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


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)
Question book magnify2.svg Input needed
This discussion needs further input in order to be successfully closed. Please take a look!


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)

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)
Even combining all the senses and reducing this to an alt form, it only has 2 citations for the verb and 1 for the noun. Several old dictionaries, including the EDD and dictionaries of specific dialects, have usexes (of "stevvon[e]d oot", etc), but CFI doesn't allow made-up examples of how a word could be used. I'm about to RFV almost all the senes of the "lemma" spelling, steven, because I can't find citations for any of them except the first one ("the voice"). - -sche (discuss) 07:12, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
I've added a third cite for the verb stevvon. It comes from the Recontres section of The Dialect of Leeds and Its Neighbourhood, which begins at page 1. The cite is on page 67 here [[1]], so it is not a usex. Leasnam (talk) 03:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
The verb passes. The noun still only has one citation. Kiwima (talk) 23:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
...and that citation isn't even a use, but seemingly a made-up usex:
  • 1876, F. K. Robinson, A Glossary of Words Used in the Neighbourhood of Whitby:
    Stevvon, force; loudness. 'Your clock strikes with a desperate stevvon.'
I've deleted the noun section as RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 17:32, 16 February 2019 (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]


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)


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)


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)

October 2018[edit]


"(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)


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)


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

I have added three cites to the citations page, but I can't really say whether they are male given names or nicknames. I also found Darkeye as a surname, and as a woman's name. Also as a variety of sunflower, of daisy, and of dahlia. Kiwima (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

November 2018[edit]


I see it used in reference to various people named Kevin, Kevin Rudd for example, but not with the given sense. DTLHS (talk) 03:38, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Here are a few instances of the given sense:

Discover Magazine

CTV News

Nancy's Baby Names Driving55 (talk) 04:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


Equinox 17:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

I see a lot of Google hits on non-durably archived pages, but nothing on Google Books nor Usenet. Khemehekis (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Not in Scholar or News. DCDuring (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Nothing on Issuu, either. RFV-failed, deleted. - -sche (discuss) 17:28, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


Doesn't sound natural to me, especially the supposed adjective. DTLHS (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the noun sense is close to cited, even though some of the cites may be debatable, especially the ones about the Simpsons which could be about a C.H.U.D. parody. I'm also sceptical about the adjective, though I found it in a dictionary of slang (didn't use the same phrasing of course).
Some people on Usenet also mentioned that homeless people on the NYC subway are also called "chuds". ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 08:11, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Other findings for "chud" in different senses: alternative form of cud (etym 1), "sewage" (prob. etym 2). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:09, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018[edit]


Humorous unit of energy, oft quoted but rarely if ever used. Equinox 21:24, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

sporae dispersae[edit]

Supposedly English but is a member of a Latin category. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:12, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

What exactly are we supposed to verify? Occurrences of the term in Latin texts? Obviously, this is a Modern Latin neologism (like spora by itself is), somewhat like the term generatio spontanea, only much more recent. Since it was coined only after Latin had fallen into disuse as a language for scientific discourse, any uses in Latin text wil almost be like borrowings. Perhaps we should classify the term as translingual, something we should probably also do with in vitro and other “Scientific Latin” neologisms that are used across language borders.  --Lambiam 11:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
It's botanical latin in origin. See IRMNG and Paleopalynology: Second Edition by Alfred Traverse --NessieVL (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


stevven, steaven[edit]

RFV of everything (except the first sense, "voice", which is cited). Compare the RFV of #stevvon. Note that several of the citations are Middle English or are mentions and/or are not of this spelling.
The "that which is uttered; cry, petition, prayer" and "command" senses could possibly be combined if it would make them easier to cite (note that one of the three citations they have between them is Middle English and the other two use steauen, which has an a even if one overlooks the variation in u~v).
George Ellis's Specimens of the Early English Poets has a citation of "Stephen kept his steaven" which supports the "appointment" sense, although again not in this spelling.
I took all the citations from the EDD and Century that were not made-up usexes or Middle English. - -sche (discuss) 07:23, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

This might be of interest. It's a mention of the verb stevven, and explains how it was used mid-last century (c.1947). The text reads: If the stowering <i.e. the drifting of snow> was driven along by a very strong wind or gale, it was known as stevvening; when the wind howled, it was said to stevven. Stevven indicated something loud, like a howl, but it could also mean someone shouting. A fierce blizzard was described as “Snaw that was stevvening and stowering.” If a person lost his or her temper and began to shout and wave their arms about, they were also described as stevvening, while a snowstorm being driven by a strong wind was often known as a snaw-stower or snaw-stoor. [[2]].


Definition may be off even if the word is citable. - -sche (discuss) 07:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

I checked both "tradthot" and "tradthots" on Usenet, but all I could find was one thread talking about the word itself. Khemehekis (talk) 22:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
I have added quotes from the typical “new right“ news publications, making it seven quotes, all with authors. The definition is okay. We only need to wait a bit to have quotes to span more than a year. Fay Freak (talk) 04:01, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
Only the NYT cite looks durable to me. There is nothing usable on Usenet right now. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:11, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, the definition is definitely too loose right now. "A single woman who advocates traditional family values to cater to a conservative or alt-right audience, while not conforming to those values", while less than ideal, seems a better place to start. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 20:50, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

skots at Google Books (with luminance). DCDuring (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2018 (UTC)


I'm not convinced it's an actual English word, rather than a Latin word being used in running text in English. User:Equinox? Per utramque cavernam 00:09, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Compare this to candelabrum, which is not italicised, is used in contexts where one wouldn't expect to find Latin words: [3], [4], [5], [6], etc., and is even pluralised as a regular English noun. It has "taken off". Per utramque cavernam 00:21, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
In the first four hits I examined the term is in italics and explained: [7], [8], [9], [10].  --Lambiam 16:34, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


Same. Per utramque cavernam 00:14, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Overwhelmingly italicized. Not finding anything. DTLHS (talk) 04:02, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


AFAICT only the first noun sense survived into modern English (and it is rare and probably archaic/obsolete). All the hits I see for wemmed and other verb forms look to be Middle English. - -sche (discuss) 05:33, 25 December 2018 (UTC)


Equinox 16:46, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I've added 2 cites for "super-monogamous", and one for the entry title. There may be another (in Part of the Solution: Portrait of a Revolutionary), but I can't actually view the purported text. Based on the number of attested cites, it should be moved to super-monogamous; however, the related term is "supermonogamy", so I'm a bit torn Leasnam (talk) 17:20, 25 December 2018 (UTC)
The 1990 citation seems more likely to mean "very monogamous" as in not thinking about other people while with the current partner, not "never having another relationship if the current relationship ends". This seems like it is corroborated by supermonogamy saying the sense wasn't coined until 2004. Context would help determine whether the 2017 citation is using the "one partner ever" sense or a more general sense (as seems more intuitive for that hyphenation). - -sche (discuss) 05:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

These are the citations that were in the entry, which are again not all the same sense(!) or spelling:

  • 1990, Gerald Goodman, The Talk Book:
    For Ellie and her ex, there was agreement that couples should be totally open at all times, strictly equal in every way, super-monogamous in thought and deed, well-groomed, and always earnestly respectful to each other.
  • 2016, Martha Albertson Fineman, ‎Jack E. Jackson, ‎Adam P. Romero, Feminist and Queer Legal Theory:
    Sexual variation is arguably infinite, so there may well be some people who exhibit supermonogamous desires par excellence—people who have desired one and only one person in their entire lives—or who experience no desire at all. However, it also seems reasonable to assume that such people are rare.
  • 2017, Rosie Wilby, Is Monogamy Dead?:
    Maybe there's a 'super-monogamous' gene that I've inherited.

(In particular, the 1990 one can't be of the claimed sense because that sense wasn't coined until later.) RFV-failed as a result. - -sche (discuss) 17:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

black pill[edit]

Rfv-sense: "(slang) Something that enables or compels a person to overcome illusion and perceive harsher reality. (referencing the term red pill/take the red pill)". Familiar with the latter, not so much the former. --Robbie SWE (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2018 (UTC)

It's one of those Reddit incel-type terms, denoting a bleak pessimistic attitude. Does exist, almost certainly not per CFI. Equinox 04:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
PassAMethod??? Khemehekis (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2018 (UTC)
RFV-passed. Well surprising, it has been the only sense I know. 8 quotes for @Robbie SWE, including an extra in Swedish, and also 6 for the verb. One can search endlessly to find more media reports using the word. Fay Freak (talk) 04:01, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
@Fay Freak, you've outdone yourself ;-) Thank you for the quotes (not sure if the Swedish one should be used to validate the English word though). --Robbie SWE (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
Shouldn't we wait a week before we strike it out? Khemehekis (talk) 03:12, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Indeed. Some people may object that those sources are not durably archived.... Kiwima (talk) 04:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
Reopened. The Swedish cite doesn't belong under an English header, Medium and 21st Century Wire are not durable and I'm also not convinced the others are either except maybe The Independent. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 12:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
Swedish cites belong under an English header if they evidence English words. On Medium authors can delete articles but it is rare (?), anyway this one I have only added for informal proof. I cannot think of a reason why the durability of 21Wire would be diminished. Else what is with Mic, The Daily Wire‎, TheJournal.ie, Vice News? No reason to cast doubts upon them. WT:ATTEST says: “Where possible, it is better to cite sources that are likely to remain easily accessible over time.” This bids a prognosis, not that the texts need to be on paper, CD, cassette, microfilm etc. – which might become more or less or even absolutely inaccessible too, so web sources are even better to show use (also a different understanding is an evaluative contradiction for a community that rummages digital corpora to find printed sources – the CFI of other language versions like e.g. the Russian one even command more explicitly to provide web-accessible sources for accessibility). Also note that all the quoted sources are on the Wayback Machine and on archive.today. Plus the supreme rule is to include words that exist in communities (as distinguished from ad-hoc formations or protologisms) (”all words in all languages”) and I have verified this existence in a pending procedure so that the case is to be closed, which would means that the term has to be included even if WT:ATTEST is not met (what I deny), since nowhere in the WT:CFI it stands that WT:ATTEST is the only way to evidence terms processually. § 1 pr. of the CFI rather suggests the contrary: “A term should be included if it's likely that someone would run across it and want to know what it means. This in turn leads to the somewhat more formal guideline of” – so WT:ATTEST states a regular case (which I also fulfilled, as I claim) and other cases are admitted. How can one even get an idea that a term should perhaps be removed if a linked Quartz article includes an investigation into the origin and a graph counting usage in thousands? (It is mention, but one that points to perception of use, unlike mentions which derive from other mentions, or dictionary entries that could be copied, which is what the “use-mention distinction” in the CFI aims to exclude.) That words can be proven informally in a pending procedure can also be seen by the hypothetical case of a reverse RFD where people would vote to undelete a term given its quotations (assuming they are on the Citations page or else given in that procedure) after which the term cannot be deleted again by the procedure because it has been undeleted by consensus. So the Argumentum a maiore ad minus is that even against a formal RFV procedure a term has to be kept if there is no consensus against it (which there shouldn’t be as I said as I have given copious example to become acquainted and everyone find more in the non-durable web proper). Also competition with other dictionaries through coverage of internet slang suggests to keep terms that are shown to exist at any given point, since “professional dictionaries” track terms of informal appearance: Dictionary editors witness terms, they decide to include them. You aren’t applying the CFI correctly, @Lingo Bingo Dingo. RFV-passed, and Symbol keep vote.svg Keep.
I am aware that people might opine that for such an inclusion practice the CFI should be formally reworded, but nonetheless I hold that what I have stated is already the lex lata. And I am not the first one either to believe the same – the rule has always been in many editors’ hearts and what newbs are told: “Just add words that exist.” And those incel guys understood this (not PassAMethod who also defined strangely etc., that is a different problem) and hence did nothing wrong in including those here so-called “not-attestable” terms. Wiktionary editors have perverted the meaning of the words attestable and to attest. I have attested the word, in convenient form. Fay Freak (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Durably archived is well understood; the case law is clear. As is attestation, which we have a sense specifically for this case. Personally, if I were told to produce an attestation (sense 1, the general sense), I would expect to have to follow some weird rules, be it signing in particular ways or notarized by a public notary or involve an expert in some way; I would not expect any random format I used to be acceptable.
If you object to the rules as applied, I do not think this is the place and way to challenge them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:49, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I don't see how this can be called "RfV-passed". The cite problems included failure to be durably archived, ambiguity as to meaning, mention rather than use, foreign language. DCDuring (talk) 14:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Responding to some parts of that post:
Swedish cites belong under an English header if they evidence English words.
In this case the first two attestations in Swedish are mentions, the others take Swedish plural articles so can hardly count as English.
On Medium authors can delete articles but it is rare (?), anyway this one I have only added for informal proof. I cannot think of a reason why the durability of 21Wire would be diminished. Else what is with Mic, The Daily Wire‎, TheJournal.ie, Vice News? No reason to cast doubts upon them.
If authors can delete articles it isn't durable. 21st C Wire is an alternative "independent news" site that is little more than a group blog and is almost certainly not included in electronic databases. If the others are included in such databases they might be durably archived, but that is not a settled matter at all.
WT:ATTEST says: “Where possible, it is better to cite sources that are likely to remain easily accessible over time.” This bids a prognosis, (...).
This is only a recommendation, and doesn't qualify what is considered durably archived.
Also note that all the quoted sources are on the Wayback Machine and on archive.today.
The Web Archive isn't considered durable, because of its robots.txt exclusion policy (though this isn't followed strictly anymore). ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 15:01, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
It would be interesting to find out whether each citation for this RfV was in well-funded, well-indexed internet archives, and whether one could somehow find the relevant passage within a reasonable time.
"Durably" implies more than resistance to deletion by authors. It also implies that institutions of some degree of permanence will keep the material accessible. For print publications that means libraries. For usenet that means the various entities that host copies of it. The pace of change in electronic media has meant that there has been a high degree of mortality among the companies that publish electronically. Institutions like the Internet Archive are dependent on grants and don't have histories comparable to those of libraries. It is not unusual to find dead links in such archives or to be unable to locate the exact text one requires due to incomplete indexing.
In any event, this is not an RfV matter. It may be worth bringing it up again now at BP because it is important to us. DCDuring (talk) 17:28, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
@DCDuring Apart from Mic and the Swedish site (which block archiving services), all cites are in the Wayback Machine and archive.today:
The Wayback Machine isn't durably archived however, because they sometimes obey robots.txt. The FAQ of archive.today on the other hand states that they do not respect robots.txt, but that some content may be deleted if it violates their hoster's rules. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Let's take this to BP. We need to have some way of dealing with non-print publications that respects the basic objective of reliable attestation. Also, tt would be handy to have step-by-step instructions or an automated or semi-automated tool for efficiently getting a link to a durable archive after having gotten the cite from a fast search engine. DCDuring (talk) 13:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Wikihow has the basics here. Is there a tool (template, script, etc) available that can take a link from a fast search engine, eg, Google News, and find the link in a "durable" archive, eg, Wayback Machine/Internet archive? DCDuring (talk) 13:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Of all media, the reliability in what can concerns Wiktionary is highest in Wiktionary itself. You’ll witness that those quotes are real, that you didn’t let yourself be fooled by ad-hoc inventions. If in hundred years all the quotes are gone, we can say: Well Fay Freak, DCDuring & Co. looked into them, the quotes are real, the existence of the term is already demonstrated, case closed, ne bis in idem. We somehow need to get the terms that don’t have an intersection with Google Books or Usenet. I bet anyway that for any of the web quotes given some printed newspaper had the same term and we just don’t know which, we don’t reach out to them without disproportionate expenses, but what’s even the meaning of “languages well documented on the Internet” if it does not mean the internet taken as a whole, used to demonstrate words in a verification proceeding, since we all are working for free on the internet and the willingness of unpaid editors to go into far libraries to browse the pages for words is already mostly theoretical and the more so if the word does exist demonstrably online and its existence in the language is thus is shown in easier fashion. Google-Books and Usenet are for languages that use complex scripts (those that need complex text rendering) crap anyway, it probably does mean the web hence and since the language of the internet is directly the investigation object of Wiktionary, not via media in other form. The question is not even if a word exists in certain formats, if it exists on cassette or CD or only online, this is not so interesting, people care to have words in a dictionary that exist (sufficiently widely) anyhow, that the dictionary is reliable in any way. This is assuming that the section “Number of citations” does not contradict what is written before it in the CFI. Anyway surely one should fix the CFI formulation, going to the BP, since the way the CFI are written the application of the CFI has become detached from the goals of Wiktionary. You see: When people pursue verification requests though they are convinced that the term exists, rethinking many things is due. Fay Freak (talk) 15:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Again, these types of argument should go to the Beer Parlor, not to RfV. There's lots of discussion to be had about open Internet citation, but this is not the place.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019[edit]

Quebecoise pizza[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 23:17, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 00:41, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

German pizza [edit]

Rfv-sense: Synonym of flammkuchen. DTLHS (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

And sense 2 looks like a dodgy SoP too. (Informal? Why?) Equinox 23:30, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
This confirms sense 2, but does not make it look any less SoP. But here we find another colloquial SoP use, this time in a recipe for an onion and bacon tart. And again here, but now for something that defies description (perhaps “German Spanish tortilla”?)  --Lambiam 15:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Here and here, as well as on numerous places elsewhere, the term is used to explain to the reader what a Flammkuchen is; but in my opinion that does not count as a use. You wouldn’t use the statement that idli is a kind of rice cake as support for adding idli as another sense for rice cake.  --Lambiam 15:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
I have added a number of cites to the entry that seem to use "German Pizza" as a name for the stuff rather than a description, although the News Tribune quote is admittedly pretty questionable. Kiwima (talk) 07:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 00:40, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Japanese pizza[edit]

Rfv-sense: Synonym of okonomiyaki. DTLHS (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

This web page claims (without giving examples) that okonomiyaki is often casually described as “Japanese pizza”, a claim repeated here (same website, different author). This doesn‘t prove anything yet, but at least makes it look plausible. Here are three recipes identifying “Japanese pizza” with okonomoyaki: [23], [24], [25].  --Lambiam 15:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Yerg. FWIW, I'm more used to Japanese pizza referring specifically to the kinds of pizza served in Japan, with toppings like mayonnaise, nori, corn, mochi, and squid. ‑‑ Eiríkr Útlendi │Tala við mig 22:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
There is a similar thing with Turkish pizza. Foreigners use this to describe lahmacun, but in Turkey the term Türk pizzası will normally be understood as a pure SoP, a locally produced pizza, which will be halal (not contain pork) and use locally available herbs. It is not uncommon for a tourist-oriented eatery to offer both lahmacun and Turkish pizza as different menu options, with the expected occasional resulting confusion.  --Lambiam 07:14, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 00:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


Not the railway, but the individual train. (An example like "I got on the metro" doesn't prove anything, since you can also say "I got on the London Underground".) Can we say e.g. "Paris is introducing longer metros" [trains]? No such sense in the modern Chambers Dictionary. Equinox 03:59, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

When you are waiting for the metro, what are you waiting for? The railway? It is easy to find examples, although mostly not in durable archived sources: “Informative count down of when the next metro will arrive. The metro's are always on time - some even a little early!“; “You don't have to get out the paid area, and the next metro will come in 5-10 minutes”; “The metro was delayed by eight minutes as protestors laid siege to the metro station.“  --Lambiam 14:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
While we are addressing this entry: do we really need two pairs of definitions one for underground and the other for light rail? As it is, we omit els, surface "heavy" commuter rail, and part of the NYC rapid transit system that runs on the surface. I doubt that the term metro necessarily excludes all those. That said, NY natives don't call the local rapid transit, street-car, and commuter rail systems or the trains that they run "metros". DCDuring (talk) 16:04, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 01:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 23:55, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

I added two uses to the citations page. I found a third quote, but it was too mention-y. Kiwima (talk) 22:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


These quotes don't look good since they're all explaining the term and / or italicized. DTLHS (talk) 02:44, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

plazana [edit]

Here it's mentioned as a slang term for a drug, which isn't one of our senses. DTLHS (talk) 04:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


Ledish (and, frankly, leden/ledden and the "people" senses of lede) seem to be in the same boat as ledely (above). A Google Books search turns up various scannos, and the EDD has no entry, let alone pointers to citations, as they sometimes have. - -sche (discuss) 20:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

ledish in its current sense can be moved to Middle English. There is a ledish2 which is an obsolete spelling of leadish Leasnam (talk) 04:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I've moved the "Pertaining to people" sense to Middle English, and left ledish as an obsolete form of leadish. The tag remains, but is may no longer be needed. Leasnam (talk) 05:41, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


I can't find anything, but there are a few mentions of the singular CHSTREP. --Pious Eterino (talk) 10:51, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

If this were a plural of CHSTREP, shouldn't it be CHSTREPs? --Hekaheka (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


A sense in statistics looks includable. DTLHS (talk) 01:25, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

For the sense of media being available on a network in a widely dispersed distributed form: [26], [27] (the term occurs only in the title of the Master’s Thesis), [28]. The sense as currently given may be too specific.  --Lambiam 07:20, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
More precisely, everyone defines or uses the term differently, with little commonality.  --Lambiam 07:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
The term does not occur in the Encyclopedia of Mathematics. Different authors use the term for different mathematical concepts, such as a generalization of the mathematical (not statistical) concept of distribution, currently not even listed as a sense here at Wiktionary. There does not appear to be a single commonly understood mathematical sense.  --Lambiam 07:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
I have added two missing senses (the statistical sense mentioned by DTLHS, plus a sense of distribution on a massive scale). The original definition looks like an overly-specific case of this latter meaning, and I could not find cites that support it. Kiwima (talk) 23:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


Magical incantation. One book is cited, which seems to be making it up arbitrarily ("say a magic word, such as googly-moogly"); no evidence that this is in general magical use. If this RFV fails, remember to remove Category:en:Magic words and please check the alt forms and incoming links such as the synonyms at hey presto. Equinox 01:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)


"A reduced form of and-", as in answer. Was this ever productive in Modern English? Equinox 02:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)


Sense 2: "One who disappears for a time and suddenly reappears." Equinox 11:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I have altered the definition, because it is not so much a matter of reappearance as of bouncing back, and I have added three cites. Kiwima (talk) 23:51, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
The 1874 citation looks good. The other two have nothing to do with "bouncing back" and appear to be just using a bird-word to make people sound cute, like calling them "chickadees". Please re-evaluate those. Equinox 00:18, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: gender-neutral 3rd person singular pronoun.

Other dictionaries don't have it. We should (assuming it's real), but with good attestation in the entry. DCDuring (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I can find some evidence for its use in Thailand, but not in English. Kiwima (talk) 23:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
It was a spelling variant in Middle English. I'm not seeing anything even in the large advocacy and semi-scholarly web literature about gender-neutral words, let alone in durably archived media. DCDuring (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
The NYT mentions it alongside "thon", and this page has some more detail: it was an 1890s invention, apparently. I didn't spot any uses. - -sche (discuss) 06:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


Suzukaze-c 03:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

(If it passes RFV, then RFD as SoP may well be appropriate.) Equinox 14:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Compare big-dicked, Talk:big-dicked. Per utramque cavernam 20:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
LOL, thank you. That stupid entry having survived a discussion isn't why we aren't taken seriously, it's why people don't even bother to consider taking us seriously. Equinox 00:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Delete. - TheDaveRoss 03:13, 22 January 2019 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "To address (a person) using the pronoun you, rather than thou, especially historically when you was more formal." I'd be especially interested in recent uses.

Here's one old quote found by Lingo Bingo Dingo: "... not to be misled by a pestilent way that he has of youing me, ...". Per utramque cavernam 10:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, this youing the man was worse to poor Bill nor callin' him Mister. Per utramque cavernam 10:29, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
But in spite of the fact he 'youed' instead of 'thoued' me, he was not happy to see me.
That's not much. It would be good to find more. Per utramque cavernam 10:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
More occurrences of youing and thouing, used as gerunds / verbal nouns. Per utramque cavernam 11:06, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

This makes me notice there's apparently a verb "to thank you". See thank youing. Per utramque cavernam 10:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I've added three citations, but they're not brilliant. 1930 (Barrington Hall) and 2004 (Ellen Miller) intend: to address someone using "you". 1992 (Barbara Anderson) is to address someone using "you" rather than "one". None of them are doing so "rather than thou". (Note that the italics in 2004 (Ellen Miller) are conveying stressed intonation rather than the inclusion of a nonstandard term.) -Stelio (talk) 12:44, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

address using the formal pronoun[edit]

Unattested. Per utramque cavernam 10:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I find it hard to grasp how an ordinary human would benefit from the entry. Lack of attestation would be evidence of lack of utility. DCDuring (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Is address using the formal pronoun synonymous with address using the polite form? (See persirati#Serbo-Croatian.) They don't seem so to me. DCDuring (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
The meaning is, in both cases, to use the V-form in a language that has a T–V distinction – which includes Serbo-Croatian.  --Lambiam 16:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I cannot find this precise collocation, but a sufficient number of cites for address with a formal pronoun:
  • 1982, Peter S. Engelson and Robert S. Detrick (but the actual author of the quotation is Rafael L. Bras), “1982 James B. Macelwane Awards to Rafael Luis Bras, Donald W. Forsyth, and Steven C. Wofsy”, Eos 63:31, pp. 598 ff.:
    Early in my graduate student career we had a very serious conversation where he insisted I overcome my cultural habit of addressing him with a formal pronoun and by last name.
  • 2009, Margareta Rebelos and Antonella Strambi, “Address Pronouns in Italian CMC Exchanges: A ‘Good Example’ for L2 Learners?”, Italica 86:1, pp. 59-79:
    As suggested by Dewaele (2004) with reference to French speakers, age and especially status and familiarity are fundamental factors in selecting address forms, with older and unfamiliar interlocutors being most often addressed with a formal pronoun.
  • 2009, Roel Vismans,“Advanced Learners’ Use of Dutch Second Person Pronouns During Residence Abroad”, Journal of Germanic Linguistics 21:2, pp. 211-230:
    Someone in a superior position is addressed by someone in an inferior position with a formal pronoun (in Dutch u) but uses the informal pronoun (so the other forms in Dutch) to address the inferiors.
  • 2014, Yves-Oliver Tauschwitz, “Pronominal address among Russian Germans in the Altai Krai – preliminary results of empirical data”, Linguistik online 64:2:
    The paramount importance of status could be seen in the address of family members and friends, as older interlocutors expect to be addressed with a formal pronoun of address, but respond asymmetrically with an informal one.
I also found uses of using a formal pronoun, but somehow only in combination with a different verb, such as speak (as in, “In Spanish, one might speak to one’s parents using a formal pronoun”).  --Lambiam 21:43, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
This is a stupid headword but you know RFV ain't the venue. Equinox 00:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
For the record, I moved the original content to address with the formal pronoun and recreated address using the formal pronoun as an alternative form, which can then be deleted via a failed RFV. The Lambiam quotations above suggest address with a formal pronoun would be another attested headword. --Dan Polansky (talk) 14:06, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


Usenet results seem to just be word lists of some kind, while the scarce book results seem to have a different meaning. — surjection?〉 13:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Looks like "Anglish" linguistic revisionism- flavor is from Old French and replaced smack. Chuck Entz (talk) 13:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
You know when you've been hanging around here 10 years and you can just tell who created an entry by the way it's written? I would have laid a tenner on the noun, "as mush as a fishing smack can hold", being a subsequent joke addition by Wonderfool, but apparently not. Anyway, remember the noun is being challenged here as well as the Anglish adjective. Equinox 00:37, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Speaking of which: this looks like our Indian archaicist who kept trying to put Elizabethan usexes in entries. Note that I don't use checkuser tools for something like this, so it's just a hunch. Chuck Entz (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
After making the RFV, I reviewed the edits and got the same idea - I went through all of them and tried to get rid of some of the more pointless edits. — surjection?〉 11:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
The online OED has the noun sense. SemperBlotto (talk) 09:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
I can't even verify the etymology. There is no Middle English smakkeful or smechful to speak of Leasnam (talk) 03:44, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "The conviction that artists should not depict human beings." Tagged but not listed. Probably not too hard to attest in relation to Sunni Islam, but should perhaps be widened to any living beings. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 14:55, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I have had a great deal of trouble finding this term specifically limited to human beings, but it is clearly used more broadly than the other definition which simply lists a prohibition of depictions of the prophets or divinity. I suggest a broader definition, which indicates the use of the term to indicate that there are images that it is considered wrong to depict, be they the divinity, humans, animals, etc. Kiwima (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
The key concept in Abrahamic religions is a prohibition on depicting anything that might theoretically be construed as a deity. It's an extension of the prohibition against worshiping idols. Chuck Entz (talk) 21:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, the absence of figures – not just human beings – has become a characteristic feature of (Sunni) Islamic aniconism: [29], [30], [31], [32]. I think that this sense should have a label reflecting the Sunni Islamic context; moreover, rather than “conviction ... that ... should not” I‘d use the term proscription in the definition.  --Lambiam 21:12, 21 January 2019 (UTC)


Informal noun for "installation". I've never seen it with a single L. Equinox 23:01, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Google search for phrases such as "the instal worked" or "the instal didn't" show that some people write it this way, but most of the hits are from forums or similar, i.e. not professionally published text, so they could just be spelling errors or typos. Mihia (talk) 13:59, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


Searching for "thamnium" / "the thamnium" / "a thamnium" doesn't return anything promising. DTLHS (talk) 01:14, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I found 2 candidate citations at Google Scholar. They strike me as low-quality because the authors are probably not native speakers (based on name and publication in Russia). They also are not clearly consistent with the definition. I don't have searchable access to descriptions of lichen or the scholarly lichenology literature generally. My review of BHL was not fruitful. DCDuring (talk) 03:20, 25 January 2019 (UTC)


Newly added sense: "A lack of feeling, concern, or interest." Equinox 01:06, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

slam one's clam on crazy[edit]

Sex slang, female form of "stick one's dick in crazy". (Both seem at least partially SoP to me.) The phrase "clam on crazy" finds nothing in Google Books. Equinox 04:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)


An obsolete transcription borrowed from French, which I only seem to see in one encyclopaedia and derivatives or plagiarised forms of it. Created by @Geographyinitiative. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 03:15, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Here is the source I used to create that entry: [33]. It is written as 'Hoang-tcheou-fou' and is in the extreme northeast of Hou Koang (which is bordered in Green). --Geographyinitiative (talk) 03:23, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
'Hoang-tcheou-fou' also appears on this map: [34] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

tax value[edit]

The services a tax payer receives in return for paying taxes to support school, municipal, county, state and federal budgets. DTLHS (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Everything I find uses this to refer to the value from which taxes are calculated. Kiwima (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


Supposedly used instead of uppercase NYCPD for mug shots. I can just find it in uppercase. --Pious Eterino (talk) 12:28, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I can find it on pictures of mug shots, such as the one in this, but not in actual text. OTOH, mug shots are, I believe, permanently archived....Kiwima (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
If it's done just for stylistics, like a logo, then I don't think that should get an entry. (Wikipedia often deals with such cases by saying something like "XYZ, stylised xyz, is a..." and showing the logo. Equinox 18:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


Short for di-isopropylmethylindium, whatever that is supposed to be. It looks like this term never really took off. --Pious Eterino (talk) 12:30, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

There are enough cites in Google Scholar, but with camel casing. Perhaps we should move this to DIPMeIn. Kiwima (talk) 21:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


Shortened form of sarsaparilla (drink). --Pious Eterino (talk) 12:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

wysshe [edit]

Same as above, obsolete spelling of wish, can we attest? - TheDaveRoss 18:22, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 23:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 01:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

xenoencyclopedia [edit]

Are there enough non-mention-y quotes around to verify this? - TheDaveRoss 18:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Barely. cited Kiwima (talk) 23:50, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 01:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 00:00, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


Equinox 23:01, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Mostly I find mentions, but in serious enough journals that I believe this was a real term. I added three cites, but they are not of the best quality. They were,however, the closest I could come to uses rather than mentions. Kiwima (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 01:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019[edit]

seigen jikan ga ippai ni natta[edit]

Blatantly not English. —Suzukaze-c 03:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


This should be tsukihiza ([35]). —Suzukaze-c 03:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

I have moved the contents over to tsukihiza. Any occurrences of “tsukihitza” found must be misspellings.  --Lambiam 11:33, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "A male Somali." Can we confirm this is a thing, but more importantly if it is it should probably have a label of some kind to indicate how (in)formal it might be, or if it is offensive etc. - TheDaveRoss 16:22, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


Not finding much in English. DTLHS (talk) 01:49, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Everything I find in English has Maria Constanza Ceruti as an author. That leaves us with only one cite, because they are not independent. Kiwima (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
The standard term for this in English-language archaeology is ‘retainer sacrifice’. It doesn’t look like necropompa has yet entered the English lexis as a synonym outside Ceruti’s works. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 06:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


"Travels, runs, or journeys", given as a singular noun sense. Equinox 12:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Maybe this was intended to cover poetic "his race is run" (he is dead / retired / whatever) quotes? But the preceding sense seems to be the one that's really intended to cover that. As an aside, I tweaked the "swift progress, rapid motion" sense a bit so that it's a better counterpart to verb def 3 (move rapidly). - -sche (discuss) 05:43, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


Please improve cyclectomy if this doesn't pass. DTLHS (talk) 03:31, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

LOTS of mentions, but very few uses. I did add one quote, still looking for others. Kiwima (talk) 04:19, 3 February 2019 (UTC)


This is a specific entity, not a generic term. DTLHS (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

It looks like it is a proper noun and (if included) should be capitalized, just like Geoweb and PubChem.  --Lambiam 02:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

assassinee [edit]

French. DTLHS (talk) 22:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Not french -- the french would be assassinée. The English noun is now cited Kiwima (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 01:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

presomatomotor [edit]

DTLHS (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I found two cites. Still looking for a third. Kiwima (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
cited, although one of the cites hyphenates the term. Kiwima (talk) 23:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


Frenchism. DTLHS (talk) 05:25, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


Another Frenchism. DTLHS (talk) 05:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


And one more for the heck of it. DTLHS (talk) 05:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 05:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "To consume an alcoholic beverage." Does this exist? Is it specific to a region, dialect or vernacular? I have never heard it. I have a theory that every word in every language has been used at least once to describe either sex or drug use, so likely this is a thing somewhere. Also I bet you could cite some guy somewhere talking about "scooping" some lady. - TheDaveRoss 19:40, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

When this was first added back in 2008, it was labelled ‘Scottish colloquial’, so Scottish sources might be the place to look. This Scots dialect dictionary gives a sense for scoop meaning ‘to drink off, quaff’, so it probably does exist, but I have no idea if it’s attestable. — Vorziblix (talk · contribs) 23:03, 4 February 2019 (UTC)


"To punish severely. The boy was slated by his mother for disobeying her." What kind of punishment is meant here? Scolding? Equinox 08:19, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Century 1911 only has "To haul over the coals; take to task harshly or rudely; berate; abuse; scold; hold up to ridicule; criticize severely: as, the work was slated in the reviews." DCDuring (talk) 09:26, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
Criticism is already covered under a separate sense though. Equinox 04:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
I think synonyms are castigate and the less formal chastise, which do not specify the kind of punishment either.  --Lambiam 13:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 18:59, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


I'd like to believe this, but I can't find anything besides the mention-y quote in the entry. I'm also asking for verification of the second etymology, which doesn't seem to be used in lowercase. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 21:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


Usually italicized. DTLHS (talk) 02:33, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

rape rack[edit]

An anon seems to think this is not correct. SemperBlotto (talk) 07:57, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Mentions are readily found at Google Books in books about the evils of human treatment of animals in food production and experimentation. Unsurprisingly, it's hard to find pure uses. DCDuring (talk) 11:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
"One pig farmer offhandedly jokes about his “rape rack”, the metal bars to which sows are fastened and which allow neighboring male pigs to anally or vaginally abuse the females at will." As seen in "The Animals Film"
cited Kiwima (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Resolved? -- 00:11, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 19:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


RFV adjective sense: "Relating to a chain; like a chain."

I am not so much doubting that this meaning may exist as wishing to see usage examples that illustrate it. It is fairly easy to find "catenary" as a modifier referring to something being, or having the shape of, a hanging chain (in which case it can be quite hard to judge whether the word is a true adjective or attributive noun), but I have not found any where it simply means "Relating to a chain; like a chain". Mihia (talk) 19:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 20:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for finding those. Do you understand how can a soil can be of a "catenary" nature? Mihia (talk) 00:29, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Most of the quotes I found that clearly use this as an adjective and not an attributive use of the word seem to use it to mean sequential. I believe the catenary nature of the soil involves a sequence of types... Kiwima (talk) 08:16, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks. If we can be confident of that interpretation, I think it would be useful to add it to the definition line. Mihia (talk) 13:49, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
Here are two definitions of catena from OneLook
Geography Dictionary:
"Catena-sequence of soils on a slope where the differences between them are a direct function of the change in slope."
Archaeology Wordsmith
"A sequence of soils formed by the same parent material but from different landscape positions have taken on differing characteristics. Seeing these difference may assist interpretation of archaeological sites."
As I interpret this, the 'soil' sense of caternary is derived from the soil sense of catena which is an idiomatic (metaphoric) extension of the general definition. Ie, it warrants a separate etymology. DCDuring (talk) 16:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
OK. Unfortunately I am not sufficiently familiar with this subject matter to attempt any changes myself. Looking again, I'm not sure I understand the other citations either. What about "In Europe, the organizer was the hostess and her principle was catenary". Is it referring to a chain of delegation perhaps? Mihia (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
No, if you read further in that piece, it is talking about the chain of courses in a meal. Kiwima (talk) 21:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


Doesn't look like an adjective, probably should be capitalized. DTLHS (talk) 00:55, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

With GBS I get to see only a few snippets, but they strongly suggest that in collocations like “Muscuty plains” we have the attributive use of a noun. Almost all uses in these snippet views capitalize the word, but that may be due to dated conventions; I also see the common word buffalo being capitalized.  --Lambiam 12:44, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


Female given name (possibly a fanciful variant of Daisy?). Found on a few baby-name Web sites, but not in obvious use. Equinox 10:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

cited, although I think it is more common as a surname. Kiwima (talk) 01:31, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 01:12, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


Looks like an Old English word with modernized spelling. DTLHS (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 01:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
Whoever closes this: please note that Leasnam removed the "obsolete" gloss because it can be found in modern texts (apparently), but all those texts are trying to be Olde-Worlde so I think the gloss should remain. This is clearly not a word that any random modern person in the street would know or even understand. Don't let faux archaism in by the back door. Equinox 05:46, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
If it's found in modern books that are trying to be Olde Worlde, that's "archaic", I think; I've added that label. - -sche (discuss) 06:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I thought "archaic" meant that it was understood by many, though not used except self-consciously to seem olde-fashioned. This seems more obsolete. But some label is better than none. DCDuring (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps "archaizing" might cover this? And/or a "fantasy" label? — Mnemosientje (t · c) 13:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
The 19th century uses are discussions of Old English texts and the Wiccan ones are attempts to revive Old English terminology as part of reviving medieval culture- think Anglish or Society for Creative Anachronism-I'm pretty sure they're obsolete outside of the Wiccan and perhaps the Pagan communities. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I just noticed that the 2017 cite in the entry is almost certainly referring to the beer-brewing sense of wort (mentioned in the paragraph preceding the cite), which is a distinct etymology. DCDuring (talk) 15:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
It's actually referring to both: literally to the brewing sense of wort and alluding to this sense of the phrase as a pun. The relevance for our purposes is that the humor depends on familiarity with the herbal sense- it doesn't meet CFI standards, but it does add credibility. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
"I think that the most important thing about wortcunning is learning to grow and harvest the herbs yourself." is not Olde-Worlde. "wortcunning" is the only part of that sentence that isn't clearly standard modern Modern English. There are lots of words that any random modern person in the street might not know; I don't suspect any random modern person to know the word ideograph or dative, for example. archaic, yes, but not obsolete.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Related issue: if a word is archaic for all intents and purposes, but is still in use in tacky fantasy novels, (i) does this make it non-archaic? (PLEASE NO), (ii) do we somehow need to gloss this? I recently heard some eye-stabbing YouTube talk where "thee" was used in all the wrong places. Equinox 16:55, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Thinking of the "long game" again, some day we will auto-create obsolete and archaic glosses based on actual use in every book ever known to Google. (Books never existed outside Google and suggesting that they did will lead to automated punishment.) So, I suppose we spend our time best on doing things that machines will never do, like distinguishing the definitions of "grumpy" and "tetchy". Just saying. Equinox 17:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
More realistically, the long game is that Google deletes Google Books because it doesn't make them any money and we never get a similar archive of searchable printed material in our lifetimes. DTLHS (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Frankly I'm amazed that Google Groups even still exists. Who remembers "Deja News"? Anyway, this does seem like a big conversation we should have, but probably not here (sorry, I know I started it). Equinox 19:03, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
I would kill for a content-searchable Library Genesis, although that still wouldn't come close to the potential Google Books had and still has. (God I wish someone at Google would leak that entire archive...) — Mnemosientje (t · c) 19:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Hathitrust has most of it. Given that Hathitrust has been sued about what little they currently do with the copyrighted parts of that database, it's not surprising they talk about how few people have access to the database and how good their security is on it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


Not certain this is legit, at least in sense given. Equinox 16:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I improved the definition (the dateliner does not write just the dateline, but also the article that follows), but could only find one supporting citation. I did add and cite another meaning (the article itself). I also added two cites to the citations page for a third meaning (an investor who buys and sells based on the daily stock market reports), but did not add it because I could not find a third. Kiwima (talk) 21:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


I suspect this is obsolete if it still exists at all. The English Dialect Dictionary has pointers to some citations we could use, except that many are actually Scots, or use a different spelling. - -sche (discuss) 23:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I added a few cites. The 1896 work is written in English, but two of the characters in the story (Corp and Tommy) speak in Scottish dialect. Leasnam (talk) 03:31, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


I previously challenged LOL for "lots of love": I am personally deeply convinced that LOL never meant "lots of love" and this is similar to a backronym, where people thought it must have meant that. Let's look at the four citations: they are awful and inadequate:

  • 2007: "what do you think LOL means?" (says the modern kid), "lots of love" (says the ignorant father, getting it wrong).
  • 2010: "lol, dad, miscommunication", it says that the lol (laughter) was misunderstood as love instead of laughter.
  • 2011: possibly acceptable but it is almost a mention rather than a usage.
  • 2014: specifically (and a humorous example of) the misunderstanding of love as laughter, but the presentation suggests it's unusual and we have no proof that this cute anecdote ever happened in the real world.

If anyone can find a LOL that is unambiguously love and not laughter and isn't in some kind of humorous misunderstanding context, I will buy them a beer (or whatever cheap thing they like) on PayPal. I think this is an urban myth. Prove me wrong, bitches. Equinox 05:36, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I personally am SURE that LOL meant "lots of love" because I personally remember it doing so, and know plenty of other old fogies like myself who also remember it doing so. It feels like a violation to be told my past and my memories are bogus. I doubt we will ever find evidence on Google to support this meaning, and even if I can find a bunch of old letters to support it, how do I bring them in as evidence on Wictionary? Kiwima (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Hmmm, no offence meant, and even if you aren't "CFI-compliant" your memories matter because this stuff will go to the talk page, and may be proven by future, better people than ourselves. I still really want to see proof of this. If you actually have letters with LOL used that way that would be really important and interesting even if we can only stick 'em on the Talk or Citations page, and I'm sure you can cut out any part that would be too personal. Thanks for your help. Equinox 19:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
There is no question that some people have THOUGHT that LOL meant "lots of love", and even used it thus. Famously former British Prime Minister David Cameron did so (see e.g [36]). By the way, I see no need for you to call us "bitches". It is unpleasant. 02:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
I, too, recollect LoL/LOL as being part of the handwritten closing I put on greeting cards. I guess it's obsolete now because the other use is so dominant. DCDuring (talk) 02:33, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
Acronym Finder and AbbreviationZ both include "lots of love" and "little old lady" among their definitions. DCDuring (talk) 02:46, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I added three cites to the citations page. It looks mostly like a generalized pejorative. Kiwima (talk) 19:49, 13 February 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 01:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


Google suggests "nieshout". DTLHS (talk) 01:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

That is also how it is spelled on the Afrikaans Wikipedia. Online dictionaries translate English sneeze as Afrikaans nies, so this has to be a misspelling.  --Lambiam 07:29, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "pornography". I have only seen the other sense ("instance of masturbation"). - -sche (discuss) 08:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


Italicized. DTLHS (talk) 19:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

lesbian dance theory[edit]

DTLHS (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Found and added one book citation and one from Usenet; the latter is a repost of an article originally published on the Web but I don't know that that would invalidate it...? If no third is found, please move to Citations space. Equinox 15:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


Slang for vagina. Equinox 00:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)


"British, transitive: To seat a person, usually a young child, on a potty or toilet, typically during toilet teaching." I'm finding it hard to locate any real-world use of "pot the children", "pot the baby", etc. Equinox 15:37, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

I get some uses in this sense for “pot your baby” and “pot your child”.  --Lambiam 03:43, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
cited Kiwima (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


"Mark a cross (X) after one's name on a card, etc." Transitive, so should occur in phrases like "I kissed my name before I sealed the letter"...? Sounds weird. Equinox 16:17, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

This is wrong in so many ways. Of course it is not a verb, but the noun sense 2. But that one is also wrong. The word kiss does not mean the mark ‘X’; rather, it is the other way around: a mark ‘X’ at the end of a letter, usually before the name of the sender, means “kiss”. So if this should find a place somewhere, it should be at the entry for ‘X’ or ‘x’ as a noun. This use is mentioned in “X” in Douglas Harper, Online Etymology Dictionary, 2001–2019. We do have an entry xoxo that also mentions this use of ‘X’.  --Lambiam 03:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


"Of or pertaining to something very small, as small as a germ." I've never heard this, and could not easily find cites to back it up. - Sonofcawdrey (talk) 00:54, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

How large is a germ anyway? Larger than a smidgen but smaller than a pinch? Rather than referring to the size, the figurative uses I see mainly refer to something being in its early form, not yet developed. The germinal idea is practically synonymous with the germ of the idea.  --Lambiam 03:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


DTLHS (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a stammered version of planorbid. Planorbididn‘t and doesn’t.  --Lambiam 03:30, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
There are other family names that have endings idid, ididae. But this one seems like an error descended from a 1982 work. The type genus Planorbis does not have inflected forms that build on Planorbid-, but rather on Planorb-. DCDuring (talk) 05:39, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
A good example is Ascarididae (type genus Ascaris, stem ascarid-). DCDuring (talk) 05:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
... while Planorbis is from Latin planus + orbis, and the stem of orbis is orb(i)- without a d. Forms containing Planorbid- stem from a linguistically false analogy.  --Lambiam 09:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
I think I'd written that above. Foolishly, I was reacting to your stuttering comment. DCDuring (talk) 13:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Also, there are examples of both terms for taxonomic families ending in -id and -idid (-idae and -ididae) being in use, apparently because the etymologically correct doubled form was thought wrong and sounded silly. DCDuring (talk) 13:36, 17 February 2019 (UTC)


Appears in 1 paper. DTLHS (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)