGconlaw (talk) 16:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
      • Comment: The entry satisfies WT:ATTEST and WT:FICTION. It should therefore be kept. -- Cirt (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
        • It seems to me that none of the quotations currently on the page are independent of reference to the fictional universe, as required by WT:FICTION. They are just referring directly to the show. Compare, for example, the adjective sense of Star Trek. — SGconlaw (talk) 17:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
          • WT:ATTEST is met. There are more than 3 durably archived citations. WT:FICTION is met. There are more than 3 durably archived citations over a period of several years. The references are independent of the topic itself. Therefore, the entry should be kept. -- Cirt (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I see no evidence that WT:FICTION is met. From that page:

Terms originating in fictional universes which have three citations in separate works, but which do not have three citations which are independent of reference to that universe may be included only in appendices of words from that universe, and not in the main dictionary space.

The six citations currently at Citations:The_Land_of_Gorch are direct mentions specifically of that "universe" (or sketch, comedy, show segment, what-have-you). They are in no way "independent of reference to that universe", and thus do nothing to meet WT:FICTION. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 18:48, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
I just searched for "Gorch" on Usenet, typing in "gorch -muppet -muppets -fock" and couldn't find a single reference to the Land of Gorch there. Most of the hits for Gorch were references to Lyle Gorch/the Gorch Brothers. There's also apparently a use in Star Trek, which doesn't meet WT:FICTION either. Khemehekis (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Delete. I love Jim Henson, but this doesn't seem to have any lexical value. Every reference given seems to be a mention of the skit; it's never used to describe a particular quality or genre or anything other than itself. There's an article on Wikipedia, which is fine, but I can't see why there would be a Wiktionary entry for something that's not likely to be encountered by itself or out of context. I seriously doubt there's any connection to Star Trek. I've been a fan of the original series for a long time, and I don't remember anyone or anything called "Gorch"; perhaps someone is guessing how to spell something heard indistinctly (like a Gorn). But since that series ran from 1966 to 1969, and The Next Generation didn't run start until 1987, and to the best of my knowledge didn't ever refer to anything remotely related to the Muppets or Saturday Night Live (apart from Joe Piscopo's guest appearance), it seems very unlikely that "The Land of Gorch", a one-season series of sketches that ran in 1975, is mentioned in it. Even if there's something spelled that way, it almost certainly refers to something else. P Aculeius (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 21:17, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Most of what I find is not on durably archived sources. I did add one from Usenet. Kiwima (talk) 01:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Def is probably wrong. "Fleshitude" is more likely to relate to actual flesh (body shape, curvaceousness?) than generic attractiveness. Equinox 21:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
It seems like it was phrased to fit the etymology, which seems to be wrong. I think the correct etymology would that it's a blend of flesh and pulchritude, the joke being that a fancy, effete-sounding latinate term has its guts ripped out and replaced by an embarrassingly blunt "Anglo-Saxonism". Chuck Entz (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
IMO -itude or -titude is a highly productive suffix in English, especially with humourous or pseudo-humorous intent, such as may be found at UD. Examples: arseitude, asstitude, authenticitude, correctitude, hackitude. DCDuring (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


(The noun) Equinox 17:32, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I cited the adjective and doubt that a noun can be cited. Searches for "a trumpophobic" and "trumpophobics" came up empty on News, Books, and Groups. DCDuring (talk) 17:52, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
This isn't a vote. DTLHS (talk) 17:57, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Say that to people voting, "delete", elsewhere, above. -- Cirt (talk) 17:59, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
Most RfV are relatively straightforward matters of matching citations to definitions. For these there is no overall vote, though the question of whether a cite matches the definition can be argued. For some other cases, such as those involving WT:FICTION above, there is more room for opinion and thus for voting.
Okay thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I've converted the RfV to RfV-sense of the noun. DCDuring (talk) 18:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
The entry is Trumphobic, whereas all of the cites are for Trumpophobic. Which is it? Khemehekis (talk) 22:01, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I have moved the cites to Trumpophobic. I added two cites for Trumphobic, but we still need a third for the adjective, as well as the noun. If the adjective fails, we can move the entry to Trumpophobic Kiwima (talk) 22:42, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The current definition has “A person who hates the U.S. president Donald Trump”, but both quotations involve entities (The New York Times, districts) that are not persons. Also, from these two quotations, it is not clear that “hates” is the appropriate description of the attitude; “disagrees with the policies of” may be a better fit.  --Lambiam 09:11, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
@Lambiam: The two cites are for the adjective, not the noun. Kiwima (talk) 13:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
OK, my bad.  --Lambiam 18:37, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


Only the first cite is durably archived (the second is a broken link). Also, both this and Trumphobic or Trumpophobic should probably be made into hotwords. Kiwima (talk) 22:49, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I added some more cites for this. They span more than a year, so not a hotword, but I am not sure about the durably archived thing. Can someone else weigh in here? Kiwima (talk) 23:00, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
I would say News 24 and Disabled Veterans don't look durably archived. The print editions of The Australian and The Wall Street Journal are, though I can't tell if these articles appeared in the print editions. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:56, 15 October 2018 (UTC)


"Do I". Found and added one, but spaced (d' I), making it more of a citation for d' really. Equinox 21:13, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


One of the weapons of the game Total Annihilation: The Core Contingency is called the Devastacean, which is a capitalized proper noun. Other than references to that, I don’t spot any uses. --Lambiam 19:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)


Foreigner's one-off error in PLOS ONE. (We should be very careful about citing PLOS ONE because it isn't edited and has all kinds of errors. It's not like other science journals.) Equinox 23:23, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you're about 30,000 entries late on not citing PLOS ONE. DTLHS (talk) 23:29, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

There's also a cite in Neurophysiology. Kiwima (talk) 00:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

  • But blogs, books and newspapers are not peer-reviewed (I assume that's what you meant by edited) and we allow those. SemperBlotto (talk) 04:53, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
    • (But according to its Wikipedia page, it is peer-reviewed.) SemperBlotto (talk) 05:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
No, I don't mean peer-reviewed. I mean basic editing for spelling and grammar. Unlike mainstream English-language newspapers, PLOS ONE accepts international material from China etc. and doesn't fix up the English at all. You shouldn't create obvious misspellings that only occur in one PLOS ONE article. Equinox 07:11, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I have added a second cite. I found a number of others that are a bit too mention-y, like this. Kiwima (talk) 21:38, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


A "nonce word" (what a meaningless label). DTLHS (talk) 19:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Most of what I found were misspellings of richest. I added three cites to the citations page, but they don't match the supplied definition. Kiwima (talk) 22:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


Not the computer keyboard sense, but the slang for "control" in general. Equinox 23:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


A male given name. Equinox 13:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


From Websters 1913. I'm not finding much from my barstool --XY3999 (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)--XY3999 (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Incidentally, looks as though it might also be an alt form for some senses of scrim. Equinox 14:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)