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.

Newest 10 tagged RFVs

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 100 tagged RFVs

May 2020[edit]


(It's short for "market urbanist".) I've found tweets ([1], [2], [3], [4]), but nothing in more permanent places. Note that it's apparently not that intuitive, as you can frequently see people asking "what's a murbie?" in the replies. grendel|khan 22:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

August 2020[edit]


DTLHS (talk) 03:50, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Because of the nature of the term, "Anitwitter" is not used much in news articles or books. Googling "anitwitter" (quotes included) brings up over 75,000 results. Searching the term on Twitter (Can't link) under latest Tweets shows it has "clearly widespread use". Is this valid evidence? If so, can I just remove the request for verification or do I need to put something on the page? AntisocialRyan (talk) 04:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
It does seem to be a thing people say on or about Twitter. Related to the RFV of the crab emoji, how much does something have to be said on Twitter before we waive the durable citation rule? Vox Sciurorum (talk) 22:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


I could find two uses (Citations:philateliana), but even a Google search doesn't return any other results. @SemperBlottoEinstein2 (talk) 15:15, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

No other results. I wonder how many more words have been added that are not attested but were not added to RFV (also considering that it is an administrator who created it, thus perhaps should know better than to add unattested words and rely on other users to check if they are actually attested). J3133 (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
@SemperBlotto J3133 (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
I know that SemperBlotto creates many entries but that would not be an excuse for creating entries for unattested terms. Should I post somewhere regarding administrators creating them? I do not know. Either way, it seems that SemperBlotto is avoiding to take responsibility. J3133 (talk) 16:29, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
@Einstein2 You added this entry to RFV; I would like to hear your thoughts regarding my reply. J3133 (talk) 16:37, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
@J3133 I don't know much about this matter, but if it is part of a larger pattern of adding unattested entries, it certainly is a problem – given that we don't have the capacity to search for attestation for every new entry. – Einstein2 (talk) 17:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

October 2020[edit]


I could find a single cite. – Einstein2 (talk) 10:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

I found a 2nd, which I added.
It also gets a G-hit with Mrs. Byrne's Dictionary of Unusual, Obscure, and Preposterous Words from 1974, but there's no preview to verify. Of course, the latter doesn't qualify in itself, unless it has a quote, but it suggests she found it somewhere prior to the date of either of our sources. kwami (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)


Get out of an elevator. I think this has only ever been used in the single text cited. Equinox 05:55, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

  • If so, the quote could be moved to illustrate disen- (which would need to be created). Ƿidsiþ 12:11, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Except that the "m" wouldn't be there if it were "disen-". Without looking at the context, it seems like a playful reference to disembark, with an elevator being compared to a ship. Using the phonologically correct form would make that less obvious. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
      • Given the otherwise odd m, I think this can indeed just as well be considered either a blend with disembark or (as our etymology currently considers it) dis- + em-. On the other hand, R. M. W Dixon, Making New Words: Morphological Derivation in English (2014), page 101, in the process of discussing the addition of dis- to en- ~ em- words "to indicate reversal", as in dis-em-bark, dis-en-throne and dis-en-tangle, adds that "There are some, rather uncommon, derivations with disen- ~ disem- where no verb with just en- ~ em- occurs; for example disem-burden." He is wrong there (I can find emburden), but it's possible disen- ~ disem- does exist on other words. This makes me think of Talk:-icity, because here too it could be argued that cases of disem- where no em- is attested are just happenstance and em- nonetheless could exist and shouldn't impede analysis as dis- + em-. (We do seem to have lately started avoiding "unnecessary" compound affixes; compare Wiktionary:Requests_for_deletion/Non-English#-aise,_-aises.) - -sche (discuss) 16:22, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
I managed to find a second and independent quote. There is also a use here, and another here, although I don't think those are durably archived, so we still need a third. Kiwima (talk) 20:51, 11 October 2020 (UTC)


Rfv-sense (rail transport) An informal map of a proposed rail route.

I've seen it used in comments on Alon Levy's writings ([5],[6]) and on Twitter ([7], [8], [9], [10]); it may be a clipping of "crayon map", which we don't have an entry for yet. Seems hard to attest, as it's pretty slangy. See also a one-off coining of "crayonista" ([11]) by a writer playing off the tendency to draw fanciful maps. (See also [12], [13], [14].) grendel|khan 17:44, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

What are the odds that this is limited to rail transport? DCDuring (talk) 19:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Indeed, isn't this covered by def. 3 "A crayon drawing."? DCDuring (talk) 19:47, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
@DCDuring: It's not literally a crayon drawing, though; this, for example, is obviously not a crayon drawing, but it is a crayon in the sense of an informally-drawn rail map. (There may well be non-rail uses, but I haven't found any.) grendel|khan 19:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)
@Grendelkhan: it sounds like a revival of the figurative sense "[a] work not carried out in detail, a 'sketch'", marked as obsolete by the OED in an entry last updated in 1893. — SGconlaw (talk) 21:37, 30 October 2020 (UTC)


Not many ghits. Some are mentions, not uses. — justin(r)leung (t...) | c=› } 22:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I added two solid citations to the citations page, plus one reference to a twitter thread (which is probably not durably archived). Kiwima (talk) 21:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 00:23, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Not cited. Twitter doesn't count, and I am not inclined to give the benefit of the doubt when the two uses are from authors probably not writing in their native language (or even language family). Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:27, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

November 2020[edit]

cuntboy, sense 2[edit]

"A young man who has a vagina; a female-to-male transgender who has not had bottom surgery, or a character in speculative fiction." This is actually three senses for some reason listed as one; the first is oxymoronic, second and third are both cryptic (may also involve WT:FICTION). Are any attested? Ya hemos pasao (talk) 08:04, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The first is not oxymoronic at all, and the second, which is not cryptic and doesn't involve WT:FICTION, is a specific instance of the first. But whether the word is attested with that meaning is of course the crucial question. Sense 1 is the only sense I'm familiar with myself. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)
I have added two cites but we still need a third. Kiwima (talk) 02:14, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

December 2020[edit]


Not convinced La más guay (talk) 22:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

  • It's a Middle English word that survived into the 16th century and we can keep it because there are about 8 uses if you combine the two eras. The quote you were looking to date appears in OED as "1525 Ld. Berners Froiss II clxxi. 505. It was nedefull for them within to make good defence, for against them was the floure of chyvalry and squyry." Vox Sciurorum (talk) 00:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Cited with a single modern English quotation as a continuation of its ancestor Middle English squierie. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
not cited. We still only have two cites in Modern English. Kiwima (talk) 22:00, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

January 2021[edit]


"(slang) The MG 42 general-purpose machine gun." I see a few references (mentions, not uses) to "Hitler's buzzsaw", but not "buzzsaw" alone. Equinox 12:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not durably archived, but on MG 42 and MG 34 — Battlefield Forums I found "Otherwise, the game would quickly devolve into packs of players roaming around with 100-150 round buzzsaws just chewing anything that moves to pieces.", but otherwise, like Equinox, I mostly find "Hitler's buzzsaw". I did manage to find a single durably archived cite. Kiwima (talk) 00:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
In addition, the game "Call of Duty" uses the term "Buzzsaw" to refer to the MG 42. Kiwima (talk) 22:02, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

February 2021[edit]


I have sought but I cannot find. This, that and the other (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Koavf We do not accept arbitrary websites for the purposes of verification, as they are not considered "permanently recorded media". Please see WT:CFI#Attestation. This, that and the other (talk) 12:31, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry I got distracted while editing. I thought that I had a durable attestation in a comic but I can't seem to find it. Evidently, the Honeycutt article is reproduced in →ISBN and there is another mention in →ISBN (but it's a mention, not a proper use). —Justin (koavf)TCM 13:05, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

This is the plural of grawlix. Generally, we do not require three examples of an inflected form, especially when it is a standard inflection, which this is. Kiwima (talk) 04:34, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

@Kiwima Since this is not a direct Latin borrowing, the standard plural grawlixes would be expected (see for instance, crucifixcrucifixes, not *crucifices). The word grawlix, itself a fanciful coinage, lends itself well to whimsical wordplay - it's completely understandable that someone should have invented an equally fanciful pseudo-Latin plural grawlices. But it seems to me that this form has not caught on and only survives in mentions. This, that and the other (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


@Pizza0614 This cannot be found in durably archived sources either. — surjection??⟩ 10:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I have added one citation to the citations page. This looks like a real word, it's just that it is hard to locate the relevant texts. Kiwima (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Golden Triangle[edit]

Rfv-sense. The Yangtze River Delta sense was added by an IP in 2020: [15] I am vaguely familiar with it in Mandarin, but I don't think it applies in English. It would be universally misinterpreted as the drug trafficking area. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I added a large number of citations to the citations page, but I am not familiar enough with the geography of these areas to know which uses refer to what areas. Would someone more knowledgeable than myself please look through these quotes and sort them into groups of what locations they refer to. Kiwima (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

March 2021[edit]


Doesn't seem to have survived past Middle English. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 01:41, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

I could only find one quote (on citations page), and that is someone who is self-consciously using obsolete words. Kiwima (talk) 02:34, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

I've added one from Sir Torrent of Portingale, whose date of publication is uncertain, but is included in Poetry from 1505 here [[16]]. Leasnam (talk) 01:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

April 2021[edit]

usex [edit]

J3133 (talk) 07:34, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

RFV-failed. Even though it's a bit of Wiktionary jargon, I cannot find any evidence it is used anywhere else, and quotes from Wiktionary don't count. Kiwima (talk) 20:33, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

dragon's skin[edit]

I can only find this obsolete(?) mining term in dictionaries Yellow is the colour (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I managed to find and add one citation before Google kicked me out for "unusual traffic". I will try for more later. Kiwima (talk) 00:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Nope - that one is all I can find. The Stormonth citations that was requested turns out to be a dictionary entry. Kiwima (talk) 01:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 15:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

mishy-phen [edit]

I suspect this was added as a joke. I certainly can't find three cites. Kiwima (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Here is a totally autological occurrence of the word mishy-phenated found in the wild (not intended as a joke). Of course, the term mishy-phenation is a nice example for illustrating the risk of death confusion by automated hyphenation. I suppose that mishy-phen is an ill-chosen back-formation.  --Lambiam 15:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


I could only find two cites (as opposed to mentions). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 10:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@Hazarasp: Where are these two cites? At the very least, we need a link to them. It does not help for you to just make the assertion, you need to provide evidence. That way, someone only needs to find the third. Kiwima (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
@Kiwima:; Sorry about that; I was running out of time. On further thought, there's probably just the one (for the variant squamme):
  • 1661, Robert Lovell, “Metallologia, Of Mettalls”, in ΠΑΝΖΩΟΡΥΚΤΟΛΟΓΙΑ [PANZŌORYKTOLOGIA]. Sive Panzoologicomineralogia. Or a Compleat History of Animals and Minerals, Containing the Summe of All Authors, both Ancient and Modern, Galenicall and Chymicall, [...], Oxford: Printed by Hen[ry] Hall, for Jos[eph] Godwin, OCLC 79920846, page 12:
    Dioſc. the flouers bind, repreſſe excreſcencies, and cleare the eyes, ſo the ſquamme, and helpes their flux, and aſperity of the eyebrowes [...]
By the way, the first quote you added seems to be Middle English; I've moved it to the ME entry. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 03:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

underreplacements [edit]

Tagged by Facts707 on 3 April, not listed: “Can't find any citations for this plural form”. J3133 (talk) 13:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

RFV-failed Kiwima (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

caroigne [edit]

Tagged by 2003:DE:3735:4178:C01B:C675:748A:7137 on 20 March, not listed: “Middle English (enm) only?”. J3133 (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

RFV-failed. Converted to Middle English. Kiwima (talk) 23:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

guideress [edit]

Tagged by 2003:DE:3735:4178:C01B:C675:748A:7137 on 20 March, not listed. J3133 (talk) 13:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Looks like Middle English to me. It can be seen in Chaucer's translation of Boethius' The Consolation of Philosophy, but I have found nothing in Modern English. Kiwima (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

RFV-failed. Converted to Middle English


Rfv-sense: "slur curve above or below a passage of notes indicating that they should be played in a legato manner". Does legato refer to a slur curve in the music score? OED gives the definition "a legato style of performance; a piece or passage (to be) played legato" instead. RcAlex36 (talk) 07:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I searched for phrases like "a legato written" (above such-and-such passage) and "write a legato", but didn't find anything. I found a couple citations for "a legato over", but in that phrase it's not clear that it means the slur/curve mark. One book that mentions "the staccato - contrast with the legato above" seems to mean the passage, sense 3, rather than the mark. Likewise, the one cite I can find (and also put on the citations page) of "Beethoven ties the legato over the bar at first but then ceases to do so", while it could mean the mark, seems (from context and from the way other books use google books:"the legato above") to mean the passage or style of play. - -sche (discuss) 02:21, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

eager beaver[edit]

Sense 2: "A woman with a high sex drive." Added by the notoriously unreliable Luciferwildcat. Equinox 15:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

cross the wires[edit]

Sense: synonym of get one's wires crossed (= "to get confused or mixed up about another person's intentions; to misunderstand one another"). I can't find this particular phrase used this way: it would need to be something like "we crossed the wires and failed to understand one another". All I find is the other sense (a news story breaking) or literal crossing of electrical wires. Equinox 15:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I could only find one possible quote:
2009, Mark Moogalian, Mr. Farride, page 6:
This produced sensory overlap that crossed the wires between sight, sound and touch, triggering a perceptual avalanche throughout his being.
but I am inclined to wonder whether the person who added this didn't mean cross wires. Kiwima (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
That quotation doesn't seem to fit the definition of getting confused about someone's intentions or to misunderstand, though it does suggest some kind of confusion or conflation. Equinox 15:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

cam back[edit]

surjection??⟩ 20:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

  • If it is OK (big if) then the headword needs to be fixed. SemperBlotto (talk) 06:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Check the verb inflections too: "cam backed" seems less likely than "camming back"! Equinox 15:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: A disease of the eyelids, attended with loss of the eyelashes. Found in a bunch of dictionaries, no more Yellow is the colour (talk) 09:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


(Somehow) passed in 2008–2010 with one citation (as Equinox notes). J3133 (talk) 11:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I think this is easily cited on Usenet (example). Assuming we're happy with cites that refer to directly to YouTube as a particular named entity, rather than requiring a more figurative use. But it seems like these are better understood as errors resulting from people typing lazily in informal settings, rather than evidence of a 'legitimate' alternative spelling. e.g. I'm sure it's also possible to find tons of examples of lower-case canada on Usenet or other informal online spaces, but it doesn't seem like we should list that as an alt spelling. Colin M (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
This is basically for every internet domain. So somebody wanted reddit, and we could have twitter – which we have only as a verb, because that is another kind of regular. What else? blogspot, wordpress, tumblr? Another factor is something being a terminal command, as these are generally lowercase-only. So we can probably have wget and curl, which are apparently properly written Wget and cURL, without me knowing this before, as one encounters them as commands and package names. I have the idea that they should not be included as they are not English or Translingual but computer language, C, which humans sometimes speak and which is the default without setting a locale. Fay Freak (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2021 (UTC)


Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English#favy.

Appears to be neologistic slang whose oldest (and only) usage I can find is on Urban Dictionary. Can't find any reliable attestation to this whatsoever. It also appears to be a Japanese food and restaurant content mill, but that's not relevant here. TheTechnician27 (talk) 21:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

@TheTechnician27 Unattested entries go here. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz: Ah, my bad. I'm so used to the Wikipedian paradigm where attestation's cousin notability is debated within the deletion discussion; I should've paid attention to the 'scope' section. TheTechnician27 (talk) 22:45, 17 April 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: That protects against damage by overcrowding. @SemperBlotto, where did you get this from? This, that and the other (talk) 13:06, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


A see-through bikini. Equinox 01:20, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

There are a few mentions out there, but I have yet to find an actual use (of either the word or the garment). Kiwima (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
A picture would be useful, too Yellow is the colour (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
@Yellow is the colour: I hereby challenge you to wear a seekini and post the image to Commons. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 00:53, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


There are only 832 Google web hits for "isograv". I find it impossible to believe this word actually has four senses. At best, sense 1 may be able to be attested. This, that and the other (talk) 03:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Most of what I could find were either isograv lines (first definition) or a word like isogravimetric broken over a line break. I think I managed to get one of the other definitions cited, but would appreciate someone else double-checking that. In addition, there were two sci-fi uses that I put on the citations page that don't seem to fit any of the definitions - probably just technobabble. Kiwima (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
According to [18], the README file of the source cited in reference 29 of the 2014 (Evans) paper, isograv is an abbrevation for "isostatic residual gravity anomaly". This is also what is seen in the 2017 paper. This, that and the other (talk) 03:41, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
The entry has been cleaned up. Senses 1 and 3 are cited while 2, 4 and 5 remain unverified. This, that and the other (talk) 03:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "(sports, US) Any chemical compound used to enhance athletic performance.". This is so broad that it would include so-called "doping".__Gamren (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Shouldn't it? Whenever I hear about athletes "doping", I assume that what they're doping with is steroids. —Mahāgaja · talk 16:44, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
@Mahagaja Doping can also be stimulants, defined by Wikipedia as "... drugs that usually act on the central nervous system to modulate mental function and behavior, increasing an individual's sense of excitement and decreasing the sensation of fatigue.", e.g. meth to take a familiar example. Actually, before looking it up I thought doping referred only to that. Anabolic steroids and stimulants of this type fulfill completely different functions, and I wouldn't personally have found it natural to consider them as constituting a class.__Gamren (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
Then there's blood doping, which can include transfusions of the athlete's own blood. Chuck Entz (talk) 03:32, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
I think there is no difference between the senses used in bodybuilding and in competitive sports. BTW, a steroid (in this sense) is not any anabolic hormone, but specifically an anabolic steroid, of which term steroid in this sense is a shortening. (Human growth hormone is also an anabolic hormone, but not a steroid.) For some reason, when an athlete has been caught on illicit use, they are usually reported as having used steroids, the plural form, just like people are said to use drugs even if they use no other drug than, say, cocaine.  --Lambiam 21:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
I think the inevitable has happened, with steroid coming to refer to any performance-enhancing drug, two syllables winning out over the seven of performance-enhancing drug. DCDuring (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
Can you offer us citations attesting uses of this more general sense, in which drugs are referred to as steroids, although unambiguously not steroids in the sense of organic chemistry?  --Lambiam 11:31, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


surjection??⟩ 19:13, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

I added one quote to the citations page. Another durably archived cite is this, although the print is to small for me to get all the words. Other than that, all I can find is stuff that is not durably archived, such as this. Kiwima (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: obsolete term for a walrus. Looks to be (Old? Middle?) Dutch and appearing in dictionaries Yellow is the colour (talk) 10:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

  • The OED has "a misreading in Johnson's Dict. for walrous" SemperBlotto (talk) 11:03, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
    Here is what Woodward wrote (μ. 30), and here is Johnson’s entry.  --Lambiam 11:20, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


Alt. form of "theyby". Perhaps this is more properly a misspelling. —Suzukaze-c (talk) 05:43, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I corrected your typo; it's not alt. form of itself. —Mahāgaja · talk 07:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I added two cites to the citations page, but they both have problems. The Guardian is durably archived, but most of the article uses theybie, and it is only a call out that uses "theybe", so I suspect it is a typo. The Mirror is probably not durably archived. Perhaps someone can check Usenet? Kiwima (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Gnu atheism[edit]

I can only find three results on Google Books (Nixon, Cragun and McAnulla et al.) and these are all mentions. Nothing on Google News. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

I probably found the same three mentions on Google Books: 1, 2, 3. I found a few hits on Google News, but only in the online comments that people add, which are not durably archived. Perhaps someone could check out Usenet? I believe it is a real term, but it is easier to find uses (as opposed to mentions) of "Gnu atheist" or "Gnu atheists". Kiwima (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
It definitely was used around 2010 in new atheist fora and weblogs, mostly as a self-identification but also by opponents. I thought there were some durable attestations when I created the entry, but I cannot find any now. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:55, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


I can only find a single use, in Cassell and Kirkham (1991): "...so much so that Dante rather sourly implied Robert should have stuck to kerystics instead of seeking the throne". All others are mentions. Google Web Search initially claims to have 257,000 hits for "kerystics", but when you go to result page 4, it admits that it can only find 32. This, that and the other (talk) 03:04, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense "(counterterrorism) The act of taking visible countermeasures against terrorism." I suspect this stems from w:Securitization (international relations), "the act of presenting something as a security threat". The specific case of securitizing terrorism leads to political pressures to "do something" about terrorism, which leads to "visible countermeasures". However, the act of securitizing is conceptually distinct from the implementation of countermeasures.__Gamren (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

It looks easy to cite, eg, from this Google books search, though the usage seems less about countermeasures than about the policy of making terrorism a target of the national security apparatus, perhaps as opposed to the police system. DCDuring (talk) 16:51, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
That sounds like an example of the definition I just added.__Gamren (talk) 20:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: "a heart-shaped hoe; a Warren hoe"

I haven't found cites for warren hoe or warren to refer to Warren hoe. If the sense exists it should be a separate etymology (eponymy). Also MWOnline has more (total 7) definitions of warren. DCDuring (talk) 17:55, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I was able to find warren hoe, but not "warren" on its own. I also looked into the MWOnline definitions, and added what I could cite. Kiwima (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


Just 14 ghits for this term. Pious Eterino (talk) 18:11, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

I could only find one cite (on citations page). Kiwima (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)


Enix150 (talk) 20:48, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 01:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

But the cites don;t support the definition as currently worded. I don't have a suggested definition. Maybe if we had links to the cites we could determine the meaning from the expanded context. DCDuring (talk) 13:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Maybe: "(derogatory) Having superstitions that are especially stupid." Not that all the cites unambiguously support that definition. DCDuring (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I added two more cites that seem to me less ambiguous, but I don't think they support the current definition, which I will change to the one I have suggested above. DCDuring (talk) 14:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

RFV-resolved (passed as amended) Kiwima (talk) 15:29, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

SMB: TLL[edit]

Video game abbreviation. Probably exists but not durably archived. — surjection??⟩ 08:55, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Probably needs to pass WT:BRAND as well. — SGconlaw (talk) 11:34, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
In my experience spaces are usually dropped in abbreviations, so Star Trek: The Next Generation would be ST:TNG, not ST: TNG. Equinox 18:54, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

lot lizard [edit]

Rfv-sense "A low or stupid person." It has one cite, but unlike the other senses, I just couldn't find anything else on BGC. —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 16:46, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

cited. It is, apparently, more or less a synonym of white trash. The definition could probably use improving. Kiwima (talk) 20:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
@Kiwima: Thanks for the additions. I don't think it's cited, however; as you note, the 2013 cite has a different definition. I can't view the book to see more context for the 1993 quote, but given that it talks about customers, I strongly suspect it belongs to the sense 5 you added. (As for sense 5, I'm sure it's real, so I won't send it to RFV, but I'm not totally sure it would survive — two of your three quotes are just mentions.) —Μετάknowledgediscuss/deeds 20:53, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
The 1993 is this sense: it is about selling mobile homes to poor people. I think the 2013 cite is closer to the actual definition. It is there in the current definition as "low", and the "stupid" is part of that constellation of attitudes toward poor uneducated people. But yes, I think the definition needs tweaking. I have taken a stab at it. Kiwima (talk) 21:01, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

RFV-resolved (passed as amended) Kiwima (talk) 15:30, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

quesarito [edit] 00:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 02:58, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 20:26, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

quesalupa [edit] 00:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 02:49, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

enchalupa[edit] 00:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I can only find this one on non-durably archived blogs. Kiwima (talk) 03:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

outlead [edit]

Sense 2: "To bring about; to produce". The OED only has "to lead or bring out", which is our sense 1. Equinox 11:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

It is a bit ambiguous. To lead out is clear in the cites I added to that defintion. There is a different sense in "to bring out" or maybe "encourage" which I cited and assigned to the second sense. I think it probably needs cleanup. Kiwima (talk) 00:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

RFV-resolved (passed as amended) Kiwima (talk) 15:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


"A member of an Internet-age counterculture." Entry created by "Bitnikartist", so possibly a self-promotional invention. Equinox 20:05, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

All I can find is an older use -- the transliteration of the Russian or Polish word for beatnik. Kiwima (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

From revision #1:

Main Entry: bit·nik Pronunciation: \ˈbīt-nik\ Function: noun Etymology: bit + -nik Date: 2009
a person who participates in the new social awerness movement starting in 2009 with the creation of Bitcoin/crypto currency, the revival of the Trivium Method, Fallacy awareness and The exposure of the corrupt compulsory educational system . Bitniks are writers, Musicians, Hacktivism, Poets, Street Artist, Kustom Kulture Creators, Low Brow artist which stress artistic self-expression and the rejection of the mores of conventional corrupt society of Governments throught art; broadly : an artistic/creative person who rejects the mores of conventional corrupt society of government.

Suzukaze-c (talk) 00:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

totchos [edit] 23:30, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 02:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

May 2021[edit]


Was et ever used as a conjunction meaning "and" outside of fixed Latin phrases like et cetera ? Leasnam (talk) 08:14, 1 May 2021 (UTC)



Both failed RFV and were restored by Gamren with quotations from 4chan; do they pass? See also User talk:J3133 § wagecuck, glownigger. J3133 (talk) 17:13, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Gamren, and DTLHS who deleted glownigger twice after Gamren restored it. J3133 (talk) 17:19, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

No, quotations from 4chan have never been acceptable to pass RFV. DTLHS (talk) 02:17, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
We have no such policy, and don't archive active discussions. WT:ATTEST explicitly states that Usenet, an online social media platform, is allowed. I see no reason why 4chan should be any different.__Gamren (talk) 10:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
It says "Usenet groups, which are durably archived by Google". 4chan isn't. Equinox 12:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
@Equinox Multiple 4chan archives exist. How far back do records have to exist before an archive is considered "durable"?__Gamren (talk) 14:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't know. Maybe Google is seen as a reliable archiver, while whoever archives 4chan might disappear overnight? Equinox 15:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
That seems pretty weak. All it takes is some Google CEO to decide that 20-year-old discussions about tomato gardening doesn't make them any money.__Gamren (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
That's not how it works. There is consensus, specifically mentioned in WT:ATTEST, that Usenet is an exception to the blanket judgement that the internet isn't durably archived. To add something like 4chan to the list of exceptions requires consensus (probably an actual vote) to specifically do so. There have been discussions along those lines, but I don't see a solid consensus (yet).
I'm pretty sure that the 4chan attestations were considered at the time the rfvs failed, so restoring those entries without discussion is very bad form. You should never restore an entry without discussion unless it would be obvious to an impartial observer that things have changed since the rfv in such a way that the same rfv would be decided differently today. Otherwise, why have rfv at all? When in doubt, bring it up at rfv. And, in case you're wondering, this isn't an inclusionist/deletionist issue- the same logic could be used to speedy-delete entries that have passed rfv or rfd. Chuck Entz (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
"Usenet is an exception, specifically mentioned in WT:ATTEST" -- that's patently untrue. WT:ATTEST mentions Usenet merely as an example of an acceptable source ("... media such as Usenet groups..."). A durably archived source is assumed to be usable, unless a consensus against it exists. I think this "blanket judgement" of yours only exists in your head.
"attestations were considered when the rfvs failed" -- also untrue. I added them when I restored the pages -- previously, no cites had been provided and therefore the rfvs failed by default.__Gamren (talk) 16:58, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
@Chuck Entz Gamren's confusion is not just Gamren's problem. I would like to do something to help make the PRM requirement more explicit and clear for new users if possible. I think I'm at "beginner level" understanding of the requirement myself. I would like to work on some kind of long-term project where the rules and traditions for what constitutes durably archived/permanently recorded media are made very plain to the reader and specific examples of failing and getting through this requirement are given. For instance, I know one thing that would do some good is: a bluelink on the words 'permanently recorded media' --Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
I want to second Chuck Entz's description; blogs and fora such as 4chan are considered undurable by default and it has never been the norm to view them as such. These terms that have failed RFV should stay deleted. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Why does it matter if 4chan is non-durable? I sourced my cites from an external archive, which would have been evident to everyone participating in this discussion if overzealous editors hadn't decided to prematurely delete the entries being discussed.__Gamren (talk) 14:12, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@Gamren I did read that you uploaded it to an archive, although I did not catch which one you used. However, it is often possible for site hosts to remove content from archives by means of robots.txt and in some cases third parties can get content removed as well, so the presence in one archive or another is not very relevant. In defence of the deleter(s), the deletion was not premature but directly supported by policy. WDL terms that have failed RFD should only be readded with three valid quotations or else they may be deleted on sight. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@Lingo Bingo Dingo I didn't upload anything to any archive. I found them through desuarchive.org, where they had already been archived. Those who have criticized that choice are unable to formulate any reason to distrust that particular archive while blindly trusting others that isn't based on speculation (only "X archive might be more durable than Y archive"). For your convenience, I've restored the pages, as is usual practice during rfv discussions, though they may not stay up for long. We may need to define "durably archived", in BP of course. The deletions absolutely were premature. When I restored the entries, I added three cites that I believed to be valid. The deleters were uninterested in disputing the validity of those cites, and as you may not have noticed, one of them even tried to prevent this rfv talk. Thus, the cites should be assumed to be valid, in the absence of any argument to the contrary. As you can see below, DTLHS openly admits that durability isn't their concern.__Gamren (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't give a shit about "durability" and that word doesn't mean anything to me. It's just some nonsense weasel word people like to throw around here that has never actually been defined. Irregardless, quotations from 4chan have never been an acceptable source for RFV. DTLHS (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@DTLHS You may not care, but seeing how centrally it figures in our policies, you're surely in the minority. It's vague and was never precisely defined, but that doesn't make it a nonsensical metric. I don't give a fuck if you have some kind of vendetta against specific websites; go cry about it to your psychologist and stop vandalizing the dictionary.__Gamren (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I think the reason he is decided to exclude 4chan is that, of course, this would allow for them to troll us, for fakes to intrude by just being dropped there, you know. The “durability” criterion was supposed to be a kind of threshold to pass to exclude the griefers or basically anything exposing the effortlessness that is natural to the vandal—though what was once fringe is now normality, and being printed does not exclude things from being crackpottery—, commixed with another criterion of “clearly widespread use” because that is pretty bad and one wanted to exclude another way of trolling by requesting verification of most usual items without respect for our limited resources. But when the rules were written there wasn’t that much awareness of internet slang, nor experience with how access to materials persist on the internet, and it always was peculiarly circumstantial to try to demonstrate the existence of internet slang by means of books, mostly those made accessible via the internet of course. We know the system is leaking. Manaman should really adopt my formulation from Wiktionary:Beer parlour/2021/February#Durable archiving to include terms “consistently appearing on the internet”, actually you can vote to replace the wording “clearly widespread use” which has stayed arcane because it does not conform with legislative art if a rule demands that something is clear—it makes things even less clear or easy to subsume and everything actually intended by “clearly widespread use” is either also consistently appearing on the internet or it would not be recognized to be widespread. French Wiktionary is also content with proof of existence, I’ve heard. The question should just be “exists how?” Which is decided in comparison to the sizes and significances of corpora: If something is internet slang, you look how organically spread and established it is as opposed to a seemingly artificial action, whereas the more back in time one goes for languages one accepts hapax legomena, like obviously any word in the Old Testament or contemporary Hebrew inscriptions should be entered irrespective of “3 cites” incidentally prescribed for this “well-documented language” that has gone extinct for two millennia, which is an absurd approximation of what is actually needed by the dictionary users. There is private language irrespectively of durability, you find it in all philosophy books, and one can make it out, the task changing the remoter a language is in time or location.
To avoid graphocentrism, I do not forget that we want, of course and in particular, terms common in speech but not in text, in various patois of languages widely attested on the internet, as comically the more widely attested a language is the more material amounds to be registered by the lexicographer still not published in ways you stumble upon it easily, e.g. everyday terms in the so-called Multicultural London English like the above “manaman” or the everyday slang of Abidjan. Like internet slang, these also practically have to be demonstrated otherwise (which do exist but in Ivorian newspapers or court records we cannot access, apart from the few pieces of “dialect” fiction), though I still agree that mainspace links should have a tendency towards durability. But this is another gap I just mention lest one say man has devised exhaustive criteria when rethinking the CFI to catch missed internet usage: through copious experienced examples I am wary about excluding and including too liberally, and the areas where we want to be liberal have to be subject to conceit so we do not tip off the trolls.
We need procedures “you have seen this word and hence we include it” rather than “I know it exists but I still cause it to be deleted”, and they might be formulated sufficiently obscure so the results are satisfying even if bandwagoners attempt to exploit them for vanity. So is anyone inclined to rerock the written criteria of inclusion with new formulations? Fay Freak (talk) 02:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
This is a request for a policy change for which there is growing pressure. I keep seeing it pop up in little discussions here and elsewhere. My sympathies are with the inclusionists, but I also understand the concern of those who want to exclude sources that make it too easy to support fake words. One suggestion that I made on my talk page a while back is that we allow websites such a blogs, emagazines, and, yes, 4chan and twitter -- but require that when using such sites that the citation be over a year old (or some other time criterion acceptable to those who fear hoaxes). This would mean that adding support for a fake word would not be easy, but we could use these sources of language that are increasingly becoming the norm. Kiwima (talk) 15:48, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
My original point was that Gamren was acting as if this policy change was already in place and as if anyone who disagreed with it was ignorant and in violation of a well-established consensus. We need to come up with a formulation that deals with real usage that doesn't appear in usenet or dead-tree publication, but that avoids legitimizing the "let's make up a word and pass it off as real" games that some people on 4chan like to play. We need it, but we're not there yet. There's a big difference between what makes sense and what everyone agrees is the established consensus. Yes, DTLHS can be grumpy and undiplomatic at times, but going into battle mode accomplishes nothing but damaging the community and drawing attention away from the original issue. Chuck Entz (talk) 19:35, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree that neither going into battle mode, or just ignoring current policy is a helpful approach. I am not condoning Gamren's behaviour, which is essentially conducting a private edit war. What I want to know is how does one get the Wiktionary community moving on a policy change? I have been watching pressure on this issue build, and I think it is high time we tried finding a compromise that satisfies most (if not all) of the community. But I have not been on Wiktionary long enough to know how one goes about making such a change. Kiwima (talk) 20:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
While I remain convinced that my interpretation of CFI is in line with the existing text and does not represent any kind of policy change, and further that deleting entries while they're still actively being discussed amounts to vandalism and should rectified without remorse, I absolutely support initiatives to clarify our CFI on the topic of purely-online terminology. @Kiwima The typical way would be to draft a proposed change, present it to WT:BP for commenting, possibly make changes in response to those comments, and then put it to a vote.
@Chuck Entz As for the concern about "making up words and pretending they're real", aka protologisms, isn't this what the "spanning one year" clause is supposed to prevent? Is that insufficient?__Gamren (talk) 23:32, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


I find nothing even in a Web search. Equinox 14:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)


"Of food, indulgent in an unhealthy way. The waiter served dirty burgers to the customers." This is not how I would interpret the example: I would think that burgers were unhygienic, or that they were some sort of branded or trademarked "Dirty Burger" as described here [19]. Equinox 15:44, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

All I could find was this:
  • 2020, Mellissa Sevigny, Squeaky Clean Keto: Next Level Keto to Hack Your Health, Victory Belt Publishing (→ISBN), page 13:
    Dirty keto refers to an approach that follows the typical keto macro ratios, but the components include “dirty” foods like fast food, packaged convenience foods, processed meats, artificially sweetened diet sodas and sports drinks, and unhealthy ...
It seems to be used in the "KETO" literature. There is also:
  • 2020, Stephanie Laska, ‎William Laska, The DIRTY, LAZY, KETO Dirt Cheap Cookbook, page 24:
    Let's get real! Dirty Keto empowers you to decide which ingredients or products to enjoy. Splenda, low-carb tortillas, and protein bars are all fair game. Hell, you might even enjoy a hot dog or a fast-food hamburger while still losing weight.
  • 2020, E. K. Blair, ‎Erika Rivera, Dirty Keto: How to Cheat Without Getting Caught:
    (see title)
Other than the "dirty keto" uses, all I could find was:
  • 2003, Tom Christiansen, ‎Nathan Torkington, Perl Cookbook, page xix:
    You can call it quick-and-dirty if you like, but there are billions of dollars out there riding on the supposition that fast food is not necessarily dirty food.
Kiwima (talk) 23:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 01:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

made in China [edit]

RFV for the sense "Cheaply manufactured; of poor or low quality, especially if made in East Asia" that are clearly independent of the sense "manufactured in the People's Republic of China" (e.g. a Vietnamese product is said to be "made in China").--Tibidibi (talk) 22:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Supposedly passed RFV before but there are no citations. Equinox 09:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
cited Kiwima (talk) 23:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Some look good; others could just mean literally made in the country of China. Equinox 23:10, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

geekster [edit]

Currently has no citations. Tharthan (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Most of what I found was just a synonym of geek (which I added under a separate etymology). I did find two cites for this one, and a number of cites about "geek chic" (which did not use the term). Kiwima (talk) 04:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I think this may be cited. Kiwima (talk) 04:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 01:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

spigurnel [edit]

I have my doubts as to whether this was actually used enough to garner three cites; the OED (first ed.) says that "It is evident that the word had no real currency in English, and its appearance is due to Camden and Holland, copied by Phillips, Blount, Harris, Bailey, etc." (all of these are dictionaries, if I'm remembering accurately). If it isn't citable, it should probably be added to Appendix:English dictionary-only terms. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 12:14, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

cited. Kiwima (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


Tagged but not listed. Kiwima (talk) 20:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

RFV was on the entire entry but presumably they meant the sense of "a riding camel or dromedary" (I've fixed the tag now). I can't seem to find anything on this. Etymology says Bengali. Equinox 05:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: Vague and unclear (as opposed to open to multiple interpretations) Tagged but not listed. Honestly, I am unclear about how to distinguish this definition from the first. Kiwima (talk) 20:25, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I guess if you hear something, and you have no idea how to interpret it, it would be "unclear", whereas if you can come up with multiple possible interpretations, it's "ambiguous"? Or maybe "ambiguous" implies a discrete number of distinct senses, whereas a "vague" word covers more of a spectrum? I don't know what a proper attestation would look like, though, since the two senses would be used in practically the same contexts -- ironically, the word ambiguous would be ambiguous.__Gamren (talk) 08:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
The question is, are there (enough) properly attested uses of the term ambiguous meaning “vague, unclear”, where said vagueness and lack of clarity does not stem from the fact that the utterance or sign said to be ambiguous was open to multiple interpretations. (For example, if someone promises to do something as soon as “they get around to it”, it is a vague promise that fails to make clear when that might be – tomorrow? next week? next year? But it is not open to multiple interpretations. Could this nevertheless be referred to as “an ambiguous promise”?)  --Lambiam 11:27, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

sea sparkle [edit]

tagged but not listed. Kiwima (talk) 20:33, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

and now cited Kiwima (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


Rfv-sense: The process in which a person's airway is blocked.

Tagged but not listed. Kiwima (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
and now cited Kiwima (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

universal mind [edit]

Rfv-sense: The underlying essence or principle in the universe.

Tagged but not listed. Kiwima (talk) 20:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
and now cited Kiwima (talk) 21:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
This doesn't seem to mean "an underlying essence or principle" but 'simply' a single mind operating in or emerging from the entire universe, like a world soul. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

RFV-passed Kiwima (talk) 21:21, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


A lower-case form of Hunterian. Equinox 10:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


New chemical term invented from a YouTuber's name. (If it fails, remember to remove any links from other entries; there's at least one.) Equinox 05:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


414 Google hits total. Excluding ones directly from Wiktionary, virtually all are from various Indonesian languages (in particular, pangudang seems to be some kind of literary thing in Javanese). And in general, highly skeptical that this qualifies as an English word.--Tibidibi (talk) 11:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Clearly the page should be deleted as the current rules stand (unless someone finds some cites of course). This following is a Wiktionary policy-change argument, not an argument within the rules as they stand (as I understand them).
(1) I did not create the Pangudang page (or similar pages like Dingsidang, Sujiadang etc.) but (2) I do support the Pangudang entry's continued existence on the basis that (3) if the Pangudang page is deleted, there will be a redlink on the 盤古壋盘古垱 (Pángǔdàng) page and (4) the word '盤古壋盘古垱 (Pángǔdàng)' in Chinese characters is clearly likely to be a citable term [20] etc. My theory is that as long as the non-English term 盤古壋盘古垱 (Pángǔdàng) has three durably archived citations, then it's fine for Wiktionary to tell the reader about the English language word that matches up to it, even if that English language term is not citable in the traditional three cites sense. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:31, 4 May 2021 (UTC) (modified)


Tagged by 2003:DE:371E:8030:5153:9C0D:143F:EFBE on 1 May, not listed:

“appears to be Middle and not Modern English (Chaucer), and the reference only mentions Chaucer as well”

J3133 (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, most of what I find is Chaucer (Canterbury tales). I did find some other quotes, which I added to the citations page. The 1883 cite is a solid use, but it seems to imply a different meaning. The 1893 is somewhat mention-y. The 1972 looks pretty solid to me. The 1998 is a modern version of a 15th century work, so I don't think it counts. Kiwima (talk) 21:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

hard R[edit]

Tagged by 2003:DE:371E:8064:3447:F97B:F49F:BCB5 on 3 May, not listed:

“it looks like hard-R (hard r, etc.) only refers to the -er part of nigger and not the complete word and is contrasted with -a of nigga”

J3133 (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


I can only find this word at b.g.c used to refer to Tamil nationalism, not to a religion of ancestor and nature worship. —Mahāgaja · talk 09:10, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 20:53, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The 1998 quote seems to mean in context "Tamil-ness", the next clause explaining the paranthesized term as "the genuine way of being a Tamil". The 2002 quote does seem to refer to a religion, but not one necessarily "native to Tamil Nadu" insofar as it seems to be a new religious movement according to the description.--Tibidibi (talk) 22:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
The plural seems to be something else, a linguistic habit: "Tamilisms were completely discarded and the language appears fresh and rejuvenated." Equinox 22:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Red-Letter Christian[edit]

The definition is at least somewhat wrong, this seems to in use for Christians, particularly evangelicals, who give special weight to the sayings of Jesus, as in a red-letter bible. But this is chiefly the name for a specific activist group with those views and it is difficult to find durable use as a common noun independent of people associated with that organisation. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 13:37, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

cited. Kiwima (talk) 21:23, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kiwima All right, so basically all of those cites refer to people associated with the activist movement, except maybe the first one. I suppose it means that is how the term is used? ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 18:56, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
It seems to be, yes. That was all I could find. (And the first quote is from a dissertation that is examining the activist movement). Kiwima (talk) 20:38, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


Tagged by 2A01:CB11:58D:2E00:7544:DA74:99CE:E207 today, not listed. J3133 (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Almost universally treated as French by English authors, using either italics or scare quotes, or referred to as the word for them in the "local language". The only authors I could find who did seem to use the word in English without indicating that it was a foreign word, capitalized the word, and it looked like they were treating it as a Proper noun (such as "Oule of Gavarnie"). Kiwima (talk) 22:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)


Sexual attraction to animated cartoon characters. I see mentions but no usage. Equinox 22:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 23:13, 8 May 2021 (UTC)


The cite given appears to be the only use. — surjection??⟩ 09:45, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

I could find others, but all by the same author. Kiwima (talk) 21:51, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


Not getting much after digging (using level-9 searching skillz) Indian subcontinent (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

cited. (I have to doubt that those searching skillz are level-9.) Kiwima (talk) 21:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


Doesn't exist. Can perhaps be speedied. This, that and the other (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


J3133 (talk) 19:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

This is definitely a real thing. The problem is finding uses on accepted permanently archived sources. I added one from The Atlantic to the main page, and there are a bunch on the citations page that come from a Google news search (but do not fit into our current definition of "permanently archived"). Also, the definition is off, it is not limited to essential oils - it is any MLM recruitor who uses false endearments. Kiwima (talk) 22:09, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


Alt form of panendeist. Ultimateria (talk) 20:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)


Suspected to be Middle English. OED has one citation from the 13th century. This, that and the other (talk) 10:07, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

We now have three citations in modern English, but one is rather mention-y. Kiwima (talk) 22:25, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Certainly the 1977 one is in the nature of a mention. What's more, all of these sources place the term in italics or quotation marks. The quotation marks are fair enough, but the italics does make me think these authors do not consider medkniche to be a modern English word. This, that and the other (talk) 07:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


I believe this form is exclusive to Middle English; EEBO has no results and the OED has only ME cites. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 14:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

The only quotes in modern English that I can find are heraldry descriptions, so I have changed this from being marked obsolete to being a heraldry term. Kiwima (talk) 22:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


Verb, probably needs rare label if attested. Ultimateria (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I have added one cite. The one that was already there included no information about where it appeared, so I don't know whether it is a quote or a usex. I could not find it quoted anywhere. Kiwima (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


J3133 (talk) 00:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the citations page, I think this should be moved to -inator. Kiwima (talk) 21:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


Link: quirkyalone

The term never seems to have never caught on, I can only find two uses. Does a third exist showing that term meets our criteria for inclusion? —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

cited Kiwima (talk) 21:40, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


The only quote I could find is already in the entry Pious Eterino (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)