Wiktionary:Requests for verification/English

From Wiktionary, the free dictionary
Latest comment: 2 minutes ago by Denazz in topic loimic
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 verification/English
add new English request | history | archives

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

Requests for verification/CJK
add new CJK request | history

Requests for verification of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.

Requests for verification/Italic
add new Italic request | history

Requests for verification of Italic-language entries.

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

Requests for verification of any other non-English entries.

Requests for deletion/Others
add new | history

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

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

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

Requests for 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/CJK
add new CJK request | history

Requests for deletion and undeletion of entries in Chinese, Japanese, Korean or any other language using an East Asian script.

Requests for deletion/Italic
add new Italic request | history

Requests for deletion and undeletion of Italic-language entries.

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

Requests for deletion and undeletion of any other non-English entries.

Requests for deletion/​Reconstruction
add new reconstruction request | history

Requests for deletion and undeletion of reconstructed entries.

{{attention}} • {{rfap}} • {{rfdate}} • {{rfquote}} • {{rfdef}} • {{rfeq}} • {{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 as well as Middle English, Scots, Yola and Fingallian. For entries in other languages, including Old English and English-based creoles, 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 (in which case indicate which one passed and which one failed), or the sense initially RFVed may have been replaced with something else (some editors use RFV-resolved for such situations).

Archiving a request: At least a week after a request has been closed, if no one has objected to its disposition, the request should be archived to the entry's talk page. This is usually done using the aWa gadget, which can be enabled at WT:PREFS.

You can subscribe to a web feed of this page in either RSS or Atom format.

Oldest 100 tagged RFVs



This form doesn't appear to exist in Middle English, which only knows the form wrengðe (the word is a Early Middle English hapax). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 05:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's difficult to know if you're referring to the use of th in the spelling, or the lack of final e (or both). The nominative form, which would be used as the Wiktionary headword, could potentially be wrengð*, *wrengþ, *wrength, wrengðe, *wrengþe, or *wrengthe. Leasnam (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
If the nominative originally lacked final -e (which is by no means certain), there's a good chance that it would've been levelled in from the oblique cases by the thirteenth century, making it formally identical to them. As a result, there's no justification for having a seperate entry (and if we did decide to create one, it should be located at wrengð, as assuming that a scribe who uses <ð> in one place would use it elsewhere is the most parsimonious option). Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 02:47, 27 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
I've no qualms about an entry as wrengð, but we should leave wrength as a redirect. It's used with that spelling in references and other listings, and it's useful as a first-stop shop for individuals trying to locate it (i.e. looking it up and not realising that th = ð, or others not knowing where to find ð on their keyboard). How do we handle interchangeable bookstaves currently for Middle English ? like u~v, y~ȝ, w~ȝ, gh~ȝ, etc. I always change a fricative 'u' to v in all my edits automatically, and use 'u' solely as a vowel. In English headwords, we do not use ſ for s, but show s only; and in Old English we abandoned using ƿ for w, although ƿ is really more correct. Doing this for Middle English would be a departure from that logic, but if consensus dictates, then I have no problem with it. Also, we do show non-attested spellings for transliterations, like liufs for 𐌻𐌹𐌿𐍆𐍃. wrength could be argued to be a "transliteration" of sorts for wrengð. Leasnam (talk) 19:14, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
To be clear, I don't think we should create a entry at wrengð (in fact, I'm saying we shouldn't, as the nominative might've got the final vowel levelled in). As for creating a entry at wrength, my main qualm with that idea is that we currently lack any policies for handling such modernised forms; I believe there was some discussion about creating a template {{modernised form of}}, but I'm too unwell to go around digging it up. By the way, I wouldn't say there's a urgent need for a Middle English wrength, given that we have a ModE wrength that has a nice link to wrengðe in the etymology. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 14:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply
In the absence of policy we have consensus. I agree, there's no need for a Middle English wrength (now removed), the modern form suffices. As to the modernised spelling, I have created wrengthe. Leasnam (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2022 (UTC)Reply


Middle English. Rfv-sense: "question". This purported sense seems to be a erroneous extrapolation from fræġn; there's no trace of it in the MED or OED, and I don't see any evidence of any attestations that these two dictionaries've missed. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 06:26, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply

Removed. Leasnam (talk) 09:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Leasnam Can you confirm that everything in this search is using it as a verb? I can't parse some of these passages, e.g. "þe frain" in isolation could either mean "ask thee" or (hypothetically) "the question", "hir frain" could mean "ask her" or (hypothetically) "her question". I'm guessing it's the verb in all cases, but I just wanted to check. 06:44, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
I wasn't able to find any clear noun uses of frain Leasnam (talk) 03:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
I also searched for frein, freyn, and frayn and came across this which looks like it might be a noun, here [[1]] - the very first instance where it says And at þaim gaue þair fader frayn - if I'm reading this correctly (which I hope I am) it says "And at them gave their father frayn ("question" ?)" i.e. "And their father directed a question at them", and he appears to ask a question in the very next line...but frayn is a slightly different spelling, of course, than frain. Leasnam (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
I also should point out that frayn above doesn't appear to likely mean "ash-tree" or "bridle/rein" - two other possible renderings for this spelling Leasnam (talk) 03:46, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
@Hazarasp Thoughts? 07:44, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
I'm pretty unwell at the moment, so I can't answer. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 08:37, 30 December 2022 (UTC)Reply


Middle English. Rfv-sense: "island". This word apparently seems to have only survived as a place-name suffix after the Old English period; the MED has no attestations of use as a independent nominal. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 00:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply


Scots for "originate". Equinox 19:11, 23 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Here it is in an English novel, but spoken by the character "Mr. Goodie, a Scots gentleman"; another similar example, in which the word is uttered by a "Scotsman". Do we want to count these? Seems dubious. The word also appears on the Scots Wikipedia, but that might not mean much in light of the 2020 revelation that much of the wiki was written by non-Scots-speaking users; not that we would even want to cite Wikipedias in general. 03:08, 27 November 2022 (UTC)Reply
I would like it if we had a policy that quoted speech within a novel does not count as attestation, since it's eye dialect at best, and there are also novels featuring small children, characters with speech impediments, and talking animals, which could allow us to flood the dictionary with entries like wowwipop .... but there is no such policy, and we have allowed words like this before, such as gonnegtion. Soap 22:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

March 2023[edit]


Middle English: “(uncertain) to obtain”. The MED only has attestations with y. J3133 (talk) 11:16, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

The reason here appears to be that the MED has filed the other senses under wainen and this is seemingly an extension of the same term, so it makes sense to move this to waynen, which is the main lemma for us anyway. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 13:44, 7 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

April 2023[edit]


"(slang) To exceed expectations. Your outfit is giving!" I tried some searches and couldn't find any "outfit is giving" (other than longer phrases like "your outfit is giving me a heart attack" which don't count). Equinox 04:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've heard this, though I took it to be ellipsis of a broader slang use of give we don't seem to cover yet, which is saying an outfit, action, etc is giving Wednesday Addams, giving boho, or giving Ted Cruz during the 2021 Texas weather crisis, etc, itself a shortening of it's giving [me] Wednesday [vibes]. (The Atlantic has an article about this, "'It's Giving': A Gift to Language".) I'm looking for cites, but as you say most hits are longer irrelevant phrases. - -sche (discuss) 05:51, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
I added an Elle cite of the other/longer slang use, "it's giving [x]", to sense 1.5 alongside "it's giving [x] vibes". As I said, I've also heard bare "it's giving.", and can find enough examples on the raw web to confirm it's real — e.g., the first of the few hits for google:"outfit is giving girl" are longer phrases of the other slang sense, "this outfit is giving girl boss" [vibes], but the last hits are indeed this RFV'd sense, "This outfit is GIVING, girl!", in comments on tiktok videos — but I have not gotten the sense that it's common enough to meet CFI yet. (Urban Dictionary's top definition will cover it for anyone who looks it up, if we don't.) - -sche (discuss) 15:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
This is indeed quite hard to search for, although it's commonly used online. I've added two uses in a tabloid (by the same author but quoting different people). It is used here (page 8) to illustrate the concept of code-switching between language varieties. Einstein2 (talk) 10:55, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
This absolutely exists and -sche is on point, it's shortened from positive uses of sense 1.5. Bare "is/it's giving" without anything following it can be found e.g. by googling "giving fr". I'm not sure this is old enough for it to have leaked into any source that is considered durable on Wiktionary, but I have no doubt there is a small army of basic bitches working on remedying this as we speak, give it a year or two. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 12:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
One thing to consider: does this exist in other forms, e.g. "that outfit [which you had on yesterday] gave, girl!"? "that outfit is gonna give!" (If not, is it really best considered an inflected form of give still, or an (?)adjective giving?) - -sche (discuss) 17:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
@-sche I can find examples of "so giving", "giving asf" on Twitter so I support the adjective interpretation. Ioaxxere (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply


Rfv-sense "To cover (something) or provide with clusters of things.", "To cover or provide with clusters of things." Apparently added by @Sgconlaw by editing an older "To cover with clusters", by itself a bit ambiguous, but nothing compared to this, where I have absolutely no idea where this would be used. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 06:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

OED has both these senses. The intransitive sense only has one cite: "clustering with all variety of verdure". The intransitive sense, likewise, is typically attested as "clustered with" - searching Google Books for older texts seems to turn up a few likely cites? This, that and the other (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm not sure any of those match the definition I gave (especially the "cover" part) - maybe they could work for "to furnish or decorate with clusters of things"? — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 08:48, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm withdrawing this for the transitive sense anyway in favor of rewording it - the 'intransitive sense' you mentioned is however not intransitive. "to be clustered with" is passive use of the transitive verb, not a use of the intransitive one. "be clustering with" would count, though... — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 10:32, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply
@This, that and the other has mostly replied, but I should just point out that the sole quotation in OED indicating the intransitive sense "To cover or provide with clusters of things" was "Stupendous crags, clustering with all variety of verdure" rather than a construction with "be clustering with", so that does appear to be intransitive rather than transitive. — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply


Sense: “A user of or someone who spends a lot on Discord.” Added under adjective by on 11 April with the edit summary “Legit a thing”. J3133 (talk) 11:59, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've split the entry into two etymology sections, moved the challenged sense under a Noun header and created Citations:Discordian. Discord uses the term both on Twitter and its Support website. I've found one use in an online magazine. Might be citable from Twitter or other online sources. Einstein2 (talk) 23:07, 14 April 2023 (UTC)Reply


Verb: to be friends with. The example given uses "pal around", which is a real verb. I don't think "pal" alone is. Equinox 09:02, 17 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've managed to get it cited, but it does appear to be much less common than pal around, with which it is synonymous and so I've changed the definition accordingly. lattermint (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thank you. But they're all pal with, so should this be moved to pal with? Or at least add an inline qualifier "with with". Soap 16:10, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Actually i have the same request regarding pal around. i had thought maybe "pal around supervillains" etc would be common, but it seems its really pal around with as well. Soap 16:11, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
It was my impression that when used with "with", "with" is part of the prepositional phrase together with whatever object follows. And the verb itself is intransitive, so the direct usage with an object (in, as you've mentioned, "pal around supervillains") isn't applicable. As for usage without "with", you could say "They pal around together all the time", or "Let's pal around sometime". lattermint (talk) 16:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Regarding "pal around" vs "pal around with": I agree that "with" isn't inherently part of the verb / lemma, since you can say some people were "palling around" (and e.g. should "quit palling around"). Regarding "pal": can you say some people were "palling"? If so, that resolves this, but if not... that's tricky, since some phrases do get lemmatized with with, like go with and sit with... - -sche (discuss) 07:26, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply


Middle English. J3133 (talk) 11:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

May 2023[edit]


Discussion moved from Wiktionary:Requests for deletion/English.

No verifiable citations. "Category:en:Thirty-six" or "en:Category:Thirty-six" does not exist here or on Wikipedia. Wikipedia article w:Thirty-six exists, but does not mention "sexatrigesimal". This appears to have no actual basis. – .Raven (talk) 03:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Categories are irrelevant for verification. kwami (talk) 04:05, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Then (1) a Category should not have been cited when creating that page — (Created page with "==English== ===Etymology=== {{prefix|en|sexa|trigesimal}} ===Adjective=== {{en-adj|-}} # Based upon the number thirty-six Category:en:Thirty-six") — and (2) since it was so cited, that citation should have been verifiable; but no such category was found, and the article of that name doesn't mention this word. Nor was the "Citations" tab filled in with anything at all. Ordinarily I would have expected this page to be speedy-deleted inside a day. It's been up a week, and RfD is a slower process, giving you time to cite RSs, to prevent that. Will you do so? –.Raven (talk) 05:10, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
This community can be a bit rough sometimes. As I understand it, the expectation is that the person who nominates a word for deletion will do so only after taking the time to be sure that the entry can't easily be patched up in order to qualify to remain listed in the dictionary. In other words, we're expecting you to have done the things you're now asking us to do. That may just be an unwritten expectation, since I dont see a description anywhere at WT:RFD or the add-new-entry button saying what I'm saying. So we can't hold that against you. Nonetheless, please understand that nobody here is compelled to hop to it and try to rescue these words you're nominating. Neither are we in any rush to delete them .... speedy deletion is used when there is an urgent need to remove a page, which I dont see here. Lastly, I agree these would be better placed at WT:RFV, but I dont hold that against you either since I've been around here a long time and I've only recently gotten to understand confidently what goes best where. Best wishes, Soap 19:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
> "… we're expecting you to have done the things you're now asking us to do." — (1) I searched and did not find RSs (e.g. "The major actual English usage of [undevicesimal] appears to be in multiple pages of xen.wiki, not an RS."), which is why so much time elapsed between these three deletion requests. (2) I was not asking you, but specifically kwami, who created these pages, thus should have listed citations in the tabs for that purpose. If kwami doesn't want to rescue the pages kwami created, then by all means speedy-delete them. Okay? – .Raven (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
@.Raven When an entry is created, the default edit summary simply copies the wikitext of the created page. So the reference to "Category:en:Thirty-six" in that edit summary was not an attempt at citation; it appears there because the creator chose to put the page in this (nonexistent) category as a matter of categorisation. In fact, the entry was created without citations, as is typical on Wiktionary. Citations are often only added when the entry is brought here to RFV.
As for "RSs", that is a Wikipedianism - we work on the basis of attestation. See the first few sections of WT:CFI.
And as for the word itself, it may be citable from online sources, but there is one hit in GBooks and nothing in GScholar. The form hexatrigesimal should be citable (two uses in GScholar). This, that and the other (talk) 02:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
@This, that and the other: Thank you! – .Raven  .talk 03:04, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
It's worth observing that this term would be citable from non-durably-archived sources if anybody was inclined to collect some and start a vote. This, that and the other (talk) 06:53, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply


Sense 2: not the use of a wand in magic spells, but "The purpose or role of a wand (or any other instrument or tool) as an individual part constituting in the formulation of the inner workings or structure of a spell". Seems very unclear, ungrammatical (constituting in"?) and probably redundant. Equinox 13:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I would have thought "consisting of" was intended, but even that is needlessly wordy. I think the underlying distinction is valid: the wand is used not only for spells but also for the "inner workings" of, e.g., Wicca to draw in the air symbols like the pentagram in the ceremonial preparation of a sacred space for religious rituals... which is too much detail for a dictionary entry, but does make "the use of a wand in magic spells" too restrictive. Perhaps adding "or in [mystical/religious] rituals" would make just one 'sense' feasible. – .Raven  .talk 23:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply


Is this real? —Mahāgaja · talk 22:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Many of this user's recent creations need attention. Equinox 15:36, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
I've created Citations:xertz with a couple of cites but the term barely appears outside of "fancy words"-type lists. Einstein2 (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
The word reminds me of one of those text adventure games from the 80s, the ones played on those old computers. Maybe that's the origin? CitationsFreak (talk) 05:18, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Found third cite, even earlier than the rest. (It makes no sense to me, but hey. That's the way things go.) CitationsFreak (talk) 06:32, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
I saw that cite in my own searches for attestation but didn't add it because IMO it doesn't meet the "conveying meaning" criterion of CFI; it's gibberish (non)word salad. (It arguably doesn't even meet the criterion to include the RFVed, English word, since the assignment of that "jaap graupel xertzing utemis quoth wumk" to English seems...debatable.) - -sche (discuss) 23:54, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
A decent chunk of it are words that can be found in English. CitationsFreak (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

There are two durably archived cites (one Usenet and one book) and four Twitter cites. This would need a vote in order to be kept. This, that and the other (talk) 05:18, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

RFV-failed for now. Maybe in time a third use will happen. - -sche (discuss) 15:27, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
There was a third book cite, but it was deleted for being nonsense by -sche. CitationsFreak (talk) 18:11, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Indeed, because CFI requires that a string of letters not merely exist, but actually be used to convey the relevant meaning, which machine- or human-generated word salads, including the one you added, don't help with. For anyone wondering, the relevant 'sentence' in that book was "gingerly methodical, jaap graupel xertzing utemis quoth wumk aloft in thermals' cookiecutter, rom among the ram, diffident, maladroit risible kilest eclat abruptly shines your vague, beatrice, firetruck laving curveball english, defrocked alive, shocking the green knight miming dialectic woodpeckers, hollow, beheaded, impulsing, floating lotus, pugilist moon, window cigarette, enigma rhapsodies rocket to dawn breathless, hyperborean, virgil greyhounds deep outside the antler's womb moans a joyful tune, headbanging mistaken raindrop, bottled up by options ignoring giant wisdom, hazelnut epidermis maelstroming friendship cottoning to the light, yining the yang, the white strawberry climbs upon the arrowing heart, looks adieu, illumination iceblock, drumel, paraphing redwings' jimjam, beard, eyrie, mind whispers, sparrow vermiculated for its geode jaywalking across my heartbeat, gossamer ocean coin flip death is just another threshold, mystical skeletons burn & fade in waves enlightened lux glancing touch, askance, the looks pellucid rue, mouth scissoring through the wind, teaking blindspots, darting feints, I object to your objectivity toenailing a comma, merrygorounding umbilicals' never again of enough raving embezzled ambrosia weightless, the noodle swims with her leg UP. PARAPHING YONDER THAN YET SO WHILE AS THEN-redtape bookworms 71 East North West South." - -sche (discuss) 18:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
@-sche: I added a quotation from A Rewording Life (2015), a list of words by Sheryl Gordon and over 1000 Canadian contributors. The word xertz is not defined, but as the quotation is from the word’s own entry (by the poet Charmaine Cadeau), it might not be considered acceptable. J3133 (talk) 18:45, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
Good find. The question there is whether Cadeau's sentence counts as "conveying use" or as a "made-up example[] of how a word might be used", yes? Hmm... it's an unusual case; a dictionary with a few editors providing (uncredited) made-up example sentences is one thing, but here the editors seem to have solicited different authors to use (or make up examples of, depending on how one interprets it) each word. I can find another similarly borderline cite, here, which first has a glossary entry for the word (not acceptable / useful), but later uses the word in the definition of another word (very borderline but technically cromulent). OK, I think between these two borderline instances and the web cites, we can conclude that this exists after all (I've restored the entry). - -sche (discuss) 19:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I say that the University of Alberta cite is fine, since it uses the word, even though it's defined in the same article. Mrs. Byrne also lists the word in her dictionary of weird words. It's in the 1974 copy. She says that they all came from dictionaries, so this word may be older than we think. CitationsFreak (talk) 23:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I do wonder if it is actually word salad, or just a really-hard-to-understand poem. (The "sentence" has line breaks in it, reading "gingerly methodical, jaap graupel xertzing utemis quoth wumk / aloft in thermals' cookiecutter, rom along the ram. diffident, maladriot...") CitationsFreak (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
There's method to its madness, but it's still madness. I interpret it as a series of things that start to make sense interspersed with things intended to jolt you out of making sense of it all. I'm sure the parts are carefully chosen and their arrangement carefully planned out, but it's not using the words and phrases to convey meaning in the sense that CFI requires. There are cases where this kind of deliberate obscurity can lead to terms taking on new meanings, but that's only after they're adopted and used that way. Rhyming slang, for instance, isn't attestation of the original meanings, but of the new meanings- not on your Nellie isn't attestation of the name, "Nellie", but of a rhyming slang word for "life". Since the quote in question is a one-off, it's useless for CFI. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply
I do feel that "xertzing" is being used as its meaning, although words like "jaap" and "kilest" really adds a question mark to my theory. However, I suppose that this fight is pointless, since we have a better cite (the University of Alberta quote). CitationsFreak (talk) 23:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)Reply


unattested alternative spelling Tbilsi Fin (talk) 17:26, 5 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Likely just about keepable, although the label is wrong. [2] (sense 6) [3] (nautical sense) etc. This, that and the other (talk) 03:31, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply


Rfv-sense: "to discuss varying viewpoints on a given topic". This is defined as an intransitive sense but the only quotation uses it transitively. Perhaps this just needs rewording to something like "expose to public view" (cf. OED2 sense 5a.)? Einstein2 (talk) 10:46, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply


Expressing boredom? It's doubtful whether this would count under WT:CFI ("conveying meaning"), but even finding quotes for this definition isn't going to be easy. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 15:17, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I remember we already have at least one similar entry for a "keysmash" expressing boredom, but I forget what it is. Equinox 15:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
asdfghjkl? くぁwせdrftgyふじこlp? - -sche (discuss) 15:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply


Two senses. Zero GBooks hits. Equinox 20:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's certainly citable from Twitter and Usenet, but I don't think it has a stable meaning. Pretty much every use on both Twitter and Usenet relies on context. We could perhaps keep this page if we reduced its meaning to a general term of abuse. Soap 10:54, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply


All the hits I see refer to the dynamometer Skisckis (talk) 12:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply



These seem like weird mispellings of Hawaiʻi and Hawaiʻian that use a backtick instead of a Hawaiian okina, but they're extremely difficult to search for. Theknightwho (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

As a part of my holy crusade to document Wade-Giles, I found cites for Hawai'i and Hawaiʻi, paralleling the vulgar and orthodox forms of Wade-Giles-derived words with spiritus aspers in them. But I've never looked for this backtick before. I think I've seen it, and maybe one of the examples at Hawai'i is a backtick- I remember seeing something like a backtick at least once or twice when I was looking for those cites. This is a matter of finesse and skill. I will look for this over the coming weeks. (Or someone will immediately find it below, putting my pompus ass to shame.) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 20:27, 18 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Theknightwho Trying to distinguish between all the apostrophe-like characters used to represent glottal stops is doomed to failure- it's not something that OCR does very well. The only reason we lemmatize Hawaiian with ʻokinas is because it's prescribed for the language and Unicode has a codepoint for it (well, technically it's a turned comma, but Unicode treats it as the same thing as the ʻokina). Written Hawaiian only dates to the last two centuries and was invented by missionaries, so it's not like there's a long and hallowed tradition for that specific glyph.
More to the point, this is an English entry, and the ʻokina is specifically Hawaiian. If there is usage for the backtick, it probably is just a rare misspelling or an OCR error- neither of which is worth having as an entry. I think we should have English altform entries for the apostrophe and ʻokina spellings, and redirect the backtick spellings to the apostrophe spellings. Chuck Entz (talk) 06:53, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Chuck Entz Exactly my sentiment. Let’s give it a few days to let this discussion conclude, but my current inclination is to do what you suggest. Theknightwho (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Theknightwho: "extremely difficult to search for"
Geographyinitiative: "I will look for it over the coming weeks."
@Chuck Entz: "doomed to failure- it's not something that OCR does"
The Three Cites found in a day: Am I a joke to you?
Descriptivism does not care about the roadblocks thrown up by Google or OCR. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Geographyinitiative It's less about roadblocks and more that I'm not sure it's intended as a different character. We can find examples of Greek Α or Cyrillic А being used as Latin A (and vice-versa), but that doesn't warrant creating separate entries, because the user didn't intend them to be something different. Theknightwho (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Theknightwho That's above my pay grade--- sounds like an RFD issue. I don't do the thinking part, I just look for stuff. I will look for a few more.
But I will say this: To me, any English speaker who goes out of their way to use anything other than ' (straight apostrophe) or (basic curl) in their running text has the requisite intent to create an alternative form. Diversity of apostrophes is absolutely LOATHED both on Wiktionary itself and by the typographical-industrial complex (lol). If you use anything but those two apostrophes, you're gonna get an internet comment section worth of sand kicked in your face. And there apparently seem to be such cases of authors going out of their way to use the backtick, at least for Hawai`i. So I would preliminarily support keeping this in an RFV or an RFD, pending some kind of cultural-linguistic investigation to figure out the mindset behind why this backtick form is out there. The investigation would look into whether this is purely some accomodation to keyboard issues or is perhaps in some situations a bona fide expression of authorial intent-- the intended form they wanted to write, maybe an "alternate ʻokina" or a "layman's ʻokina".
Or if I've misunderstood everything, nevermind! --Geographyinitiative (talk) 17:13, 19 May 2023 (UTC) (Modified)Reply
From my point of view, the backtick has an established (although deprecated) use as a representation of the opening quotation mark (cf. Wikipedia: "As surrogate of apostrophe or (opening) single quote"). I've seen some old-fashioned people who routinely write (or wrote) quotes `like this'; they aren't going out of their way to do it, that's just how they were used to representing quotation marks. (I have the impression it didn't look as bad in some old software.) Therefore, I would not see "Hawai`i" as a contrastive alternative to "Hawaiʻi", but just an alternative representation of the same sequence of graphemes, used by people who find it more convenient to type the character as ` or who aren't familiar with the correct codepoint to use.--Urszag (talk) 19:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
And my follow up to this kind of "merely an convenient accomodation" theory might be: that this usage could have "started out" that way, but later bloomed into something with a real cultural connection and real cultural use (or perhaps nascent use?). Check those cites, because we're not talking stale stuff here. The Twitter account of the Governor of Hawai`i uses it: Office of the Governor, State of Hawai`i. So I would urge caution, open-mindedness, and an appreciation for diversity as wise. Get in, we're breaking the status quo. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
You may not have noticed, but the header in the first tweet uses the left single quotation mark, not the backtick: "Office of the Governor of Hawai‘i". That's evidence for exactly the phenomenon that Urszag is talking about. The League of Women Voters of Hawaii also uses the straight apostrophe and the left single quotation mark. I'm guessing that's from different people working on different parts of the page, which could be interpreted either way. The YouTube video consistently uses the backtick. The NPS page uses the backtick in the body, but the apostrophe in the sentence at the end. The Surf Art page uses the backtick when referring to the island, but the right single quotation mark in the name of the University of Hawaii. The comment sections of the NYTimes Learning Network blog mostly use the backtick, but some commenters use the right single quotation mark or the turned comma/okina. Taken as a whole, there's usage that can't be explained as OCR errors, but it's also all over the map as far as which character is used. It looks more like no one really knows the right character, so they use whatever they have handy. Not particularly compelling one way or the other. Chuck Entz (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
(~See the 15 something cites at Citations:Hawai`i.~)
Thanks for your comments.To me, what Chuck has just said immediately above this comment may mean that there's a possibility that Hawai`i is a legitimate alternative form. If you can say "Not particularly compelling one way or the other." are you going to delete the entry? I'm no expert on these discussions- RFV/RFD/RFurmom. I know nothing of Hawai`i. But it seems like (consistent with a bona fide, honest-to-God openness to Wiktionary reflecting the sources and/or a descriptivist ethic) you'd want to get to "compelling that this is mere convenience" if you wanted to delete this entry given the 15 cites at Citations:Hawai`i. I really don't have much more to say on these things; I will keep trying to watch out for more cites. If you delete the entry, I totally understand. (Final comment from me) --Geographyinitiative (talk) 11:18, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Not that we're on the best terms and, since it's you, sorry to get involved but since GI asked for my opinion and it's a general request for general comments:
My own opinion would be to keep it for exactly the reasons under discussion. Some people absolutely do use this form and they should be gently guided (sometimes proscribed... alternative form of...) to the entry with the correct okina. Same thing with a version that uses a standard English apostrophe. Right now it says Alternative spelling... but a version of the entry with an Etymology section would be something along the lines of using the English apostrophe mark to represent the Hawaiian okina and it should really redirect as an alternative form of the version with an actual okina rather than just directly to the unmarked Hawaii.
Sure, someone typing English A for Greek alpha shouldn't have that listed in Wikipedia and it's not on us to fix that issue. On the other hand, this is for English users within English trying to understand where this mark came from. If we only have the okina entry and remove the (much more common) apostrophe and backslash entries, computer searches won't necessarily make the connection and the users won't be able to figure out what's going on. — LlywelynII 22:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
There should definitely be a way for people to reach the okina entry other than having to type (or copy-and-paste) that character. Many English users will not be aware of the okina and would misread it as an apostrophe or backtick. —DIV ( 12:58, 28 August 2023 (UTC))Reply
@Geographyinitiative Apostrophic ruminations aside Hawai`ian is still not cited. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

girl rented overnight[edit]

An offensive term. Please add the "offensive" template Wonderfool69 (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think Wonderfool was smoking something when they posted that message. Let's start again with a generic RFV message Not disrupt (talk)



eassel might also be Scots instead of English. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 04:36, 23 May 2023 (UTC)Reply


SURJECTION / T / C / L / 20:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Definition sucks, but I heard this term in a Pepsi ad. Got some news buzz, so it is attestable. CitationsFreak: Accessed 2023/01/01 (talk) 08:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)Reply
Was used even before the Pepsi ad. Wd-Ryan (talk) 15:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oh, it's real, here (see c. 0:33 and 1:02) is a whole cooking show episode on how to make "pilk carnitas and pilk queso fresco", here's an ABC news story "Pilk and cookies: Pepsi wants you to drink soda mixed with milk this holiday season" and here's a more recent one headlined "Fish eye ice cream and pilk: Unusual food trends from around the world". I suppose it's a question of whether to accept online news site uses (of which there is no shortage). - -sche (discuss) 21:28, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
I typed up the citations. It's just a question of whether to accept internet news cites (one of the cites I added is a youtube cooking show and not news, but there's plenty more news-media uses where the other two came from). Meh. - -sche (discuss) 19:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)Reply


SURJECTION / T / C / L / 20:29, 25 May 2023 (UTC)Reply



Apparently jargon of those who play EVE, a specific online game. This, that and the other (talk) 07:37, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

don't fuck in the factory[edit]

This seems to be exactly like #never change a running system (except spicier): an English idiom only ever used by Germans, and consequently, only appearing as mentions in German texts. Not sure what to make of it. This, that and the other (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

It indeed only seems to be attested in German, so I've changed the L2 header to German and added the only three cites I could find. RFV-failed as English but RFV-passed as German? But absolutely no objection if someone wants to RFD it as not being a real or common proverb/idiom (we are not Wikiquote, to record every phrase that's in three books). - -sche (discuss) 03:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Another variation I've heard used in German is "never/don't fuck the company" (do they correspond to English idioms?) Jberkel 18:10, 9 January 2024 (UTC)Reply


"(figurative) A set of items (concepts, links, or otherwise) that can be packed and unpacked cognitively, or their representation as a set of virtual [computer science?] objects. See also telescoping." There is nothing in GBooks for e.g. "accordion of ideas" or "accordion of concepts". Equinox 13:39, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

"accordion of memories" or "memory" has a sufficient number of independent hits on GBook ([4]; [5], in an extended metaphor; [6]; [7], in an extended metaphor; [8]). This probably can't be considered as a lexicalised metaphor, though, and I'm not sure if this is what the editor who added the sense had in mind. 蒼鳥 fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong. 16:23, 30 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

June 2023[edit]


Used to have only two quotes, one of which –

  • 1855, Edward Nichols Dennys, The Alpha, or first principle of the human mind:
    He has abstorted the Lightning from the clouds

– shouldn't be regarded as a wordform of the adjective lexeme abstorted, but one of the verb abstort. This left only one quote, and I managed to find another; one more quote needed for CfI. 蒼鳥 fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong. 16:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

alternatively, maybe give all three of these quotes to abstort, and rewrite the abstorted entry so that it's simply treated as a participle? 蒼鳥 fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong. 16:43, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Just wanted to point out there is no entry for abstort in the OED. — Sgconlaw (talk) 21:36, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
However, many other dictionaries have an entry for abstort, and I have managed to cite the verb. Kiwima (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply


"A total absence of fear", from pant- +‎ aphobia (< Gr. ἀφοβία, or equivalently a- +‎ phobia). Seems to only crop up in early glossaries, and later dictionaries quoting that. On the other hand, there are extensive sources noting pantaphobia as "fear of everything", from panta- +‎ phobia, = pantophobia. Pantaphobia "a total absence of fear" is exceedingly rare even in mentions, and pantaphobia "fear of everything" seems to exist primarily in mentions as well (but possibly quotable? I haven't looked very hard). 蒼鳥 fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong. 12:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've added the ‘fear of everything’ sense with quotes, however I couldn't really find cites supporting the ‘fearlessness’ sense (despite being included in M-W Medical). Einstein2 (talk) 22:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply


"Relating to the whole of something. catch-all, end-all". Not a suffix. Equinox 02:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

If it isnt a suffix then what would it be? It creates nouns from verbs. And although all can be a noun, it isnt a noun in the sense that's used here, since the all in "catch-all", "cure-all", and so on is the object of the verb, not the agent. If this were a simple compound, then "all" would be the head, so "catch-all" would need to mean "an all that catches", and so on, which is not what it means. I oppose deletion on grammatical grounds, but this seems like an RFD question more so than RFV, because as above, how would we turn up three cites for -all in isolation? Best regards, Soap 05:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Just wanted to point out – that "[i]f this were a simple compound, then 'all' would be the head, so 'catch-all' would need to mean 'an all that catches'" isn't particularly true, in terms of V+(Pro)N compounding in English. There is an inherent error to this argument, viz. a compound is a lexicalised object and cannot be analysed phrasally. But more importantly, please consider the following six (Group A):
  • pickpocket, not "a pocket that picks," but "one who picks pockets";
  • daredevil, not "a devil that dares," but "one who dares the devil";
  • spoilsport, not "a sport that spoils", but "one who spoils the sport (=entertainment)";
  • killjoy, not "a joy that kills", but "one who kills the joy";
  • breakfast, not "a fast that breaks," but "one that breaks the fast";
  • pastime, not "a time that passes," but "that which is done to pass the time";
and the following (Group B):
  • singsong, "a piece of verse" < "an instance of singing a song" = "song singing";
and the following (Group C):
If V+N compound could only be parsed as "N that V", then none of the above would be valid compounds, and -pocket, -devil, etc., by your reasoning, would have to be considered as suffixes. (Along the same line, V+ProN compounds like do-little, do-nothing, know-nothing also exist and conform to Group A, as well as say-so, which conforms to Group B. If -all should be analysed as a suffix it would only seem fair for -nothing, -little, and -so to also follow suit.) This is obviously infeasible. Catch-all, know-it-all, etc., in fact follows the exact same wordformation pattern as those in Group A; I don't particularly see why they shouldn't be analysed as compounds as well.
Cheers, 蒼鳥 fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong. 12:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yes Im familiar with endocentric compounds. I see a few differences between those words and the words using -all and -it-all. I'll just treat Group A together:
  1. These compounds always omit a linking word. In all cases but the first, the patient is indefinite, so the missing word is the. Nobody says *break-the-fast.
  2. These compounds always have the second element as a noun, whereas -it-all and -all end with what I would prefer to call a determiner, although I guess there is some debate about that. However this point may be irrelevant so I wont stress it.
  3. Most importantly, though, in these compounds, both morphemes are fixed. breakfast is a word familiar to anyone, but outside of ad-hoc coinages, nobody says *makefast or *breakmeal. By contrast, -it-all and -all can attach to multiple words. Only one morpheme is free. I admit that this helps me understand why it is important, as stated above, that -it-all cannot pass CFI just based on know-it-all. Maybe this paragraph is the only really important thing in my reply, but I want to make clear why I'm being so insistent.
As for the others .... Group B just looks like another instance of the Group A pattern to me. I guess it's not endocentric, but it is head-first, which is the most relevant characteristic of English endocentrics as it is the one that's shared by constructions such as know-it-all. As for Group C, I'd say it's just a lexicalized quote; it's not a compound at all, any more than thank-you is.
That's all I have to say for now. Thanks for reading, Soap 13:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the reply :^) On point 2: I'd say all and it all are both pronominal in this case.
You raise a point in point 3; how do you feel about the nothing in do-nothing, have-nothing [9], know-nothing, get-nothing, and good-for-nothing, though? Going by your argument, -nothing should also be considered a suffix. 蒼鳥 fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong. 13:48, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I would say -nothing qualifies as a suffix, yes, although your last word is another lexicalized quote, and doesnt form a set with the rest. Perhaps being two syllables long explains the scarcity of examples. If naught weren't archaic, perhaps we'd have more words like dreadnought.
Regarding the pronouns ... if all and it-all are pronouns, it seems hard to argue that expressions ending in them could be nominal compounds, even endocentric ones. But I get the impression there are more than two sides here, and we have as many opinions as we have people in this thread. Soap 18:39, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
yes, good-for-nothing doesn't fall in with other verb-headed -nothings, that was on me; but I don't get why you'd classify it as a "lexicalised quote." (Also – circling back a little – I don't know if compounding necessarily excludes lexicalised quotes, but maybe we are operating under different theoretical frameworks.)
I also fail to see why "if all and it-all are pronouns, it seems hard to argue that expressions ending in them could be nominal compounds". All, it-all being pronouns doesn't say anything against catch-all, know-it-all being exocentric compounds, per Bloomfield's definition of endo- and exo-centric compounding.
I'm sorry that I'm probably dragging this discussion unwelcomedly long; I didn't have time to properly respond to your previous reply, and I keep being distracted by the smaller points we're making. Mostly I'm just really confused as to why you would insist that know-it-all, catch-all and do-nothing are stem+suffix constructions, when they are semantically and syntactically motivated in the exact same way as daredevil and pickpocket. (the point 1 you made in your previous reply was a non-argument, as English pronouns like all or nothing cannot take determiners in the first place.) 蒼鳥 fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong. 22:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, this is a very interesting discussion. If you feel the discussion is too long I'd be happy to continue it somewhere else, perhaps at a slower pace. I'd like to leave this thread be for at least the next few days, as I'll be somewhat more busy. Thanks for talking, Soap 07:52, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
As per the discussion above, I understand that three words using this as a suffix are enough to get it through CFI. We could use catch-all, cure-all, and overall. The last has no hyphen, but as it is a noun, and does not mean "an all that is over", it can only be using the same -all suffix as the other two words. More examples can be found ... there is an expression the end-all be-all, though I don't know how often those words are untethered. Collins lists cover-all, with or without hyphen, to describe a similar garment to overalls.
As for the original question of why this is a suffix, I think I've amply addressed that above. Soap 12:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
We actually have coverall. We just didnt list the hyphenated spelling. So we have four words using this suffix as a suffix now, and I think this should be considered cited and I'm going to leave it be, as there's nothing more I should need to do. Thanks, Soap 07:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I absolutely disagree that this is cited. Nothing of what you said above demonstrates that this is a suffix. PUC13:40, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
This is just part of a pattern of fossiling sentences with a non-finite form of the verb: pissabed and lie-abed aren't evidence for an "-abed" suffix. Chuck Entz (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Content disputes are a sign of a healthy community. In some online communities, people form into cliques and anyone can predict the winner of a policy discussion from the get-go because the same people always win. I'm glad we're not like that here. However, I still think these RFV's are in the wrong place, as they were simply RFD's by another name, and as such, I realized it would make no difference if I were able to come up with 300 cites instead of just 3, since the same people could continue to say that they aren't being used as suffixes. If we count this as the RFD that I believe it is, I'm outnumbered 4 to 1, and I expect both this page and -it-all to be deleted. I think that's wrong, and still feel that with a proper RFD it may have attracted more attention, but there are more important things to focus on right now so I am going to move on. Best regards, Soap 17:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply


Noun: law: "A person appointed specifically to examine a single event or issue." But the two examples are adjectival ("special master" and "special prosecutor") and both have their own separate entries, as it happens. So is it a noun? Can there be legal "specials"? Equinox 02:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

This seems like a dumb entry, which normal users, at least, don't need a dictionary entry to understand. Almost any adjective attributively modifying a noun in an NP be used informally, especially colloquially, without the noun to refer to the NP. RfD? DCDuring (talk) 11:31, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Everything points to this sense having been added by a simple mistake under Noun instead of Adjective, where this special sense is missing.  --Lambiam 12:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately, "everything" still doesn't seem sufficient to justify deleting the definition at this PoS or moving it elsewhere. That would require the contributor to acknowledge it as a mistake and move it. DCDuring (talk) 17:53, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Moved from noun to adj. - -sche (discuss) 02:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mixed-breed dog[edit]

On a separate point, I have heard a mixed-breed dog being referred to as a special. I wonder if that is verifiable. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:09, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

As in "Singapore Special", "Darwin special". Equinox 18:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Exactly. — Sgconlaw (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply


Obsolete nonse word. Not even used in a famous work Ñobody Elz (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I found a second use (on citations page). This, that and the other (talk) 01:55, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply


RFV of the sense meaning ‘pervert’. There’s some stuff online, especially on Urban Dictionary, mentioning ‘Herbert the Pervert’ from Family Guy but I can’t find any uses. It would be good to find quotes to support the sense of ‘foolish person’ that I added at Citations:herbert too. The first time I heard this was IRL yesterday when an elderly lady I know did something stupid and said about herself, “What a herbert! What a twonk!”, so it can sometimes be used about females not just males but that might be hard to prove. Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:54, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

The foolish person sense can be found in dictionaries (GDoS: “a simple person”, COED: “an undistinguished or foolish man or youth”). It seems to be an extension of the first sense in the entry (“working-class youth”), although I'm not sure if it's distinct enough to warrant a separate definition line. Einstein2 (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for that, I'll try and see if I can find the books that Green's Dictionary quotes on Google Books and add them. It looks like the 'working class youth' sense came later though, in the Punk era, while the dictionaries that you've linked to suggest that the 'foolish person/man/youth' came about in the early 20th century, or in the 1960s at the latest. I'd say the senses are distinct too. I suppose it's possible that the Punk era word came from the 1969 Star Trek episode The Way to Eden, where the 'space hippies' describe those not in their group as 'herberts', thus basically using it as a synonym of 'square' (though you'd expect to find usage of the term in early 70s America before it spread to late 70s Britain in that case). --Overlordnat1 (talk) 19:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
An online slang dictionary has "Noun. An [sic] dull objectionable person. E.g."He's a real herbert, he watches the news and weather on TV all day." This definition fits better with my recollection of the usage I've heard, eg, that bloody herbert than either of our definitions. I think of herbert as UK, possibly also Aus./NZ. DCDuring (talk) 14:04, 7 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I added a quotation using the "pervert" sense from the song D is for Dangerous by the Arctic Monkeys. I don't really see how it could mean anything else considering the context of the line. FishandChipper (talk) 14:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. Now fully cited. Overlordnat1 (talk) 18:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I don't think that two of the quotes support the definition. "Dirty herbert" is a pleonasm if the definition is correct. It does not unambiguously support the meaning given. The "D is for Dangerous" lyric seems to support it, if you listen to most of it. DCDuring (talk) 23:40, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
The phrase "dirty pervert" would be equally pleonastic, and occurs very commonly. I can't tell if cites support sense either. Equinox 23:44, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Right. The cites do not support the definition unambiguously. Is the term in widespread colloquial use with that meaning? DCDuring (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I wasn’t aware of this meaning, which is why I challenged it to begin with, so I suppose that means it isn’t a widespread term but the last two quotes do seem convincing to me. This is because the 2012 one not only uses the word ‘dirty’ to describe Paddy Considine but also accuses him of being ‘corrupting’, thus supporting the sense that he is a pervert. Furthermore, the 2018 quote not only refers to the person described as a ‘Herbert’ as ‘filthy’ but it does this in the context of the referent (the ‘Herbert/Herbert’) being a character in a futuristic world (so not a punk or a modern-day chav) who is accused of having sex with an underage girl. Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
The 2012 cite is consistent with the first definition of herbert, labeling PC as being lower class as well as 'corrupting' and 'dirty'. I certainly could be mere pleonasm, but it is not unambiguous. DCDuring (talk) 02:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I really don't see how the sci-fi uses, either Star Trek or the Morin novel offer any value as cites of use a current terrestrial environment. DCDuring (talk) 02:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Unless there’s a fictional race of people called ‘herberts/Herberts’ to cause confusion then I don’t really see why not. I suppose the PC quote isn’t unambiguous and the whole situation is complicated by ‘dirty’ and ‘filthy’ (and ‘corrupting’) being polysemous but I’m personally convinced. I’ve added several uses of ‘herbert’ as a term of abuse to Citations:herbert and I could even add some more just by searching under “dirty/filthy/stupid/silly herbert” or “these/those herberts” with a Google Advanced Search but the exact meaning isn’t always clear. I’ve provisionally categorised them under a “foolish person” definition but perhaps we could create a non-gloss definition of “a term of abuse” instead to cover them?
The first definition doesn’t seem quite right, by the way. It seems like the word ‘herbert’ originated as a mild term of abuse, often used affectionately, for children (something like ‘scamp’ or ‘cheeky monkey’) prior to the punk era (as the Spike Milligan quote demonstrates) and then it came to mean something like “an annoying person, especially a working-class one who is a punk (in the musical/cultural sense)” before then being used as an insult more widely. It can be a derogatory but not neutral or complimentary term for the working classes, like scum of the earth rather than salt of the earth. I can’t see any clear evidence at all that it’s used to mean something like ‘square’ (a boring/unfashionable/conservative person). Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I’ve now created a generic sense to cover contemptible people who may or may not be perverted. I still think the pervert sense deserves to pass, in fact the meaning in the other quotes is at least as clear (perhaps more so) than in the Arctic Monkeys one, but I wouldn’t object if the community decides to fail this and moves the cites to the new sense instead. Overlordnat1 (talk) 10:07, 9 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
If we accept all three cites as durably archived, I think the context of each one makes interpreting it as "pervert" plausible. there is some discussion of this word (though not the meaning "pervert") here btw. - -sche (discuss) 01:47, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
Maybe plausibility is the best we can do, but our evidence standards for this kind of thing are questionable. We assume that "ADJ NOUN" phrases are evidence that ADJ is an attribute of NOUN in one of its definitions. Sometimes that might be the case, but much of the usage is at best ambiguous.
In this case, we might leave our normal users better off by simply having a list of collocations with "spotty-faced", "dirty", "filthy", "stupid", "silly", "bloody", etc. DCDuring (talk) 15:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
So as a side point, we may want to split the etymology: I suppose all senses come from the given name, but the rhyme with "pervert" is a different reason to choose it. Equinox 19:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)Reply


Rfv-sense "(proscribed) A person who does not believe in any religion (not even a religion without gods)". This could be a really interesting sense for atheist if it exists (three cites). I'm trying to imagine how to look for it- something about communists in China throwing off Confucianism or something? Really interesting one. Don't dimiss it out of hand, because I think have seen this discussed before. I found something close to this in Taiwan: [10] "Taiwanese-American hip-hop singer Stanley Huang's (黃立行) new album has triggered protests from the religious community because the title song is about atheism, a Chinese-language daily reported yesterday. [] It's not clear who has been offended by the tune, but most Taiwanese are Buddhists or Daoists. A small number are Christians, Muslims and atheists." Here's an atheist discussion on the topic of Taoism [11] --Geographyinitiative (talk) 14:24, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

It seems to me that this is the way a lot of people use the term. Whenever you see "atheist" listed alongside "Buddhist" and "Christian," is this not the adjectival analogue to this sense? I would reword the definition, though. Rather than "A person who does not believe in any religion" (because it's not a lack of belief that religions exist), I would say "A person who is not an adherent to any religion" or something along those lines. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Andrew Sheedy I think you're saying that atheist can be a synonym for nonreligious, is that right? If so, where do we find cites for that? I think it is possible. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 22:09, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Geographyinitiative: I added a couple cites. Do you think they fit the definition and are clear enough to be distinguishable from the other senses? If so, I'm fairly confident I can find more like them. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:54, 10 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
For my money, the 5 cites at the citation page more clearly prove that 'atheist' can mean 'non-religious', not just 'someone who doesn't believe in a God/deity', than the 2 you've actually added as they starkly contrast atheists with religious people who don't believe in God (such as Buddhists and Jains). In any case, I don't think any of the senses we have are at all uncommon or merit the label 'proscribed' - they're just hard to disambiguate. Based on those 5 cites alone let's call this cited. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 00:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Beliefs in deities do not exist, the definitions miss what actually happens. Gods cannot be conceptualized and accordingly have no seat in anyone’s mind. Were it otherwise, we would have to speak of medically relevant delusions (the psychological fact of persistingly adhering to an idea in spite of it being incompatible with empirical data), but the intuition here is correct that it is factually inappropriate to pathologize. They are indeed indirect references to what someone, a particular group, demands in a behaviour throughout man’s life. You would be yourself an autist if you assumed that people actually mean what they claim.
Nowadays in developed countries those who continue to practice religion have a general awareness that they are phoneys, but it works. So contrary to how discourse makes it appear, choice of religion is secondary to previously fostered social convictions. The occurrence patterns of religiosity, i.e. communication that indicates allegiance to a god of choice, have been studied in their environments with the observation of their being “determined by the need to moralize others and ultimately by the level of social trust (i.e., what people think of others’ level of cooperation)”. Consistent with this observation, that everyone is directed towards in practice, Wiktionary already defines the particular sense of “belief” in question as “religious faith” and the sense of “faith” as “a religious or spiritual belief system”, probably not even circularily referring to the same sense of “belief”: the system character is substantial, the religiosity or spirituality accidental. Hence, religion is the adherence to a cult, by definition structured around supernatural entities. You can thus define an atheist as someone not believing in a cult, i.e. the value systems espoused by it. Do you really think that people are that decided about particular meaning restrictions as provided in our dictionary entry atheist when they use the word? The proscribed sense, which comes to the mind of @Andrew Sheedy as that of the lot of people and thus attains the greatest support of usage as opposed to mention that deliberates about the term, is with this footing the only sense, the rest is theology, to be rejected as partisan instead of descriptive.
Consequentially, freedom of religion is incorrectly comprehended as someone’s freedom “to carry out any practices in accordance with those beliefs”, since people don’t even causally act on beliefs which don’t exist, and such specific provisions cannot be a mere general power of competence on religious grounds. So in spite of the more popular definition, containing a confused causality, the minority definition in legal literature is more accurate, according to which freedom of religion is only freedom to perform ritual acts, exercitium religionis and devotio domestica, which has been defined since the Peace of Westphalia. E.g. of this legal literature calling it thus restricted: Johannes Hellermann (1994) “Multikulturalität und Grundrechte – am Beispiel der Religionsfreiheit”, in C. Grabenwarter, editor, Allgemeinheit der Grundrechte und Vielfalt der Gesellschaft: 34. Tagung der Wissenschaftlichen Mitarbeiterinnen und Mitarbeiter der Fachrichtung „Öffentliches Recht“[12], Stuttgart: Boorberg, pages 129–144; Gerhard Czermak, Eric Hilgendorf (2018) Religions- und Weltanschauungsrecht[13], Berlin: Springer, →DOI, margin numbers 131–134. While it is in any legal opinion that religion as opposed to weltanschauung is distinguished by making reference to deities or at least transcendental reference, so I repeat that belief in a deity is accessory to religiousness and the distinction in our entry nonsensical. Fay Freak (talk) 09:33, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Fay Freak You write: "The proscribed sense, which comes to the mind of @Andrew Sheedy as that of the lot of people and thus attains the greatest support of usage as opposed to mention that deliberates about the term, is with this footing the only sense, the rest is theology, to be rejected as partisan instead of descriptive." Would this mean that mean that the other senses are religious terminology within Abrahamic religion? I don't propose Wiktionary should label them that way, but I feel that's what the implication of your statement would be, perhaps. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Fay Freak, I don't mean to be harsh, but can you try making your point more succinctly? Beyond the philosophically and sociologically dubious claims and the off topic commentary, what lexical point are you trying to make? I don't know what your intentions are and it could well be that you mean very well, but be aware that you often come across as just trying to show off how smart you are and it's exhausting to wade through the cruft to decipher what's of actual value for the rest of us. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Andrew Sheedy: I pointed out that so-called religious beliefs or beliefs in deities are embedded in religious systems and accessory to them, which are themselves accessory to habituations of humans to social conversation and thus what persons believe in is not actually gods but religions which bring their points, about what men should do, forward by the figure of gods. If people claim they ascribe truth to their god it is actually to manipulate people in the desired direction as they believe in the commandments and recommendations structured around the particular god figure and thus ascribe truth to them; value judgments and factual claims are treated the same in general language: Fact–value distinction. And perlocutionary speech acts also use to look exactly the same as any statement. The gods a religion has are just brand variations: Like if I like to wear A Bathing Ape because of the qualities and fits and designs and flex and attitude transmitted by items etc. I believe in that ape and the A Bathing Ape® and BAPE logos and their powers—what does that even mean? It is a breviloquence for what I exactly believe in, that this is the top brand to wear. Religion is also presented in the demeanours of people like clothing, rather than being believed by anyone only in its naked main character. Hence “A person who does not believe in any religion” is the only definition of atheist. Because people don’t believe in gods, as only symbolic for the complete religion. It wouldn’t make sense to say, e.g., I believe in the Christian God, without ascribing some traditional properties to him which then serve as a guideline to behaviour and then make an ingroup and outgroup; and even if you believe in only some kind of God then you have an ingroup of religious people and outgroup of nonreligious people, people see similarities between him who believes in a god and them who don’t: as this is still a distinction in how people operate, it was a requirement to be categorized as gottgläubig to be in the SS.
You could instead add a particular language rule, gloss or usage note, to “believe” as applied to the brands created by religions, but then the “true” linked in its first definition “to accept as true” has enough diverse meanings. If people believe in this or that god, they accept his system as “genuine; legitimate, valid” or “fair, unbiased”. So don’t people comprehend gods as “conforming to the actual state of reality or fact”? In spite of being meaningless due to facts and reality never being some otherworld, which itself would have to be interconnected with the real world, the idea pops in, only to reinforce the religion by motte and bailey; in no case the alleged beliefs in gods are exclusively in them without even their religions. The quotes given for the “belief in god” senses of atheist can easily be analyzed as “somebody who does not support, i.e. consciously furthers the practical effect of, the religion of a particular brand having the god X”. And agnostic is someone who is doubtful or uncertain what he does of religious teachings. Fay Freak (talk) 21:08, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
As Andrew implied above, this is unhelpful gibberish that just makes a long page longer. Nobody is going to get any meaningful information out of that. Equinox 23:19, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Equinox: I make the claims extra-easy for Equinox: Nobody is advancing deities without religion. When arguing something with reference to gods specifically vs. their religions, adherents of them play motte and bailey. Ultimately the goal is to further or reject a religion. If the context of quotes is broad enough we may witness this lack of the former meaning in each individual case. Why is a Christian according to Wiktionary one who “believes in Christianity”, a whole religion, or one “who seeks to live his or her life according” to the founder’s church while an atheist can be one merely rejects any deity of the religion? This distinction is contradictory and contrafactual—an atheist is conceptualized by the language community as someone who does not ascribe to a religion even if people aren’t that explicit about it as I can. People aren’t that exact and speak in figures. (Elaborated in detail.)
So we should change the definitions of “atheist” to e.g. after our current structure “A person who does not ascribe [or adheres] to a religion”; subsense strict: “one who rejects all religions”, broader sense: “one who doubts whether he should follow one”, loose sense: “one who is unaware of the reality of religions”, uncommon sense “a person who does not ascribe to a particular religion (but may ascribe to another one)”. Religions are supported like football clubs. They all believe very much in their teams. And because they have been so pervasive, we have this term for outsiders. Fay Freak (talk) 09:58, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
You're still doing it. Equinox 05:54, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
As an aside, what the heck is going on with the translation tables (the ones that have a bunch of translations, not the ones I just added). I added a qualifier to the first one (so that it corresponds to a definition), but the second doesn't have a corresponding sense. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I figured it out and (hopefully) fixed it. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
The current citations, except for perhaps the Taipei Times one, do not seem to unambiguously support this sense to me. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 11:57, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Al-Muqanna Which other sense(s) do you think they could fall under? Note that Buddhists are atheists in the sense of not believing in a god, yet they are listed alongside atheists in a couple of the current quotes. Or do you think there's a better way of wording the definition that captures this sense better? Andrew Sheedy (talk) 17:26, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Andrew Sheedy: Buddhists in most parts of the world do in fact "believe in deities or gods", as sense 1 has it—see the whole wp article on Buddhist deities—so listing atheists alongside Buddhists is not proof of much. Sense 1 also fits fine for the Beaman and Seidman quotes. I don't think there's anything wrong with the wording of the sense if it can actually be verified, but as far as I can tell what the quotation selection actually seems to be getting at atm is atheist meaning "an opponent of religion" (rather than just not believing), but since opponents of religion in general will almost by definition be atheists according to sense 1 anyway that's quite hard to disentangle as a separate sense. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Al-Muqanna: I see your point, though from my (admittedly limited) studies of Buddhism, my understanding is that those aren't deities or gods in the normal sense of the word, making the Wikipedia article a bit inaccurate. What the definition is trying to capture is the sense in which atheist is often used as a religious category, on par with "Christian" or "Buddhist". Many people would find the list, "Christians, Hindus, Muslims, and people who believe in gods" a bit incongruent (one would expect "and other people who believe in gods"), but not the list, "Confucians, Taoists, Buddhists, and atheists," which suggests that for many people, "atheist" means not so much "person who does not believe in a god", but rather, "person whose religious beliefs are that there is no god". Note that the capitalization of "Atheist" in the 2002 quote supports the understanding that "Atheism" is a category of religious belief on par with Buddhism, rather than simply describing one aspect of religious belief, which could equally be applied in the strict sense to Buddhists. You may however be right about the two most recent quotes. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 18:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply


Rfv-sense "(religion, LaVeyan Satanism) The personification or symbol of pride, carnality, and liberty." This would show up in the Satanic Bible maybe? But in what other books or article not written by Anton LaVey? I am so unfamiliar with this, but I think the entry would be really augmented if at least three cites were on entry for this sense. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

chastity belt[edit]

Sense 2: figurative "For a woman, refusal to have sex." Equinox 17:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply


"I would not". Equinox 23:17, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I can't find uses, only mentions. There are a fair few songs at genius.com where dn't is used to represent a reduced pronunciation of don't or didn't though, so that might be worth an entry. --Overlordnat1 (talk) 12:00, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply


Rfv-sense "(transitive, warez) To flag a release as bad for some reason or another (for instance, due to being a duplicate of an earlier release or containing malware)." The one "cite" is not durably archived (blog) and a mention no less. I think the sense of "destroy/erase" covers a lot of comparable uses, including this one. - TheDaveRoss 13:46, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply


Etymology 4: "(Philippines) Used to represent the sound of a falling strike." It's not clear to me what a "falling strike" is. — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Apparently it is the sound of a dull impact: see "w:Cross-linguistic onomatopoeias". — Sgconlaw (talk) 17:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply


Sense 15: "Credit, recognition." The parenthetical example given for this use was "To give someone his flowers." Inner Focus (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I wonder if this sense occurs in other phrases. I'm familiar with phrases like "give people their flowers while they're alive" (instead of only eulogizing them), which is easy to cite — google books:"flowers while they're alive" — and isn't (only) about literal flowers, but it wouldn't have occurred to me to treat that as a sense of flower rather than a metaphor or a longer figure of speech ?give someone their flowers. Occurrence in other phrases would help demonstrate this was a sense of flower by itself. - -sche (discuss) 15:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
BTW, our only cite for the sense "vulva, labia" is from 1749 but we don't indicate the sense as obsolete like, say, "menstrual discharges". It'd be nice to either add a more recent cite, or a label. - -sche (discuss) 15:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply


Apparently unused outside of the expression uvic acid, which is apparently tartaric acid Thyself be knowne (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

If that's the case, then replace with {{only used in}} (like reojo). - -sche (discuss) 21:08, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply


"A female given name transferred from the surname Ames". Be careful: this is not the same as etymology 2, which is a girl's nickname, short for Amy. Equinox 20:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

pal up[edit]

Rfv-sense: "To form a small group". I've only been able to find the first sense ("to become friends") in use, and other dictionaries also provide only that sense. lattermint (talk) 21:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

When I was working in Camp America, we used this term all the time No hago griego (talk) 21:28, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Sounds plausible (imagine a teacher or lecturer saying "pal up with the people near you, and discuss what's on the board"). But I couldn't find it with a quickish GBooks search. Equinox 21:52, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply


All the hits were tyops, or parts of words at the beginning of a line 3191 Sever (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

There actually seem to be two different medical senses here, as per this dictionary. One means "of the skin", from Gk ἄκρος "tip; outermost point", and the other means not beating; without a pulse, from Gk a-krotos, which is probably κρότος. The fact that both have medical meanings but mean very different things probably killed off medical usage of both words. I wouldnt expect to find this in use either, but if we somehow do, it's worth noting that there are two different etymologies and so every cite we find will have to be checked so we know which etymology to assign it to. Soap 15:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply


Trademarked name of a specific product, may or may not pass WT:BRAND. Binarystep (talk) 04:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

tongue punch[edit]

Needs supporting evidence. - TheDaveRoss 13:27, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

cited Kiwima (talk) 03:43, 9 October 2023 (UTC)Reply


I only found it uncapitalized in a book that referenced Wiktionary. J3133 (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Added two usenet cites (also made the definition slightly less narrow, just in case). 蒼鳥 fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong. 12:14, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Fawknerfawk: Even if this form passes, it would be an alternative form of the capitalized one. J3133 (talk) 12:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Agreed; changed. 蒼鳥 fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong. 12:35, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply


Rfv-sense "A precept or worldview that affirms the possibility of a society where killing is absent."
@Equinox, Ioaxxere This sense went through a failed RFV process recently (it passed, the process failed), where there was disagreement about whether the citations provided actually supported the sense provided. Can we gather a few citations here which we can then evaluate and agree on to support the sense? - TheDaveRoss 14:12, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Well, it's got a surprisingly full translation table, and it makes me wonder if we're just all missing something. Might this be a philosophical translation for ahimsa, even though the meaning isnt quite the same? Ahimsa appears in the translation table under Sanskrit, after all. It seems that some philosophers might have wanted to use a native English term so it wouldnt feel so foreign, and that the other languages' translations serve the same purpose. However, this is just a hunch, because I think ahimsa is more precisely translated as nonviolence. Soap 11:04, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply


Rfv-sense "An irrational or obsessive fear or dislike of pedophiles or pedophilia advocates." Tagged not listed. - TheDaveRoss 14:18, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's been years since I looked at things like this, but I believe this word is used by pedophiles to describe the competition, someone who desires a world where pedophilia does not exist. By contrast I dont think this word is in common use by the wider public to denote, for example, someone who imagines pedophiles lurking on every street corner and keeps their kids locked inside and away from social media (a behavior that could be described as irrational). In either case I dont think we will find much attestation of either sense in durably archived media .... probably just Twitter, if even that. Soap 22:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
To be honest, I've never seen this word used in an unironic sense. I've only ever encountered it in slippery slope arguments by conservatives claiming that LGBT rights are a ploy to normalize pedophilia. I'm pretty sure I first saw the term used in a meme to the following effect (paraphrased):

2015: Let us get married
2017: Bake the cake, bigot
2019: Use my pronouns or else
2021: Let me change your kid's gender
2023: Let me fuck your kid, pedophobe

...Do we have a context label for words that are only used in strawman arguments? Binarystep (talk) 02:56, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Well, we have one cite in traditional media listed at pedophobic in which it is used sincerely. I believe this sense extends to the word in all its forms, but I admit Im not willing to go searching for more cites, and I dont expect others to volunteer either. Soap 14:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
If this stays, I agree with Prinsgezinde that the definition should be reworded. The way it reads now, it looks like we're endorsing the pedophiles' view of themselves as normal and anyone who opposes pedophilia as irrational. It's possible that this word could also be used to denote someone who sees imaginary pedophiles everywhere, as I hinted at in my first post, such that they could be described as having an irrational fear of pedophiles. I would consider such a usage to be completely separate from the use implied by the cite at pedophobic, where it should be clear from context that it means anyone who opposes pedophilia (NAMBLA is an organization that supports legalizing pedophilia). However Im not sure we have a term for what I call the irrational sense, as such people can be described as paranoid or overprotective. So, if we do keep this word listed, with the definition of someone who opposes legalizing pedophilia, I think it should be re-worded. Soap 18:35, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Again I apologize for not helping with the actual search, but I thought of one more thing I wanted to add. This word sounded syntactically odd to me at first, despite my belief that I've seen it before. However, now I realize it makes perfect sense for it to have this meaning given that we have another word, homophobia, built on the same pattern of elision, in this case for homo(sexual)+phobia. Soap 11:15, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I dont think anyone's willing to take this on. Leaving it up isn't going to change that. I wouldnt want to be linking to NAMBLA literature anyway, and the only other way to get three cites would be to turn up two more examples of a quote within a quote, like the one we have now. To be honest I don't want to go digging for that either and don't expect anyone else to. So .... should we close this out as RFV-failed? We could add a (rare) label and a usage note for the surviving sense so people don't come away thinking that this word can only mean a fear of children, a use which i suspect is actually less common than what we're challenging. Thanks, Soap 10:51, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply


pedophobia's pedophilia-related sense still has no cites after several months. Pedophobic's pedophilia-related sense has only one, so I'd like to RFV it, too. they both need cleanup to address the issues raised above, if kept. - -sche (discuss) 19:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply


Rfv-sense (slang) Used to indicate that something is true, based on the similar sounding word facts. Tagged not listed. - TheDaveRoss 14:21, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Note fax has a similar entry, quite recently added IIRC. Equinox 08:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
fax in this sense is quite common online in my experience. 蒼鳥 fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong. 08:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Searching Twitter there are many results that confirm 📠. Out of curiosity, I also searched for the term on several Discord servers I am in and 📠 popped up a surprisingly large amount of times. I added some citations from Twitter between 2017 and 2023 to the entry for 📠 and shortened it to just fax; accordingly, on the entry for fax I added text explaining the similar (sometimes identical) pronunciation with facts to § Etymology 3 which was already there. (This is my first time at RfV so I hope this is how it is supposed to work). LunaEatsTuna (talk) 04:27, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply


Rfv-sense <"an initial phase in the psychotic process that is characterized by intense anguish, an experience of hostility and a feeling of imminent catastrophe".> (quotes included in the definition line (yikes!)). Tagged not listed. - TheDaveRoss 14:23, 20 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is definitely citable (quick google scholar search gives [14] [15] on the first page), but we probably need someone medically informed to rewrite the definition. Seems to be first used by Klaus Conrad, explained by a number of sources to be ultimately from a lexical item (sources say Greek, but that seems dubious) meaning "stage fright", so this should be moved to a separate etymology, too. 蒼鳥 fawk. tell me if i did anything wrong. 02:35, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply


Rfv-sense: Noun: "(finance) A long-term investment."

Could be, but I never heard or read it. DCDuring (talk) 17:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
It could be that what is intended in "A long-term fixed-income security", which fits the sole citation there now. DCDuring (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I see lots of usage by and about traders with long positions in securities, including equities, not just fixed-income securities, not so much in real assets. We may just need to adjust the wording. Usage seems to be limited to securities trading. DCDuring (talk) 18:34, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply


Could be Middle English according to the reference listed. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 17:23, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply


Requesting verification of the first of the two almost opposite senses, namely discrimination against parents. It is indeed used with this very sense in a blog I found at medium.com, but she might be the only one, and the blog entry postdates our entry by six years, so in theory she may have even gotten it from us. The few uses of this term that i've been able to find seem to lean towards the more semantically expected meaning of something parents do, sometimes extending to discrimination by parents against children or against childless people. Soap 23:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

I have found a whole bunch of citations, and grouped them into missing definitions. I changed the resentment of nonparents definition, because I found no evidence for it, but rather found something that is more like promotion of parenting as a societal ideal. Kiwima (talk) 10:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

perpetual September[edit]

Synonym of Endless September which doesn't appear to actually have been used. - TheDaveRoss 18:11, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply


Is it used outside of morning-after pill? PUC12:03, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

It is used in a number of related expressions (morning-after contraception, morning-after IUD, morning-after method etc.), although I'm wondering if this is an attributive form of a currently missing sense of morning after (as opposed to a true adjective). Einstein2 (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
  • the morning after”, in Cambridge English Dictionary, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire: Cambridge University Press, 1999–present.: "the day or days after something has happened or someone has done something, especially something that they regret (= wish had not happened or they had not done)."
  • morning after”, in Dictionary.com Unabridged, Dictionary.com, LLC, 1995–present.: "a moment or period of realization in which the consequences of an earlier ill-advised action are recognized or brought home to one."
@Einstein2: I presume this is the sense you mention; we should add it. See also "morning-after feeling". It makes me think of the idiom in the cold light of day. PUC00:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
The drinking-related definition at morning after is just one use of the generic sense that the above dictionaries have. Usage examples, rather than subsenses seem to me likely to better convey the usage than subsenses or sex- and drink-specific definitions. DCDuring (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply


Ety 4: "humorous: pronunciation spelling of king". AFAIK, this is specifically used in an anti-black Internet meme against "hotep" types, usually in the phrase "we wuz kangz" (meaning something like "we black people were powerful in the ancient world"). The entry doesn't make this clear at all, and probably should. Anyway does it meet CFI? Equinox 16:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

If this is citable, it might not mean king. It seems more likely to me that the term would occur divorced from the well-set expression as a derogatory term for so-called hoteps, or perhaps for all black people by extension. "Look at all those kangz over there", and the like. However, I've never come across this type of usage on the Internet. Soap 10:51, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

civic activity[edit]

The definition given is more specific than the SOP "an activity related to civics", but the usage I am seeing is of the SOP definition. Is there evidence of the narrower definition? - TheDaveRoss 19:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply


Not much evidence of this being broadly used, and many of them do not support this meaning. - TheDaveRoss 19:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

Eh? There's lots of results in Google Books. They mostly seem figurative, referring to something that falls away abruptly like a cliff. This, that and the other (talk) 07:57, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
I've added some literal and some figurative cites to the entry and citations page. It's possible the lemma spelling should be spaced (like the infamous coal mine vs coalmine). - -sche (discuss) 17:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Figurative sense should be split into a separate sense, I think, to make it clear what it means. Equinox 15:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply


None of the cites provided are spelled this way. - TheDaveRoss 19:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

false bluetail emo skink[edit]

Two quotes and both are mentions. One of them is on BGC, which also has another book - with yet another mention, not use. — SURJECTION / T / C / L / 04:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

The entry is currently set as WOTD for 7 July. Will change the WOTD to another entry closer to that date if this entry can’t be verified by then. Have to say that I did searches on Google, Google Books, Google News, the HathiTrust Digital Library, the Internet Archive, and Newspapers.com, and put what I could find in the entry. I haven’t tried JSTOR yet—maybe that will be more promising. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:10, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Also didn’t see any image of the skink at the Wikimedia Commons. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:15, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Don't think this entry is going to pass. I had a look at JSTOR and a number of other academic databases like EBSCO and Elsevier, and didn't find anything. — Sgconlaw (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
Most of these contrived English vernacular names are hard to cite if we define use in a table as a mention, not a use, not that I think this one would pass anyway. DCDuring (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I actually didn't know use in a table was regarded as a mention. It isn't quite the same as something like "The word word means [...]". — Sgconlaw (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply
I agree with you, but many, being biased against non-spoken language, rely on the wording "use in running text". DCDuring (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply


Twitch interjection. Equinox 21:13, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply


Discussion moved from WT:RFDE.

WT:BRANDSURJECTION / T / C / L / 10:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

I added a common noun sense ("a post published on BeReal"). – Einstein2 (talk) 10:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

This, that and the other (talk) 07:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

If I understand correctly, the company is called BeReal, and the product is called BeReal, so any mention of the app will necessarily identify "parties with economic interest in the brand". Verification therefore seems like a paradox. Cnilep (talk) 02:18, 23 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

wealdish (2)[edit]

Alexfromiowa moved the sense relating specifically to the Weald of Kent to Wealdish. There is no doubt that the word Wealdish, with this specific geographical sense, is also found with a lowercase w. However, I dispute that wealdish ever refers to any weald other than "the Weald" itself. (In other words, I contend that the entry should just be {{alternative case form of|en|Wealdish}}.) This, that and the other (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

break the back of[edit]

Rfv-sense: "To overburden (a person)"

We have break someone's back. I don't think I have ever heard anything like "it broke the back of John.", whereas "It broke John's back" seems natural. DCDuring (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

cited Kiwima (talk) 15:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)Reply


Rfv-sense: To house; to lodge. ASppp676 (talk) 11:35, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply


Sense 2: "excessive enthusiasm for multiple things, as contrasted with monomania". Equinox 01:27, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply


* Pppery * it has begun... 02:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)Reply

"Minecraft Console Edition". A Google Web search confirms that this is real, but it doesn't seem hugely common and probably won't meet WT:CFI. Not a total invention anyway. Equinox 16:17, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

July 2023[edit]


I found this. It seems that the officer swings a belt and hits person being punished on the soles of the feet. The person who added the sense may have assumed (as did I at first) that it was instead the same thing as slippering, but with a boot instead of a slipper. It seems that hitting people with a boot does exist as a form of corporal punishment, but I didnt find anyone specifically calling that booting. I coudlnt really find anything else of value on Google Books but it would be easier if there were a way to filter out the hits for boot camp (adding -camp to the query string doesnt really do much). Soap 23:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Very interesting! To quote the linked text (in case it goes away): "Booting [] consisted in flogging a man with a belt on the soles of the feet". Equinox 16:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply


Sense 1: "A leather scourge" (i.e. the whip, not the act of whipping, which is sense 2). Equinox 16:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

code vector[edit]

It looks like this is probably a term in some domain, but what domain isn't at all clear from the definition. I see a paper where it is used in the machine learning context, and some vague discrete math paper, but can anyone provide a clearer definition which narrows the meanings of vector and code? - TheDaveRoss 16:45, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is from the field of data compression, i.e. storing information in a smaller space, so that the exact original can still be restored later. I'm not familiar with this specific phrase, but the sense of vector is almost certainly the one that begins with "a memory address..." i.e. it's some kind of pointer. Equinox 18:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

It probably doesn't have a broadly-understood/standard definition beyond the scope of any given paper. It's weakly suggestive of a vector containing quantized or discretely-encoded information, as opposed e.g. to an arbitrary vector in R^n, but this is just my impression. As a contrived example, you might say that a mapping of the alphabet to vectors in I^3 is represented by "code vectors". Conversely I wouldn't use the phrase to refer to a coordinate vector that represents a position in continuous 3D space. There might be some subfield in which "code vector" is understood to have a more specific standard meaning, but nothing comes to mind.AP295 (talk) 15:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hospital Emergency Codes[edit]

These codes are defined as US and Canada, however there is certainly not the degree of standardization that this implies across all of these codes. Some, code blue for example, are quite standard in the US (and Canada?), but most of the others vary in meaning from hospital to hospital or at least regionally. If these are actually universal in Canada we should probably remove the US label from many of them, and either add regional meanings or define them more generically. - TheDaveRoss 17:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree, but this isn't something that lexico-nerds at RFV are going to do. How can we determine the meanings from actual documentation, to be placed into References sections? (Perhaps we should call Luciferwildcat back from the ninth circle of emergency healthcare... hahah...) Equinox 17:07, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm unsure what it would be best to do here; as you say, some so commonly have a certain consistent meaning (Citations:code blue) that it makes sense to record it, while others seem to have no set meaning (code black has four definitions so far), and yet... is that a sign we should generalize code black's definition to e.g. "A hospital code, signalling any of various situations, varying from hospital to hospital"? Or that we should keep every attestable definition? Or that it's not idiomatic at all? Colour codes are also used by e.g. police, prison guards, and others, so is having four definitions at code black like having definitions for every institution's meaning of level four (e.g. "a security level indicating a heightened threat", "a security clearance level granting access to...", "a pay grade equivalent to...", etc), i.e. something we don't/shouldn't do? - -sche (discuss) 08:55, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
This reminds me a bit of my idea a few years ago to create a page for category five, which can mean a very strong hurricane, but which must surely have quite an array of other meanings in other industries. And surely more so for the smaller numbers. Soap 21:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply


Rfv-sense: a lonnen Featherruffler (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

OED2 labels it "Scottish or dialect". Probably can be moved to Scots. I haven't looked in EDD. This, that and the other (talk) 09:30, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply


Rfv-senses: A hart or stag three years old. / A castrated man or animal.

Sense 2 looks like a common-sense Anglicization of spado, though I think I've looked at this very word before and found that it's been confused with spay, so even if I find what looks like a match I have to make sure I'm reading about a human male and not an animal. For example, this text seems to conflate spado ~ spade ~ spay all together. Soap 20:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Oh, I just happened upon spayard while I was looking at the etymology of spay. So sense 1 of spade, if real, is likely a contraction of spayard. Why that means what it does, I dont know. Soap 20:56, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply


Marked for out-of-process speedy deletion by User:Polarbear678 in diffSURJECTION / T / C / L / 11:08, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I find the current definition problematic, as it ties two very different things together. I changed the definition to what I felt it would be in a BDSM context, but was quickly reverted. I now think it would be better to have two definitions ... one for the original literal sense of a young involuntary slave, and one for the BDSM sense (voluntary roleplay among adults), and to apply this RFV to the second sense. (We could RFV the first sense too on spelling grounds, but it didnt take me long to find three cites for the bunched spelling on Google Books in which it's clear that the literal sense is meant, so maybe we can save ourselves a bit of time and just leave it be.) I also found three cites for what I believe to be the BDSM sense, and so despite the page creator now regretting creating the page,I misread the history, sorry I believe the second definition should also stay. The precise definition of the BDSM sense is open to debate, however, and I can't claim to be an expert. Soap 08:32, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
My apologies to Polarbear for misreading the edit history. The page has been much the same since 2012. However it seems plain to me that both senses of the word do exist, and while for the literal sense I expect that the spaced spelling slave boy is much more common, for the BDSM sense it would not surprise me if the bunched spelling was the more common form, perhaps at least in part to distinguish it from the literal use, but also in keeping with other existing terms such as pussyboy. Soap 08:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Literal (non-BDSM sense) now has 3 cites. Equinox 13:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)Reply


(Heraldry.) Can only find this form in French; in English I can find and have cited and created trefly. - -sche (discuss) 21:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I can cite trefle with no accents, and treflée, but not this. - -sche (discuss) 20:09, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply


Neither etymology of ithe is present in the EDD, and both have only one post-ME attestation between them in the OED. Furthermore, it seems that both ythe (wave) and ythen (to thrive) seem to be generally restricted to a kind of poetry replete in old Germanic vocabulary that peters out at the end of the ME period. Hazarasp (parlement · werkis) 22:34, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply


Adjective sense 7: "random". Equinox 20:26, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

schlockey schtick[edit]

Equinox 02:24, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Nothing in Google Books. On regular Google a a pdf describing the game that uses it, but everything else seems to be a mention with the phrase in quotes. Of course, it follows that if you have "schticks" in the game of "schlockey", you could call them "schlockey schticks", but the above is the only evidence I could find of that in actual use. Not that I see a lot of usage for "schtick" instead of "stick" in the context of the game, but the game doesn't seem to show up much in writing: it's a very local, informal term. Chuck Entz (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply


A type of sandwich. Equinox 06:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Must meet our WT:CFI requirements though. Internet photos don't count. Equinox 18:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Also recently added: the LGBT sandwich, although that one seems easier to attest (notably because of the media stir it caused). Q/+ look like copycats (with extra queso). Jberkel 13:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply


Rfv-senses "an insinuation or innuendo", "in knitting machines, a device for depressing the sinkers successively by passing over them", and "a trick or deception". Ioaxxere (talk) 18:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

RFV Failed Ioaxxere (talk) 17:13, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Reopening this RFV for the "knitting machine part" sense only. This does appear real and has various cites in OED, but some are as part of compound words. OED also gives some obsolete senses under the same etymology, but I'm not so sure this etymology is distinct from Etymology 1. Really this entry needs a thorough cleanup using all resources available to us, including Century. This, that and the other (talk) 22:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Also the "trick or deception" sense may correspond to OED's sense "A method of cheating at dice", attested in the 1600s. This, that and the other (talk) 22:29, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply


Rfv-sense: one who assays. All the quotations I see are most probably a pronunciation spelling of seaman, and one even of semen. Cappwe (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

OED has one cite from 1488 which looks to be an Anglo-Norman text: "Et solvit Johanni Francis, sayman, pro lez hallyngs de sago viridi". Anyone got any ideas what that means? Anyway, it's one cite and it's pre-1500 so not useful here.
The word was apparently used by Bacon in the 1600s, although interestingly OED doesn't seem to include this quote.
Nothing in EEBO. This, that and the other (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)Reply


Rfv-senses: A crushing blow. and A heavy fall of rain or snow. Some evidence at OED UnHarassing (talk) 08:26, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

So it's not part of etymology 3? A word for head evolved to mean a hit on the head, and then just a devastating hit in general? Soap 08:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply


This, that and the other (talk) 09:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Only posting to note that our current definition is the opposite of what it was when it was first listed. Soap 10:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Even a fairly clueless user is able to do better than SB when it comes to defining words, it seems. OED gives "insatiableness", and the etymon matches. This, that and the other (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
The OED currently politely says that it's "apparently only attested in dictionaries or glossaries", but earlier editions directly call it a ghost word: "The L[atin] and Eng. seem alike fictions." So this might be a good case for {{no entry}}. There is at least one case of someone using it to sound authentic in a period novel though, which I added at Citations:abarcy. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:24, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply


SURJECTION / T / C / L / 10:40, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is the kind of word that gets mentioned rather than used, it seems. I'm honestly shocked at how few uses I can locate, even on Twitter/X. A strong case for {{no entry}}. This, that and the other (talk) 23:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply


Middle English only. This, that and the other (talk) 11:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply



Both verb senses. They're followed by usage notes that make no sense for an English term, so perhaps the creator of the entry conflated this with a related term in another language. Chuck Entz (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Or it is something only used among speakers of Indian English. DCDuring (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
It makes sense to me, in principle... it's just a belaboured way of saying that it's not conjugated and the tense/aspect has to be inferred from what's around the verb. There is similar stuff in other English dialects like kena. Can't find any evidence of mukt actually being used as a verb though. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 20:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply


Two more dubious senses from the very large set given here. One is "to grasp, comprehend; to understand"; the other is "(archaic) to overstay, outstay, overlinger". Entry probably also needs more glossing to indicate that this isn't a normal word used by many people. Equinox 11:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've added a few quotes to Citations:oversit a while ago but I'm not confident enough to sort them by sense. Some of the citations (e.g. 1834, 1890, 1907) seem to support the "overstay" sense, although I am not completely sure. Einstein2 (talk) 20:05, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply


Sense 2: "shape, form". My queries on this sense:

  • It might just be a literal translation of the German (see etymology) rather than something used in English.
  • "Shape, form" seems too vague anyhow: presumably this would not be used in geometry to describe hexagons etc.
  • Most damningly: the two existing citations strongly seem to belong to sense 1 (meaning something like "personality"). A meaning of "shape, form" makes little or no sense for those citations.

Equinox 11:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Uber problem[edit]

Sense 2: In entrepreneurship, the situation where a startup company lacks a profitable business model. Equinox 13:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply




I can find only one English cite of virolles (Citations:virolle), and many French cites (Citations:virolles, presumably an alt form of viroles#French). I think I can just barely cite either virole or viroles (which one depends on whether we view "the singular, used for a singe ring, and the plural, used for plural rings" as different words), but I don't think enough cites exist for the other spellings. PS it's not clear how a bearing of verules as described, "concentric rings" / "a name given by French heraldry to annulets, or great rings, when borne in arms, one within another, with the same centre", would be visually distinguishable from a gurges. - -sche (discuss) 17:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Looking again, I managed to find one book that uses verules (and the singular, verule) : Citations:verule. But I can't find two more. verolles I can only find as (old) French, like virolles. I have converted verolles and virolles to French. - -sche (discuss) 04:57, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply


(Heraldry.) I can only find this in the form tergiant, notwithstanding that the ultimate etymon tergum has no i. - -sche (discuss) 21:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've added two uses in a non-heraldic context to Citations:tergant. Einstein2 (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Fascinating. Can anyone find a third cite? (Pimbley's dictionary has "Tergant―(ter'-gant) Showing the back part; as, an eagle tergant displayed." but this is not really a use, it's a made-up example.) - -sche (discuss) 01:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply
I found this, but the sense doesn't work: it seems like an error for terse(?):
  • 1965, United States House Committee on Education and Labor, Ad Hoc Subcommittee on the War on Poverty Program, Examination of the War on Poverty Program: Hearings..., page 585:
    DR GIOSCIA. [...] I might, since they are short, if I may[,] read the sentences I originally wrote because they are rather simple and I hope tergant.
And here, someone attests to the use of the word, but does not themself use it, merely mentioning it:
  • 1949, The New Mexico Quarterly Review, volume 19, page 494:
    The first period is stylistically the worst, full of adolescent "poetic" writing, cheap ironic effects, high-flown words like "rescission," "tergant," and "macillant," and plain grammatical error.
There's also a Thomas Browne quote about "a thicker tergant" which also seems like a different sense (and POS), and there are scannos of "servant" in handwritten, embroidered, and carved texts Google has digitized, but I simply cannot find a third use in books. There are some uses online, [20] [21] [22] [23], but ... - -sche (discuss) 07:35, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

compilation behaviour[edit]

This appears to have been coined in a fairly recent academic paper, and there a numerous other papers which cite that paper. I am not seeing much use outside of that ecosystem. I am also not totally clear that this isn't SOP, even if it has been used a few other times, but it is not my domain so I am not sure. - TheDaveRoss 13:17, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Doesn't seem widespread beyond that (2006?) paper, no. Our definition was also missing the crucial point that this is where someone is trying to "make it compile" by making small changes, without thinking about the semantics very much. i.e. it's rather like what we used to call shotgun debugging. So I'm tweaking that. Equinox 18:37, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply


This is listed as a noun, though I am seeing it as a verb form. We don't have the verb concordance, which is probably a miss. No usage found in the plural. - TheDaveRoss 13:52, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've added a verb section to concordance. Einstein2 (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

three halfpennies[edit]

This RfV is for the sense “plural of three halfpence” (which is the only sense we have). It is listed as an alternative form at three halfpence, and the plural was indicated as three halfpence (the same) by the creator of the entry but SemperBlotto changed it to three halfpennies. J3133 (talk) 07:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Wow, this entry is deeply pathological. "three halfpence (plural three halfpennies)" !! It's already plural. Pence and pennies are already (both plural) ways to say the same thing. You've found a real horror, J3133. Equinox 07:51, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
What do you make of the 2011 quote under sense 2? I'm not really sure what this sense is on about. It's not even clear to me whether the quote supports this sense. It seems that it costs three halfpence to travel on the train, and there are two intending passengers, so "two three-halfpennies" is a metonymy for "two three-halfpence fares". In the mind of the speaker, it does seem as though "three-halfpennies" is in some respect the plural of "three-halfpence", or at least, "three-halfpenny" as an attributive form.
Sense 1 ("a silver coin") is conceptually, even if not linguistically, countable - what would be the plural? "Two three-halfpence coins"? This, that and the other (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, in the 2011 quote, “two three-halfpennies, please” seems to be using "two three-halfpennies" elliptically to mean "two fares of three-halfpennies"; I'm sure I've seen other amount-terms used similarly to refer to the things which are those amounts, e.g. google books:"two dozens of". But I would regard that as a form of either three-halfpennies or three-halfpenny, but not a form of three-halfpence (why would it be an inflected form of that? is thruppence, also found in the quote, an inflected form of three-halfpence or three pence? no), so I would move the quote out of that entry. (The second instance, "two fares (Margo and me) of three halfpennies each", is arguably not using a lexeme three halfpennies at all, but rather two lexemes, halfpennies and then three to indicate how many of them.) It's also not clear to me why the 1855 quote was put in this entry instead of the entry for the term it uses... - -sche (discuss) 20:12, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
@-sche: There seem to be quite a few quotations for three half-pences on Google Books. For example, “paid all the Pence, Three-half-pences, and Two-pences” (1728); “with a view to the three half-pences that were thus to be acquired” (2003). Is this a plural or an alternative form? J3133 (talk) 10:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
What I make of it is "an excuse", and it's the mention, not the usage. It's shameful to add such things and act like they are real everyday usages and not some author having a laugh. Equinox 13:16, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
I do find two similar usages in what I can find on GB ("To the conductor, "Just two three-halfpennies please"." in Mile End by Alan Grayson [2003] and "I said 'two three-halfpennies please, one for me and one for the lady over there'. in Swore I Never Would by Harold French [1970]). cf (talk) 03:26, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Three-halfpenny exists in the singular as well and it means the same thing as three-halfpence. The logical thing would be to list ‘three-halfpenny’ and ‘three-halfpence’ as synonyms and list ‘three-halfpennies’ and ‘three-halfpences’ as their respective plurals rather than having ‘three-halfpennies’ as the plural of ‘three-halfpence’. I can’t see how anyone could object to that solution. Overlordnat1 (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, put three halfpenny with the plurals three halfpennies and three halfpence (Citations:three halfpenny), and likewise for the hyphenated version, as a synonym of three halfpence (keeping that as the lemma, since three halfpence is indeed more common than -y, -ies, or the hyphenated versions). And then give three halfpence (for a singular coin of 1½d.) the plural three halfpences, and three halfpennies (for a singular coin) the plural three halfpennies? That seems like that would cover nearly everything. - -sche (discuss) 15:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

dominus vobiscum[edit]

Couldn't find any convincing non-mention, non-code-switching examples: this is also just referring to the actual words "dominus vobiscum", not the name of some longer prayer, so I'm sceptical there are uses of this in English. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

How do we treat other formulas from non-English languages, especially from ceremonies? Do we keep them only if they are transliterated? DCDuring (talk) 21:38, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
I highly, highly doubt this is used as an interjection in English, as the entry claims. There are some borderline nominal uses:
1875, Sir Adolphus William Ward, A History of English Dramatic Literature to the Death of Queen Anne, page 19:
Again a Dominus vobiscum and a prayer, whereupon the offertorium (offering), and, accompanied by further ceremonies, the consecration; []
1953, Pius Parsch, The Church's Year of Grace:
Each Dominus vobiscum cries out to us: your nobility, O Christian, stems from Christ's dwelling within you, from the fact that you are a Christ-bearer and a Christ-bringer.
It might be worthwhile having an entry for this use, but certainly not for the interjection, which is quite simply Latin, regardless of what language the rest of the liturgy/prayer might be in. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Also, I might note that the entry should be at Dominus vobiscum. Dominus in this context always refers to God and hence would pretty well always be capitalized. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 22:42, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
On English—both of the above are in italics in the originals that I've found, FWIW ([24], [25]). This is the same sort of thing as e.g. the court "who ... lived on a vive le roi" in Wollstonecraft ([26]) which I don't think can be taken as an example of "vive le roi" being an English phrase either. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

nuces vomicae[edit]

Please note that this is the alleged plural of a genuine English term. Some background:

There is a tree, Strychnos nux vomica, that bears extremely poisonous seeds which are the original source of strychnine. The name nux vomica is from Latin, and presumably refers to emetic properties. For hundreds of years, pharmacology mainly dealt with various plant, animal and mineral substances, all of which were named in Latin much as is still done in taxonomy. That would make nux vomica strictly a Translingual pharmacological term, except that it also has been used in English as a common name for the species.

The English term nux vomica doesn't, however, refer literally and specifically to the seeds, as illustrated by the phrase "nux vomica seeds", which seems to be moderately attested. There is also a smattering of cites for "nux vomicas" (both with and without hyphens), some of which may refer to some concept in homeopathy for nux vomica that we don't have a definition for, but none of which seem to refer specifically to more than one seed.

👉 I am thus challenging the term "nuces vomicae" as English. I think we should create a Translingual pharmacological-Latin entry for nux vomica and change this English plural entry to a Translingual plural entry to cover the existing usage. The English headword at nux vomica should be changed to have "nux vomica" and/or "nux vomicas" as the plural(s).

The reason for the long explanation is that there's a decent amount of attested usage in English sentences, but as citation of the pharmacological Latin, just as the synonym semen strychni is also used (and very similar to usage in German and other European languages). To be English, this needs to be used (not mentioned), and integrated into normal English sentence structure without italics.

Pinging @-sche, Al-Muqanna, This, that and the other, as those most likely to understand what needs to be done. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:15, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I can't find much of evidence of use in English—the only borderline passable example I dug up is a 16th-century recipe calling for "ʒ iii. [3 drams] of the shavings of Nuces Vomicae" (EEBO)—otherwise even in early modern texts it seems to be consistently italicised. The one reproduced here is also italicised in the original. Worth noting that it is found in Latin prose. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 23:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
What about these:
  • 1915, The Poultry Item[27], page 25:
    Source—From the seed of the Nuces Vomicae.
  • c. 1910, Carl Curt Hosséus, Through King Chulalongkorn's Kingdom, 1904-1906: The First Botanical Exploration of Northern Thailand, published 2001, page 175:
    Strychnos nux-vomica, an almost formation building tree in many places of northern Siam, the very poisonous seeds of which, "nuces vomicae," provide our strychnine, the tree stranglers, creepers, epiphytic orchids, mosses []
Note that the last one is a translation from German, where this form seems to be much more common. This, that and the other (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
The second one I saw but wouldn't personally consider admissible since it's a translation and foreign terms often aren't italicised when wholly enclosed by quotation marks. The first might work. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:51, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Two other uses that might count toward attestation of the plural in English: [28], [29]. Einstein2 (talk) 10:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, those ones are totally fine I think. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 11:16, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Cited with combination of the above, but might need a usage note saying the plural is rare. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 09:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
On reading Chuck's RFV more closely, it seems that he was after attestation of the plural of the pharmacological sense specifically. Possibly all the citations we've collected relate to sense 2 of nux vomica, not the pharmacological sense 3. This, that and the other (talk) 10:16, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Chuck Entz, This, that and the other: My understanding of it's that Chuck wanted attestation of natural use for any sense in English as opposed to code-switching to the Latin/translingual term in a pharmacological context, rather than a specific sense. Might need to clarify. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 10:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
@Chuck Entz can you offer your input here so we can move towards closing this RFV? Thanks! This, that and the other (talk) 02:42, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply


Rfv-sense: plural of the letter 'O'.

The first citation, from Francis Bacon, doesn't seem to me to unambiguously support the definition. If it does not, then the definition (labelled rare)needs another quotation to remain. DCDuring (talk) 14:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

See the wp article for oes, the item Bacon was referring to. That is the etymology but his meaning is obviously not the letter. —Al-Muqanna المقنع (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I've moved the Bacon quotation to Citations:oes DCDuring (talk) 18:10, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
OED lemmatises the "spangle" sense at O, but notes it is always found in the plural. I'm going to follow Wikipedia and add it as a plural-only sense of oes. If a singular can be found, we should move it there. This, that and the other (talk) 08:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

It's listed in the OED. kwami (talk) 08:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)Reply


Rfv-sense "social, lime or get together where planning or issues are discussed". Jberkel 16:17, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

This is the top sense on Urban Dictionary, where a much-upvoted entry from 2017 claims the word was coined by Jackie Christie from the US TV show Basketball Wives. Here is Jackie herself giving a definition. Looking on Google, a better definition would be "a conversation, in the context of Jackie Christie's participation (or lack thereof) in said conversation"... This, that and the other (talk) 02:40, 18 August 2023 (UTC)Reply


Rfv-sense: "A variety of citrus fruit". Plausible, but only one cite and somewhat ambiguously worded. DCDuring (talk) 17:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply


A few mentions, this is probably just Afrikaans Sicilian speaker669 (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

However, the alt form kaparring (currently a red link) does seem attestable from GBooks! Equinox 21:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply


Rfv-sense: "## One or more diamonds and jewelry [sic], especially blood diamonds.

Apart from the ungrammaticality, I don't think the two citations unambiguously support the definition. I particularly don't see any evidence whatsoever to support "especially blood diamonds". DCDuring (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

I've heard this term before, but for diamonds only. CitationsFreak (talk) 15:31, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply


I don't want to keep words around that are breaking WT:ATTEST: the cites do not appear to be independent. It may be two (2) independent cites if you're stretching it. Of course I feel the Talk & Citations pages should be kept because maybe one day it will reach WT:ATTEST combined with the current cites. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 21:57, 24 July 2023 (UTC) (Modified)Reply


Gets a "mention" in Herb Simmens' A Climate Vocabulary of the Future, and one or two online news articles. That's all. Equinox 16:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

There has not been an entry in a dictionary, yet, only a proposal New words – 21 August 2023, dictionaryblog.cambridge.org: "autobesity noun [U], UK /ˌɔː.təʊˈbiː.sə.ti/ US /ˌɑː.t̬oʊˈbiː.sə.t̬i/ the fact of cars being much bigger and heavier than they were in the past" --Yasny Blümchenkaffee (talk) 15:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply
Hot word it. Book released this year, and that is where it was coined. CitationsFreak (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply


Seems to only be the (assumed) given name of one individual. This, that and the other (talk) 04:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply


"Atmospheric" Used only in connection with 19th century Australian inventor William Bland's steam-powered 'atmotic airship', displayed in the 1851 Great Exhibition in London. The uses seem to be by him or mentions of his lectures, patents, and the model. I'm not sure which ones should count as independent. DCDuring (talk) 22:02, 29 July 2023 (UTC)